From the Moderators: Please welcome the newest moderator of r/MensRights

ignatiusloyola · 2011-09-18T18:26:52+00:00

After discussion with kloo2yoo and some deliberation over the issues, we decided upon adding a new moderator: AnnArchist. AnnArchist has been a strong advocate...

[–]TheRealPariah 21 points22 points23 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pariah_ 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NovemberTrees 37 points38 points39 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]flip69 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]_Kita_ 29 points30 points31 points 14 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scott2508 -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

so by your logic

[–]AlyoshaV -4 points 1 day ago

A Lion (MRA/ Masculists) doesn't get scared when a Dog (feminists) barks.

what if i cry rape (and let loose the dogs of war)

Im guessing now /feminisims /amr can now no longer maintain the "all rape accusations are real and we are opposed to false allegations " charade that is totally obvious from the post shown, well using your logic that is the case.

[–]AlyoshaV 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]IBDPhoenix 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlyoshaV 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlyoshaV 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlyoshaV 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]bbeard -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]_Kita_ 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]scientifique 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlyoshaV 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IBDPhoenix 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]IBDPhoenix 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]IBDPhoenix 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago* (38 children) | Copy Link

Nobody here is scared of you misandrists and misandro-feminists. A Lion (MRA/ Masculists) doesn't get scared when a Dog (feminists) barks. You, Mantitties and rest of you Feminazis can shove that article down your throat and blow it out of your ass.

All you morons can do is organize downvote squads from AMR and SRS. All you can do is live in your in your little world where everyone agrees with you and ban anyone just for having a differing opinion. All you can do is bark 'Feminism is not a monolith' when you get destroyed in a debate. All you can do is be in denial. All you can is try unsuccessfully to silence and oppress us. You are all afraid of losing your sexist Feminist hegemony privileges.

AnnArchist may not be perfect (nobody is, and AnnArchist once called me a troll), but he has my support, because I truly believe he is 100% committed to our objectives.

YOU WILL NOT DEFEAT US. EVER.

[–]_Kita_ 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]scottb84 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlyoshaV 32 points33 points34 points 14 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scott2508 71 points72 points73 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]maywest 49 points50 points51 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Offensive_Brute 30 points31 points32 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]demiurgency 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Offensive_Brute 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 47 points48 points49 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points24 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VapeApe 36 points37 points38 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Magres 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ghebert001 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]canadas 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tsopperi 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Aerik -67 points-66 points-65 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]BinaryShadow 21 points22 points23 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]drinkthebleach 34 points35 points36 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scott2508 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Offensive_Brute 23 points24 points25 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]maywest 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

No one is suggesting that the comment is a "fraudulent rape accusation" except for you Aerik. No one is arguing that it's not facetious but rather that the flippant facetious comment is out of place, antagonistic and sigh offensive.

The irony here is that you are, again, projecting your misguided, hypocritical logic on people who disagree with you. You've recently acted highly offended at some of Ann's facetious comments. Although the comments were facetious you rallied against them calling them disgusting and a extolling the facetious comments as an example of what Ann truly believed.

Now that someone on "your team" (and yes, Aerik, I do believe that you see this struggle as a team sport) is making flipant, dismissive comments which are needlessly offensive everyone who disagrees with you is stupid and doesn't understand what "facetious" means.

[–]Whoooah 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]_Kita_ 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Congratulations, man. Someone just sent me the manboobz link. I expect great things from you here.

[–]AnnArchist 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

The silhouette on that blog's header with the Venus ♀ looks like a dude.

[–]AnnArchist -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kragshot 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Alright...whether you agree or disagree with AnnArchist's viewpoints, the job description of a mod in this particular sub is an ability to maintain fairness in dealing with all of the posters.

AnnArchist has demonstrated that he is a straight-shooter. He does not pull any punches on his personal viewpoints, but he does not actively attempt to hamper conversation or derail other viewpoints. He argues in good faith to defend his viewpoints...and that is what matters here.

The old arrangement in here was simple. Ignatius was the "moderate voice" and Kloo was the "radical voice." AnnArchist is just assuming Kloo's role in here and representing the more radical viewpoint in the MRM.

And by the way...who gives a flying fuck what David Futurelle thinks about our sub reddit? One of these days, I ought to go find this guy and challenge him to a cage match....

[–]ignatiusloyola[S,M] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]kragshot 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Been here awhile, Ignatius...you and Kloo did a good job of working off of each others strengths and weaknesses. AnnArchist is a good match for you...I'm willing to give him a chance to do the job.

Either he'll work out or not...only time will tell.

What really is starting the wheels turning is that all of these damn agitators and outsiders coming in here and telling us what is right for our sub and condemning this move. You would think that the AMR group would be happy as a pig in shit about this move as it "proves them right." Why are they really in here bitching about it? I don't have a tinfoil hat, but I've read enough Ian Fleming, Donald Hamilton, and Robert Ludlum books to know a scheme when I see one....

For all of you AMR, SRS, and other folks...this last part is me being a sarcastic ass...while I actually give a damn what you all think; what I'm concerned with in regards to your thinking is not what you all might think it is. Think about it....

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]kragshot 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The problem is that like most "alleged feminists;" they feel that their doctrine already addresses the problems presented and therefore want the debate controlled in their terms.

My viewpoint has always been a simple one; women fought for the right to redefine their role in society in their own terms. Why can't men have that same right? Both feminists and MRM advocates agree that there needs to be a change in the current state of masculinity in order to adapt to the changes in our society. The difference however is that most feminists that I have spoken to feel that feminism should be the arbiter of that change in masculinity and I disagree with that idea.

Furthermore, feminism has an unfair advantage in the gender debate because while they created the language that is currently used; at the time, that language was created from a feminine viewpoint with the idea that male issues did not need to be addressed.

Because of that, men need to work to redefine our needs in the gender debate and if the current terminology does not address our concerns, then we need to create terms to connote the ideas behind our concerns and needs.

Feminism does not get to do that for us and the sooner they leave us alone so we can get to work sorting ourselves out, the better. Just as we didn't get to dictate their redefinition, they do not get to dictate ours.

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]kragshot 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kragshot 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]againstmensrights 24 points25 points26 points 14 years ago (258 children) | Copy Link

[–]ottawadeveloper 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shitblender 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[+]againstmensrights -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 17 points18 points19 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

[+]AlyoshaV -9 points-8 points-7 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlyoshaV 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]maywest 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlyoshaV -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]Youre_So_Pathetic -10 points-9 points-8 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]vintermann 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]treybuchet-3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]Youre_So_Pathetic -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Scott2508 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gprime 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scott2508 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Youre_So_Pathetic -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Scott2508 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scott2508 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Aerik -9 points-8 points-7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]nlakes 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]dual-moon 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nlakes 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]nlakes 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]nlakes 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nlakes0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nlakes0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Celda -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Saganomics -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Legolas-the-elf -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]vintermann 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]vintermann 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist[M] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist[M] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RebeccaRed 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago* (199 children) | Copy Link

[–]railmaniac 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cattypakes 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (189 children) | Copy Link

[+]thingsarebad -66 points-65 points-64 points 14 years ago (188 children) | Copy Link

[–]cattypakes 42 points43 points44 points 14 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]TraumaPony 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]sciarrillo 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]alefgard 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Underfolder -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You probably know not to take any one person's words at face value. The explanation you just got isn't wrong, but it's not right, either. People have a lot of emotional investment in what it means to "be" something, so I'll avoid saying somebody is this or that. So here goes.

The vast majority of people fall into two distinct categories, ones called "male" and "female." A small number of people do not, and of this minority some fall into a group called "transgendered." Transgendered people feel a disconnect between their body and their identity. For example, a person who has been brought up as a male, and who has all external male characteristics such as a penis, testicles, facial hair, etc, may feel that in their own mental image of themselves, "female" is closer to how they feel, despite what they may see.

Some studies have been done on this subject. There is evidence that this is not entirely psychological. Some transgendered people show physical characteristics of their identifying sex. Certain parts of the brain show similarity with their identifying sex instead of their apparent sex. The research is non-conclusive though. In short, it's correlations, not causations.

The real issue is the definition of sex. "Gender" is a term that has been used to discriminate between the biological aspects of sex and the social aspects. In short, gender is a social construct in which certain roles are performed by one or the other sex. "Homemaker" has until recently been a female gender role in the US, though this is changing. Some gay men take on female gender roles.

Many transsexuals feel that gender confers "male" or "female" status on a person. Many other people feel that biological sex confers these attributes. Transgendered people share the majority of their physical attributes with their biological sex, not their identifying sex, even after sex reassignment surgery. Of course, those who do not undergo surgery are even more physically their biological sex.

There are bigots on either side of this issue. Some people wholly discount how a person identifies. Some, but not all, transgendered people consider only identification while ignoring all evidence to the contrary. The majority of people agree that transgendered people should be allowed to live the life their choose to be happy.

Personally, I feel ignoring reality is harmful. It's what leads to bad surprises where men often feel tricked by transsexual men. Accepting transsexuals will occur only when they are accepted as they are, not what they present themselves to be.

[+]thingsarebad -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad-2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

coercively assigned male at birth

Coercively? I don't know, but when someone sees a penis I'm pretty sure it's quite reasonable to say "male".

The medical community? So the "medical community" states that people with penises are female?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male

Most mammals, including humans, are genetically determined as such by the XY sex-determination system where males have an XY (as opposed to XX) sex chromosome. It is also possible in a variety of species, including human beings, to be XXY or have other intersex/hermaphroditic qualities. These qualities are widely reported to be as common as redheadedness (about 2% of the population).[2] During reproduction, a male can give either an X sperm or a Y sperm, while a female can only give an X egg. A Y sperm and an X egg produce a boy, while an X sperm and an X egg produce a girl.

[–][deleted]8 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But when someone sees a penis I'm pretty sure it's quite reasonable to say "male".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_syndrome

There are plenty of situations where one is born with genitals in the appearance of a penis or vagina that does not accurately describe their neurological sex, gonadal sex or chromosomal sex.

Most mammals, including humans, are genetically determined as such by the XY sex-determination system where males have an XY (as opposed to XX) sex chromosome.

Genetics is not that simple, while XY and XX are easy to view the actual sex differentiation gene is the SRY gene, but as with all genes, genotype =/= phenotype. The SRY gene may not operate completely (causing a male genital appearance but female neurology) or not at all (causing female genital appearance and female neurology, CAIS female). To say a CAIS female is 'male' because you say she is is completely obtuse and in denial of biology and how genetics really works.

Also if you even read your link;

refers to the sex of an organism, or part of an organism, which produces small mobile gametes, called spermatozoa.

It has nothing to do with chromosomes, it is the ability to produce or the production of mobile or non mobile gametes. By the biological definition, which you seem to like, a trans woman is not male, she cannot produce mobile gametes.

Beyond that, the vast majority of the population does not know their own karyotype. I don't know my karyotype, do you? Is it fair to say that your sex is indeterminate since we are unaware of your karyotype? Assuming you are male, you could be XX, XXY, XYY for all you know.

If you care to read, I have a rather large wall of text I made about a month ago, chromosomes are far too general of a concept to sex people by, so are genitals, which is why beyond birth doctors do not do it.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/jtof8/iama_male_to_female_transsexual_and_semiretired/c2f3ysr?context=3

I certainly hope you have a fairly deep background in the natural sciences, because otherwise there is no way you can properly understand the mechanisms of your genes.

[–]thingsarebad1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Underfolder0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You have a fantastic misunderstanding of science. Exceptions are just that, exceptions. The fact that exceptions exist doesn't invalidate the general rule as a useful definition. XX is a female characteristic. XY is a male characteristic. Just because not every man has XY and every women XX, doesn't mean that XX = woman, XY = man isn't a perfectly useful definition. You can make up your own definitions, and that's fine. Just don't get upset when people point out that your definitions are less useful.

Basically a woman is anyone you would perceive as a woman in every day society, without further information.

Yeah, no. Your misunderstanding of how the world works is showing. Definitions that are based on subjective perception is useless. Even if we accept your definition of what constitutes male/female and man/woman, how do you feel that I only am interested in people who are born female? You cool with that? Not saying anything about women, just female.

[–][deleted]2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Okay, neglecting the fact that your statement that I misunderstand science is laughable, you don't know me in real life so you do not understand how comical that accusation would be to anyone who knows me.

Assuming you even were right and that "XX is a female characteristic. XY is a male characteristic." despite all the exceptions, genes are not deterministic, that is the most common mistake about genetics. Because I have gotten into this argument so many times so if you would, just read this:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/jtof8/iama_male_to_female_transsexual_and_semiretired/c2f3ysr

The definition is not useful because it is an oversimplification born before we sequenced the genome. It is like saying Darwin was correct about everything because his ideas spawned the modern day concept of evolution.

[–]Underfolder1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]1338h4x1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad-4 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]antisyzygy1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]logic11 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]kabukistar -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dual-moon 24 points25 points26 points 14 years ago (72 children) | Copy Link

[–]bushiz 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]dual-moon 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bushiz 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]RebeccaRed 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]prophecygrrrl 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dual-moon 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Saganomics 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]thingsarebad -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link

[–]dual-moon 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link

[+]thingsarebad -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (58 children) | Copy Link

[–]dual-moon 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]dual-moon5 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And I assume you're implying that all trans women have XY dna? Oh right, there's a vast majority of people with non-standard DNA patterns. XXY, XXYY, XXXY, XY females, XX males, the list goes on and on. Funny how the fucking scumbag transphobes and transmisogynists always use the same argument. Would you treat a woman who was born a women and who had always lived as a women with a woman's genitalia who had XY chromosomes like a man? Would you tell her she's a "dude" and not a "real woman?" Fuck no. How would you treat a woman with an XX chromosome set but whose genitals were somewhere between that of a man and a woman? What if those genitals were reconstructed to be more "female normal?" Do you call her a man too? The fact is that it's not possible to be attracted to a chromosome set. You can't be exclusively attracted to XX females only. It's not medically possible. What you ARE is a bigot who is scared that if you had sex with a trans woman and found out later she was trans you'd be gay.

[–]thingsarebad1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But I'm not scared of having sex with a trans woman, I only admit that it would be betrayal and probably sexual assault if they didn't tell me.

I'm also saying that a trans woman is not a woman, regardless of DNA. For example, if you're born with a penis, you are not a woman, nor can you ever be through hormones and surgery. That's one example.

Some people, like you, would like to label me a transphobe because of this. But I'm not scared of transexuals, I don't hate them, and I'm not angry with them. I am merely saying that you can't change what you are through hormones and surgery, and to demand that I buy into the delusion that you can is quite unreasonable. In fact, people who call me a transphobe for doing that are more likely than not projecting their own hatred, anger, and fear on me.

[–]dual-moon3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I won't pretend I'm not projecting hatred; I'm sure I am. Just in our short time talking I know I hate you. There's no question. I loathe you and everyone who thinks like you, assuming it's somehow betrayal or assault if you willingly sleep with a woman who just happened to have a little medical condition quite a few people have. Thinking that somehow what makes a woman is her lack of a penis, and tossing aside every bit of medical evidence; the very bases on which the terms "man" and "woman" are built and being torn down. You may not specifically feel hate or fear towards trans people, but you are perpetuating the very myths that cause trans people to be beaten and murdered, and their assailants and murderers get away with slaps on the wrist due to the totally idiotic "trans panic" defense. You may feel like you're just an opinionated person who has no strong feelings one way or the other, save for denying a trans woman her womanhood, but really you are the same cancer that is denying equality to everyone, man and woman, trans and cis. It's the same disease that, as a supposed "Men's Rights Activist," you seek to destroy yourself. You are a part of that same disease.

[–]thingsarebad0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

a woman who just happened to have a little medical condition quite a few people have

Well that's not an accurate description. A person who takes hormones and has sex reassignment surgery to look like a woman is not a woman. And it's not "a little medical condition". It's a serious thing, or obviously that person wouldn't have felt it necessary to get the surgery.

You may not specifically feel hate or fear towards trans people, but you are perpetuating the very myths that cause trans people to be beaten and murdered, and their assailants and murderers get away with slaps on the wrist due to the totally idiotic "trans panic" defense.

I'm not perpetuating myths but facts. I'm not sure what you're on about. If everyone thought the same way I did, there wouldn't be any trans people beaten or murdered or any of the other things you talk about.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

[+]thingsarebad -12 points-11 points-10 points 14 years ago* (50 children) | Copy Link

If you're reading this, please see Torquemada1970's responses below.

Nope.

I assert that trans people who believe that just by having surgery and taking hormones they become a member of the opposite sex are mentally disturbed. Not all trans people. I can believe it's possible to feel like a member of the opposite sex and want to have a sex change. But to actually think that just by taking hormones and having an operation you actually become a member of the opposite sex is delusional. And then using the "fact" that a transwoman is no different than a real woman to explain why it's okay for a transexual to lie to their partner about their sex is even more disturbed.

I assure you that if you can't think rationally and are so fickle you will run away from /mr because of your inability to think rationally, I really don't give a flying fuck if you support men's rights or not.

edit: FYI there has been an invasion of a TransphobiaProject down-vote squad here.

[–]lailial8 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I assert that trans people who believe that just by having surgery and taking hormones they become a member of the opposite sex are mentally disturbed.

You've just demonstrated beyond any doubt that you have absolutely no knowledge of this subject whatsoever. Never in my life have a met a trans person who believes what you just proposed. They might exist somewhere, I suppose, but the very fact that you just presented a complete strawman against the positions held by the vast majority of trans people just speaks to your own personal ignorance on the subject. If you aren't even willing to take the most basic steps to educate yourself on the topic, why should anyone bother to disabuse you of your own ignorance?

While different trans people believe different things, the majority, by far, recognize that they are already a different sex than their body morphology suggests. There is extensive medical literature backing up their perceptions that their brains are structured in accordance with a sex that is not represented by their body. 1, 2, 3, 4. To put this simply, transsexual individuals already have a brain that far more closely matches the sex they transition to, than it does the sex they transition from. Thus, surgery and hormones are not being used to turn them into a member of the opposite sex, they are being used to bring the sex of their body into accord with the sex of their brain.

mentally disturbed

Since you brought up psychology, you might be interested in learning a little about the field, rather than just referencing it only referring to your own unsupported opinions. Modern psychologists refer to what is known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in order to properly diagnose psychological illness. Most trans people do, in fact, fall into a recognized category for psychological disorder. In the latest DSM, this is known as Gender Dysphoria. Sex reassignment is considered a treatment for this disorder and [DSM-V makes it clear that a patient can even be "cured" through this method (i.e. complete remission). In other words, modern psychology agrees with the view that the cause of the disorder for at least some of their patients is a mismatch between the sex of the brain and the sex of the body, which can be rectified through hormone treatment and surgery.

So, in a way, your completely ignorant, hostile and belligerent remarks were correct, just not in the way you thought. Many trans people are diagnosable with a mental illness. The cure? To allow them to transition so that there is no longer a discord between their brain and body. In other words, for trans people to become the sex, externally, that they always were, internally.

[–]Underfolder1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

transsexual individuals already have a brain that far more closely matches the sex they transition to

Not true. Or at least the studies you cite do not support this. The studies report certain parts of the brain in transsexuals have characteristics of their identifying sex. Nothing more. This does not mean they have a brain that "more closely" matches the other sex.

the majority [...] recognizes that they are already a different sex than their body morphology

This is circular reasoning, or at least bad reasoning. How transpeople identify is not the question. The question is if they are or are not male or female. Their morphology may be changed superficially, but certainly before such changes they share all but a few common characteristics with those of their biological sex.

modern psychology agrees with the view that the cause of the disorder for at least some of their patients is a mismatch between the sex of the brain and the sex of the body

Incorrect. It is a mismatch between their identifying sex and physical sex. Furthermore, nobody disputes that this is helpful and valid treatment for their condition.

[–]thingsarebad0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lailial2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This isn't rock science.

No, it isn't geology, or rocket science, for that matter. In fact, it isn't science at all. You are making these statements of opinion with no support or evidence whatsoever. That gender is a social construct is a viewpoint supported by all modern social sciences including anthropology, psychology, sociology and gender studies. The distinction is used with greater frequency every year in academic literature and journals of both biology and physiology. Medical institutions such as the World Health Organization and the DSM psychiatric manual both accept the view that gender recognition is a social issue not fundamentally tied to any particular variant of biological essentialism. So, if you have any actual science to demonstrate the argument that gender is not a social construct and that social recognition of sex is therefore immutable, the burden is on you to offer it, not vaguely refer to its existence in order to dismiss viewpoint you don't hold.

[–]thingsarebad1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lailial0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lailial0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lailial0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]QuestionsFromApple0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad-3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]treybuchet6 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Whoooah4 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad-4 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Whoooah2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tgjer3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad-3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]QuestionsFromApple2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I did not ask you to explain. I did not voice a desire for you not to explain either, so I am at fault. But, I'll just do that now. I do not care for you to defend your... beliefs in regards to social policy.

This is something I'd argue you knew you should have disclosed earlier. I would not have taken your objections nearly as seriously as I did. I would have scoffed at them in the manner such as you assert to scoff at mine.

Both ideologies are bogus

While this is a personal opinion, I sincerely hope you are a 15 year old rich kid living in SoCal. What kind of grown man uses the word bogus? I won't assert you need my approval. But, I do not approve.

You know, full disclosure ;) I think I like that actually, the license to voice an unsolicited statement, fact, or opinion to anyone who has any chance of caring. I'll have to remember your username and put that teaching into practice whenever I see it.

[–]Torquemada1970-2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Strawman how?

You've just demonstrated beyond any doubt that you don't seem to grasp what he's saying.

You appear to be suggesting that the attitudes and opinions of trans people somehow outweighs his observation, which is wrong and doesn't address his point - if you are genuinely a woman trapped in a mans' body, then you can have surgery (and drugs) to affect the appearance, but you're still a woman within a mans' body that's been altered as such. How you (as a trans) see it or justify it to yourself is irrelevant here, because it doesn not change this.

Most of your post lists how deeply psychological the issue can be, but that also doesn't refute anything he said - and you use a lot of words like ignorant, belligerent, hostile and the like while failing to actually address his main point, which is where you seem to get confused - a person with robotic legs may be able to run, jump and walk just as well as a person with normal legs, but that doesn't mean the robotic person needs to get upset when someone points this out (otherwise it appears as if they haven't accepted who they are).

And trans people have to acknowledge what other people deem important (like knowing their previous gender) - you don't get a free pass to decide other people's priorities for them, just as getting a tattoo or facial piercings is perfectly within your rights but doesn't automatically give you the right to lambast someone for not liking them.

However, what people usually avoid talking about is the long term problem - I worked at a hospital for many years, and the tragedy with post-op transgenders is that (for instance) you can be turned into a female and look great when you're young and androgynous...but you will still age in the manner that your physical sex dictated at birth.

This translates into women going bald, with male turkey necks, hands and so on - in short, they age back into men. Which leaves me wondering...which is more cruel? Allowing someone to physically resemble how they think they should be for a few decades, or encouraging them to (for example) accept themselves as a woman trapped in a mans' body until a real treatment becomes available?

[–]lailial1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Strawman how?

Trans people do not assert that they change their sex through hormones and surgery. They assert that they align the sex of their body with that of their brain through hormones and surgery. Thingsarebad is free to disagree with this assertion, but to misrepresent the latter as the former is a strawman.

You appear to be suggesting that the attitudes and opinions of trans people somehow outweighs his observation

His observations can have all the legitimacy or illegitimacy in the world, it doesn't change the fact that his observation was a misrepresentation of the views trans people hold.

but you're still a woman within a mans' body that's been altered as such

According to who? What is the authority with which you make this pronouncement? I can say with confidence that there is no medical text that declares that individuals are incapable of changing their socially perceived gender through surgical means, do you have evidence to the contrary? Furthermore, most modern fields which study this issue, including anthropology, gender studies, psychology, biology and sociology now refer to gender as a social construct. Meaning, modern science concerned with the issue recognizes that sexual status, based on physical morphology, is fundamentally mutable. The selective biological essentialism you hold (selective because you insist that only those sexual characteristics that can't be altered are essential to sex categorization) is not something that reflects modern understanding of the issues if sex and gender.

a person with robotic legs may be able to run, jump and walk just as well as a person with normal legs, but that doesn't mean the robotic person needs to get upset when someone points this out

Points what out? That they have robotic legs? No one is arguing that point. If you already know a transgendered person is post-op and they feel comfortable discussing their past surgical procedures with you, they will not object to you pointing that their genitalia were altered with surgery. No one is denying reality here. They are simply denying the implicit naturalistic fallacy which suggests that because their body was not born to the sex it now expresses they are somehow not as "real" or "genuine" as individuals who were born with that sexual morphology.

And trans people have to acknowledge what other people deem important - (like knowing their previous gender)

You will never in your entire life meet a trans person who is not keenly aware of social expectations regarding sex and gender, far more than you will ever be. However, acknowledging a social prejudice in no way means catering to that prejudice. We feel this way about prejudices centered around religion, ethnicity, body enhancement and sexual history, why should past morphological history be different?

To be clear, if there was a woman living in early 1930s Germany who liked to hang out in bars, would you assert that she had a positive obligation to reveal to anyone that she flirts with that she is Jewish (religion), without even being asked and regardless of the danger she might face, simply because it is commonly known that many men do not want to sleep with Jewish women? Conversely, would a man be obligated to reveal ahead of time that he was circumcised, without even being asked? What if there is a man in the deep south of the US in the same time period, would you assert that he has a positive obligation to reveal to anyone he has a one-night stand with that his grandfather was black (ethnicity), based on the reasonable presumption that many women of the time are against "mixing races"? If a woman is living in a hippie commune and hangs out at local pickup gatherings, does she have a positive obligation to reveal past breast augmentation (body enhancement), due to a common presumption of "natural" bodies? If there is a woman living in a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim community, does she have a positive obligation to reveal her past number of sexual partners with every one-night stand (past sexual history), regardless of whether she is asked, or what kind of danger this might put her in as an "unclean" woman?

The vast majority of people I ask on these issues respond "no" to each and every one of them. Why should past sexual morphology be any different? Further, how much are you going to push this irrational expectation? What if the person had been born with non-normative genitalia and surgically altered at that time? What if they had been born intersexed? They have to talk with this about everyone they want to sleep with, without even being asked? Really? What if they didn't even know about their childhood sexual assignment or alteration until recently, but they hang out at the same bar? Are they expected to reveal this fact about themselves to everyone they flirt with, regardless of the fact that they are the exact same person this week as they were last week?

getting a tattoo or facial piercings is perfectly within your rights but doesn't automatically give you the right to lambast someone for not liking them.

I've never lambasted anyone for declaring that they are not attracted to trans people. I have lambasted people when they reveal underlying prejudices which often lead to such declarations, or for the false presumption that they always know the difference between cis and trans people when they are attracted to someone, or for the completely bigoted assertion that trans people have a positive obligation to go out of their way to reveal their past sexual morphology in every possible sexual encounter.

This translates into women going bald

This varies widely from one trans person to the next based on current hormone therapy and their own unique biology, just like baldness varies widely in the cis general population, both male and female.

Regardless, anti-testosterone medication is one of the known treatments for minimizing male patterned hair loss and many transsexuals who already have high levels of estrogen and low levels of testosterone don't face it in the first place. This is a red herring, you are throwing out the fact that as people age they almost universally grow less attractive as some kind of uniquely trans phenomena.

Which leaves me wondering...which is more cruel? Allowing someone to physically resemble how they think they should be for a few decades

The good news is that you aren't in a position of "allowing" anything here. Just as you aren't in any place of authority to determine who gets a tattoo that will inevitably fade and distort with age, breast implants that will likely need maintenance over time, piercings that can have all sorts of medical complications in the future, or any one of a number of other surgical or cosmetic procedures with potentially serious outcomes. Still, it blows my mind that you would minimize the ability to live as the sex one identifies with for decades as without value, because inevitably when people age they get far less attractive in dozens of ways and this happens to trans folks just like everyone else.

It wigs me out even more that you would hold up the false hope of some "real" treatment becoming available at some unspecified point in the future. I'm not sure what this "real" treatment is supposed to be, but if it is just around the corner people can get it post op just as much as pre op. If it is decades in the future, what is the value of denying your internal gender for most of your life, just to finally have social expectations match it well after it would have done you the most good? We might as well be asserting that it is fine for people to be gay, as long as they don't act on their impulses, for all the sincerity this suggests in expressed concern for trans welfare.

[–]Torquemada19702 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Trans people do not assert that they change their sex through hormones and surgery.

Assertion is all very well, but how you rationalise something to yourself doesn't change the reality. You're not becoming a woman, you're having surgery to adapt your body to simulate how your brain feels your body should be - but that doesn't mean you can assert that your body is now female any more than contact lenses are actually your eyes.

his observation was a misrepresentation of the views trans people hold.

Again, someone deciding that they're an astronaut doesn't mean you automatically address them as such, regardless of what their views are.

According to who?

According to your own history. You don't have your eyes corrected, you get contacts - but that doesn't mean you can then say your eyes have always been good.

What is the authority with which you make this pronouncement?

Physiologically. Womb. Pelvis. Actually, womb is a good example - why do you think women feel 'less feminine' when they have to have it removed, if it makes no difference? Also, by your rationale, when gene therapy becomes available that really turns a man into a woman, it won't be needed - after all, surgery and drugs are all that's needed, right? So what difference is there? It sounds like you're mixing up Political Correctness with facts.

now refer to gender as a social construct

Mutable means change, not perfectly reverse by 180. I'd like to see a biological study that says a gender-reversed person is indistinguishable from the gender they've changed to, for instance. I could find a study that says paraplegics can walk again, but it won't say that their ability is the same as an able-bodied person.

The selective biological essentialism you hold...is not something that reflects modern understanding of the issues if sex and gender.

I'd suggest that it depends on who you ask. I don't consider having breast, an artificial vagina and drug injections as the only ingredients needed to make someone physiologically identical to a woman. Oh, as a trans you're doing your best (and so you should, if it makes you happy), but like the guy with robotic legs, that doesn't change the reality.

why should past morphological history be different?

Because if someone has a problem with your past that you don't see as a problem, it's actually their issue, not yours - which makes it all the more important for you to tell them at the beginning. If someone has had genital piercings, for instance, I'd have a problem with that - but I wouldn't be angry about it unless it wasn't revealed until it was, er, too late, so to speak.

because it is commonly known that many men do not want to sleep with Jewish women?

Ignoring Godwin's Law for a minute, that's not exactly a normal situation, is it?

....regardless of whether she is asked, or what kind of danger this might put her in as an "unclean" woman?

All of these examples (bar the last one) are of people making decisions in the past that only come to light if they express them (which otherwise would remain unknown) - and all of them involve the person lying about their past in order to fit in - my response would be 'what are you doing there, with that person, if you have to do this?'. If (for instance) a man was worried that a woman might be offended that one of his relatives was black, I'd wonder why he was so interested in the woman if her views were anti-mixed-race. Likewise, if a trans worries that someone might not be so keen if they find out about their reassigned gender, is it better to get it out in the open early, or at the last minute when the reaction, if bad, would be ten times worse?

Why should past sexual morphology be any different?

Because it isn't your right to decide someone else's opinions for them.

Further, how much are you going to push this irrational expectation?

It doesn't need pushing if you've already mentioned it to them.

What if the person had been born with non-normative genitalia and surgically altered at that time? What if they had been born intersexed?

What if a woman had been born with no womb? Is it her right not to inform any partner until he wants to have children?

They have to talk with this about everyone they want to sleep with, without even being asked? Really?

Why not? If something like this is so important to someone that they have surgery to achieve it, it's a major event in their life - do you not discuss stuff like this with potential suitors? If you want it to be consdered an irrelevance (after all, there's no difference etc.), you can't have it both ways.

What if they didn't even know about their childhood sexual assignment or alteration until recently, but they hang out at the same bar?

There's a difference there - someone that has alteration at birth is not the same as someone who has it in their teens. Birth = every will always have known them as a boy/ girl, and there are many levels from 100% male (with female brain) to 90% female (with female brain). Teen = they've spent a long time as the wrong gender. That alone introduces dozens of new factors.

completely bigoted assertion that trans people have a positive obligation to go out of their way to reveal their past sexual morphology in every possible sexual encounter.

You mean instead of the bigoted assertion that you can decide someone's opinions in advance by not telling them key information because you've already asserted that your outlook should override theirs? Yeah, that's a surefire way to win people over.

This varies widely from one trans person to the next based on current hormone therapy and their own unique biology, just like baldness varies widely in the cis general population, both male and female.

Indeed, but I've seen more than enough post-op males who have grown into old men to know that the outcome isn't what the surgery originally predicted.

you are throwing out the fact that as people age they almost universally grow less attractive as some kind of uniquely trans phenomena

No, the baldness was one of many examples. Sure, people usually grow less attractive with age, but that wasn't what I was stating - people don't generally begin to look like the opposite gender as they age.

The good news is that you aren't in a position of "allowing" anything here.

I was speaking in terms of someone with the ability to grant a trans the option of becoming the opposite sex.

Still, it blows my mind that you would minimize the ability to live as the sex one identifies with for decades as without value

Then you're not reading my statements properly. My last comment about which is more cruel is born out of compassion for people in that situation - I don't like seeing people that have had their dream taken away from them by age revealing their physiological origins - and that's happening because you're not turning them into a female - you're altering their body so that they can pretend their body matches what their brain dictates. Big difference.

It wigs me out even more that you would hold up the false hope of some "real" treatment becoming available at some unspecified point in the future.

Why is it a false hope? It's not that far away. And why are you so commited to surgery and drugs as an alternative? Just because it's currently the only option doesn't make it a good one.

I'm not sure what this "real" treatment is supposed to be

I'd be much, much happier if there was a gene-therapy option that really did transform the entire body into the opposite sex. It's Blade Runner stuff - editing the DNA of a living organism. It really isn't that far away, and once established, the entire 'revealing your past' issue becomes moot, because the person in front of you would really be a woman or a man, instead of the best approximation by surgery and drugs. Where it gets interesting is - do you alter the brain to match the body, or the body to match the brain?

they get far less attractive in dozens of ways and this happens to trans folks just like everyone else.

But not in the same way, and that's the problem. I'd much rather they (for their sakes) age into old ladies than back into old men.

If it is decades in the future, what is the value of denying your internal gender for most of your life, just to finally have social expectations match it well after it would have done you the most good?

Considering they're growing lungs, inner ears and such right now, I wouldn't expect it to be that far away - but for now, it suggests that accepting what you are is an option that should be considered - the fact that trans have to worry about how people will react shows that you can't re-define people's expectations of what a female is. If my legs were useless and had the option of robot ones or waiting ten years for my existing ones to work, I'd seriously think about the latter when the alternative would be pretending that I had legs.

We might as well be asserting that it is fine for people to be gay, as long as they don't act on their impulses

Emmm....considering gays are generally expected to not act on their impulses until they know their target is gay, I'm not sure where you're going with this.

for all the sincerity this suggests in expressed concern for trans welfare.

Coming from someone that apparently has no knowledge of a not-too-distant and much, much better treatment for trans than surgery & drugs, I could say the same.

[–]lailial1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're not becoming a woman, you're having surgery to adapt your body to simulate how your brain feels your body should be

You keep repeating this as though the mere repetition ads weight to the claim. I've explained the gender is a social construct and is thus mutable. If true, that clearly means that if someone changes the appearance of their gender they are at least potentially changing the gender itself. You are free to disagree with this, but just restating your contrary opinion over and over again won't ad anything to the conversation. Oddly, you ignore this central point during your entire reply.

You don't have your eyes corrected, you get contacts - but that doesn't mean you can then say your eyes have always been good.

I don't know any trans people who claim that their body was their reassigned gender before it was reassigned. You know, when I find these self-defeating responses I'm not going to bother with snide replies from here on out.

Physiologically. Womb. Pelvis. Actually, womb is a good example - why do you think women feel 'less feminine' when they have to have it removed, if it makes no difference?

Let me get this straight. Are you actually taking biological essentialism so far as to argue that women who have had hysterectomies are "less female" than women who have not?

Also, by your rationale, when gene therapy becomes available that really turns a man into a woman, it won't be needed - after all, surgery and drugs are all that's needed, right?

That would entirely depend from one person to the next and the level of risk/benefit from the treatments. I'm not going to waste time speculating on treatments that do not currently exist.

Mutable means change, not perfectly reverse by 180.

So you are saying that female morphology is literally the exact opposite of male morphology on some objective "this is gender" scale? I would suggest you study primate sexual organs for awhile if you really still have the childhood conceptions that women are the "opposite" of men.

I'd like to see a biological study that says a gender-reversed person is indistinguishable from the gender they've changed to, for instance.

That study isn't required, because no one needs to make a claim of absolute indistinguishability to make a claim that sex has changed. Again, I'm relying on the "gender as a social construct" argument. That would be the argument you would take a position against to make headway in this conversation, not irrelevant tangents.

I don't consider having breast, an artificial vagina and drug injections as the only ingredients needed to make someone physiologically identical to a woman.

Since you insist on repeating this, I'm going to have to call a strawman.

Because if someone has a problem with your past that you don't see as a problem, it's actually their issue, not yours

We agree completely.

which makes it all the more important for you to tell them at the beginning.

So they have the problem, but you have the duty to both A) assume they have the problem without being told, B) cater to their problem even though they refuse to take responsibility for it themselves and C) reasonably expect justifiable anger on their part if you don't cater to their personal problem, D) reveal to them precisely what they cannot figure out for themselves and E) assume that their not being aware of the relevance of their bigotry as pertains to your person somehow harms them.

because it is commonly known that many men do not want to sleep with Jewish women?

Ignoring Godwin's Law for a minute, that's not exactly a normal situation, is it?

Heaven forbid, fine, the 1920s Germany. For that matter the 1920s in the US, but most people know so little of history they think Jews were positively celebrated in the US at that time. Regardless, the example is meant to point out the prejudice and potential danger to the subject, if this is "not a normal situation" then trans people don't live in normal situations.

If (for instance) a man was worried that a woman might be offended that one of his relatives was black, I'd wonder why he was so interested in the woman if her views were anti-mixed-race.

You are purposefully avoiding the issue. We can agree all day long about how trans people, minorities, the religious persecuted, etc, ought not to mate with bigots. However, that says nothing about their general responsibilities once the situation is at hand. Perhaps you think it is the responsibility of every persecuted group to voluntarily ghettoize themselves. I don't.

Likewise, if a trans worries that someone might not be so keen if they find out about their reassigned gender, is it better to get it out in the open early

Not at all. Given the high level of violence toward trans people, the best thing to do if they even suspect their potential mate would react poorly would be to leave the situation altogether. But the best advice for trans people for their own safety and fun dating is not the same as their moral responsibilities.

Why should past sexual morphology be any different?

Because it isn't your right to decide someone else's opinions for them.

Logic doesn't seem to be your forte. You just gave a reason that could apply to all of the examples I listed, it doesn't make sexual morphology any different, it makes it the same.

What if a woman had been born with no womb? Is it her right not to inform any partner until he wants to have children?

Long-term relationships are different than one-night stands. Still, I would say "absolutely", unless her partner had already expressed both A) a desire to have children someday and B) a desire to settle down with this particular woman. Even then, her responsibility would not necessarily be to inform him of the status of her womb, though it would be to either inform him that she is unwilling/unable to have non-adopted children, or to leave the relationship.

Teen = they've spent a long time as the wrong gender. That alone introduces dozens of new factors.

Sure it does. So name the factors that changes the moral responsibility, such that the person who was reassigned at birth is not required to tell everyone they date but the person who was reassigned later is.

people don't generally begin to look like the opposite gender as they age.

I'm dropping this line of argument, as it is based 100% on your subjective opinion and anecdotal experience. I'm sorry if, given your clear bias on the issue, I don't consider you to be an objective source.

Still, it blows my mind that you would minimize the ability to live as the sex one identifies with for decades as without value

Then you're not reading my statements properly. My last comment about which is more cruel is born out of compassion for people in that situation

This is textbook patronizing of a marginalized community, that is why I'm ignoring your claims to ever-so-deep compassion for trans people.

I'd be much, much happier if there was a gene-therapy option that really did transform the entire body into the opposite sex... It really isn't that far away

20 years at best. Send me a note if it happens sooner saying "I told you so". I long ago learned not to argue with people who think they can predict the pace of technological progress with any accuracy, much less do so in the absence of any specific evidence from authorities in the field of genetics.

for all the sincerity this suggests in expressed concern for trans welfare.

Coming from someone that apparently has no knowledge of a not-too-distant and much, much better treatment for trans than surgery & drugs, I could say the same.

Yeah. I'll keep my arguments grounded in current reality, rather than the speculative fiction you seem to prefer.

[–]Torquemada19701 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You keep repeating this as though the mere repetition ads weight to the claim.

As do you.

I've explained the gender is a social construct and is thus mutable.

No you haven't, you've mentioned studies that suggest it's mutable. And I answered with how that doesn't apply - Biology, for instance.

If true, that clearly means that if someone changes the appearance of their gender they are at least potentially changing the gender itself.

To themselves. Not to everyone else.

You are free to disagree with this, but just restating your contrary opinion over and over again won't ad anything to the conversation.

Maybe I should include mentioning studies that are being used out of context. That seems to work for you.

Oddly, you ignore this central point during your entire reply.

I didn't. Read again. Most of your observations were to do with how the trans view themselves. Not the same thing.

You know, when I find these self-defeating responses I'm not going to bother with snide replies from here on out.

So when you don't/ won't understand the analogy, your response is to be snidey. Wow.

Are you actually taking biological essentialism so far as to argue that women who have had hysterectomies are "less female" than women who have not?

Not what I said. I asked why do women feel less feminine, if a physical womb makes no difference. You could try simply answering the point instead of misinterpreting it.

I'm not going to waste time speculating on treatments that do not currently exist.

Odd, considering that was one of my main points (as in, future treatments will be far more effective than the best-we-can-do offerings now). However, better treatments not existing do not make the existing offering better or even good enough.

So you are saying that female morphology is literally the exact opposite of male morphology on some objective "this is gender" scale?

Does it sound like I'd be suggesting that? I was noting that surgery/ drugs do not make you 100% female.

I would suggest you study primate sexual organs for awhile if you really still have the childhood conceptions that women are the "opposite" of men.

I suggest you study my previous comments, and try to actually address - because so far, you're not really following.

You are purposefully avoiding the issue.

By not allowing your examples and listing why they don't really work?

Perhaps you think it is the responsibility of every persecuted group to voluntarily ghettoize themselves. I don't.

So far, you're suggesting that trans have to 'hide' their past from others to avoid bigotry in an imperfect world, but then insist that they're perfectly entitled to do so regardless of their partner because it apparently makes no difference. You can't have it both ways.

Given the high level of violence toward trans people, the best thing to do if they even suspect their potential mate would react poorly would be to leave the situation altogether. But the best advice for trans people for their own safety and fun dating is not the same as their moral responsibilities.

That's, er, what I was pointing out. By getting the info out early, you can avoid any situations that might arise later on when the person doesn't react in the way you hoped by deceiving them (that's right, not telling someone something that they might see as important counts as deceit). I don't really see how that's not a moral decision too.

I'm dropping this line of argument, as it is based 100% on your subjective opinion and anecdotal experience.

Despite working in seven hospitals for over ten years...uh-huh. Yeah, that'll discount all those unfortunate souls that have aged back into men. I didn't have this opinion to begin with, it happened as I saw the difference between the trans I used to see at clubs back in my teens/ twenties with the older ones I'd see visiting the hospitals (and watched them age over time). But apparently, this somehow isn't common and androgynous fifty+ year olds are everywhere.

Logic doesn't seem to be your forte. You just gave a reason that could apply to all of the examples I listed, it doesn't make sexual morphology any different, it makes it the same.

Sticking to the question in hand doesn't appear to be yours. You can't deicde someone else's opinions in advance for them and then complain that they've done the same to yours - if a guy tells a girl he's just out of prison, and she sticks around, great - if he tells her two years down the line, she has every right to be upset; just because it was in the past and supposedly doesn't mean anything to him, that doesn't give him the right to assume that it won't mean anything to her.

Long-term relationships are different than one-night stands

True, but there are plenty of other examples where a potential partner could think '....eh?' because of what you decided not to tell them.

Even then, her responsibility would not necessarily be to inform him of the status of her womb, though it would be to either inform him that she is unwilling/unable to have non-adopted children, or to leave the relationship.

And you don't see any bad reaction coming from that? Partners are generally considered to share everything....leaving him to wonder what else she has decided not to tell him, if she doesn't bother to tell him something that significant? Why wasn't she just honest at the beginning? This is a partner we're talking about - you make it sound like a job interview.

Sure it does. So name the factors that changes the moral responsibility, such that the person who was reassigned at birth is not required to tell everyone they date but the person who was reassigned later is.

Really? You can't think of any?

I'm a girl, I've been a girl since just after I was born.
I'm a girl, I've been a girl since three years ago.

You don't see people reactiing differently to those two statements? You don't understand the difference it makes to people? You don't follow how people would react to someone that's lived a lifetime as a guy before changing differently to someone that has, for all intents and purposes, been a girl their whole life?

This is textbook patronizing of a marginalized community, that is why I'm ignoring your claims to ever-so-deep compassion for trans people.

Errr...righto. So the fact that I'd prefer a far better solution over surgery and drugs is irrelevant because I won't practice the self-deceit that you're encouraging. Got it. In your last post, you seem to have failed to even consider what the ageing effects even are on trans - I guess that's true compassion for you. I've been pointing to better, future options, but you're too busy insisting that the current and only option is so good that any other treatment would be pointless because there's supposedly no difference...and that's where you argue yourself into a cul-de-sac - if you insist that there's no difference, why bother developing gene therapy that does the job properly? Once it's available, do you really think that pre-trans will still take your option? Why not, if the end result is supposedly the same?

20 years at best. Send me a note if it happens sooner saying "I told you so".

I think you'll be busy explaining to all the surgically-altered trans how your statements today were made with the best intentions....before they go for the new procedure anyway. But since you're an expert, you'll already know about this. And this. And this. But that's all speculative fiction, right?

[–]thingsarebad1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lailial0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It is becoming increasingly clear that you don't understand basic debate technique, as you continue to shift the ground of the debate, move goalposts and then make unsubstantiated claims. As such, I have the option of just throwing my hands in the air or focusing you down on a single part and moving through them one at a time. I'm going to attempt the latter, not because I'm particularly optimistic about the outcome, but because you clearly think you have far more knowledge on this subject than you actually do.

When I gave numerous examples to which you refused to respond, you indicated that you had "listed why they didn't work". This isn't actually true, but lets move through them as though you had. Here is one you did address, but then dropped:

   because it is commonly known that many men do not want to sleep with Jewish women?

Ignoring Godwin's Law for a minute, that's not exactly a normal situation, is it?

Heaven forbid, fine, the 1920s Germany. For that matter the 1920s in the US, but most people know so little of history they think Jews were positively celebrated in the US at that time. Regardless, the example is meant to point out the prejudice and potential danger to the subject, if this is "not a normal situation" then trans people don't live in normal situations.

So the ball is still in your court.

On to the others, all of which you dismissed out of hand:

If (for instance) a man was worried that a woman might be offended that one of his relatives was black, I'd wonder why he was so interested in the woman if her views were anti-mixed-race.

How does he know that the women has such views in the first place? Remember, the trans example was specifically tailored around the fact that the trans person is supposed to reveal their past sexual identity before ever being asked on the presumption that prejudice against them is so commonplace that it ought to be assumed. Now you are claiming that a black man in the exact same position ought not to be hanging around people he knows have this prejudice, even though it has not been indicated to him yet. The upshot of this is that the black man can't date anyone, anywhere, without revealing his past history first and foremost. So let's be very clear here, you are saying that in each of the examples I gave, it is the responsibility of the person who bears the prejudice to actively portray themselves as the target of the prejudice wherever they go?

Since you already stated directly that the prejudice itself is the "problem" of the person who holds it, why isn't it their burden to express it to begin with? You want to pin this entire thing on the trans people because they are the marginalized community, but here are the assumptions you have to make from the other side in order to do so:

A cis gendered person is voluntarily having one-night stands with other people, in which they don't have the time to get to know them well. 2. This someone has a prejudice against trans people, such that if were aware of their past sexual history they would not want to have a one-night stand. 3. This person refuses to reveal their prejudice to those with whom they engage in sexual relations. 4. This person is unable to perceive the past sexual history of those with whom they engage in sexual relations, therefore feels it is the responsibility of the other party to let them know.

Yet, despite this person obviously engaging in all of these risky activities of their own will, it is entirely the fault of the trans person for not assuming their values and doing everything they can to protect this person from their own risky behavior?

[–]Torquemada19702 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

as you continue to shift the ground of the debate, move goalposts and then make unsubstantiated claims

Otherwise known as 'context' and 'background'. And I've provided links - you haven't, even when I've questioned them (still waiting for the biological study that says there's no physiological difference between a woman and a post-op female trans). And you haven't explained how, if surgery/ drugs can create a regular female, why anyone would go for the gene-therapy option when it becomes available when, according to you, there's no need.

but because you clearly think you have far more knowledge on this subject than you actually do.

No, you just have to bring more to the table than 'because it's true'. (I think) I've answered every single statement - you seem to be down to cherry-picking.

So the ball is still in your court.

I don't see how. I can provide historical references to back up my claim, but they'd be just as out of date. The trans I see on the train every day aren't in danger of the SS, and there are plenty of places they can go in London that mean they don't have to be terrified of people's reactions. In any case, you're using examples of the threat of danger to trans, when I've been trying to point out that withholding key information puts them in a far more dire situation, which is what you seem to be suggesting that they should be doing.

How does he know that the women has such views in the first place?

Because he tells her about it at the beginning. Not in a 'my grandfather was black, deal with it' way, but by referencing it as part of another story. If she doesn't react the way he'd hope, he can move on - which is far easier than leaving it until down-the-line when she will feel insulted for not being told at the beginning, which brings us back to not-hiding stuff. You can't shriek that people have been prejudiced then, because you've deceived them.

Now you are claiming that a black man in the exact same position ought not to be hanging around people he knows have this prejudice, even though it has not been indicated to him yet

You're suggesting that people don't act on what they perceive of others, until told directly? I'd say to anyone that mixed with people of questionable values that it might not be the best place for them. You can't fix the whole world, you can only vote with your feet.

The upshot of this is that the black man can't date anyone, anywhere, without revealing his past history first and foremost.

And this wouldn't come out in normal conversation anyway? Why not?

it is the responsibility of the person who bears the prejudice to actively portray themselves as the target of the prejudice wherever they go?

You mean as in 'being honest?' There's a difference between telling someone you like about yourself and walking down the high street with a sign saying 'I AM A TRANS, DEAL WITH IT'. You don't seem to acknowledge that there is a huge middle ground. I don't believe every trans has to tell every person they meet, but they do if the person may be a potential suitor. Otherwise we're back to 'I'll make that decision for you without your knowledge - oh, why are you upset?', as well as the hipocrisy of making your sexuality one of the key factors in your life (to the point of reassignment), and then pretending it's irrelevant therefore it won't be relevant to anyone else.

You want to pin this entire thing on the trans people because they are the marginalized community

Gays are a marginalized community, but you won't find too many gays insisting that it's their right spend time seducing an unaware straight guy and only let their intentions known far down the line, just as it's not on for a married guy to pretend he's single until far down the line. No, I don't see what the marginalization of them has to do with it - this is about being honest early in case of a bad reaction instead of being honest when it's far too late. You can't use your own marginalization as a shield, because that just turns you into a permanent victim.

1.A cis gendered person is voluntarily having one-night stands with other people, in which they don't have the time to get to know them well.

Well, that's gotta be a pretty fast turnaround.

This someone has a prejudice against trans people, such that if were aware of their past sexual history they would not want to have a one-night stand.

Not wanting to sleep with a trans is not a 'prejudice', no more than not wanting to sleep with the same sex or not liking sprouts is a 'prejudice'. Prejudice is making a decision without having all the facts - this is a preference.

This person refuses to reveal their prejudice to those with whom they engage in sexual relations.

You can't 'refuse' something you're unaware of. That's why it's so important. And it's not hard to figure out someone's true feelings, with some well-placed references. In fact, women tend to be better at this than men....

This person is unable to perceive the past sexual history of those with whom they engage in sexual relations, therefore feels it is the responsibility of the other party to let them know.

That's generally true of anyone talking to anyone, especially since HIV is still around (and the rest of the STD's). If a guy found out that a girl had been with 100 lovers before him, and that put him off, why will the reaction be better if she leaves telling him until the next morning? And if she does the latter, or doesn't tell him at all, it's still deceit.

Yet, despite this person obviously engaging in all of these risky activities of their own will, it is entirely the fault of the trans person for not assuming their values and doing everything they can to protect this person from their own risky behavior?

Doesn't it go both ways? You've just stated that the person would prefer to know a bit about their various partners' sexual history - are you suggesting that they would then refuse to give their own (= to be avoided), or that the trans somehow doesn't have to follow the same rules either?

You seem to be arguing from the point of view that the trans is no different from anyone else - and so we come back to the reasons as to why that isn't so. So far, you've used how trans view and rationalise themselves as some sort of template that everyone else must follow, an attitude which rarely works for a minority (or generally). I've argued that because they're technically an approximation, people accept them but a significant number of people will be unable accept them as a partner - which is a) why they might experience unfortunate reactions from time to time, and b) why it makes it all the more important to get that info out in the open ASAP, so that if a) happens, it's not as bad as it might be.

Which is why I keep banging on about gene therapy and the like - once in place, the point will be moot, because then they really will be female. That's why it's so important, as well as removing the tragedy of trans being granted their dream only to see it recede over the years.

[–]lailial1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And I've provided links - you haven't,

I'm so tempted to bite the three-links-all-pointing-to-the-exact-same-event attempt to substitute inadequate evidence for an extraordinary claim you made, but I said I was going to focus you and I am.

And you haven't explained how

Nor will I. I'm ignoring all of your extraneous arguments until I can get you to actually respond to what I've brought up. I will continue to do this for the duration of the conversation, because you've demonstrated that you are unwilling to simply address issues instead of engaging in a Gish Gallop. If you don't accept this, I understand, but that is currently my price of admission.

The trans I see on the train every day aren't in danger of the SS

Which is why I tightened the example to 1920s Germany or the US, no SS operating at that time.

In any case, you're using examples of the threat of danger to trans, when I've been trying to point out that withholding key information puts them in a far more dire situation

The threat it a side-concern, but a relevant one, in all the examples. The primary concern is the prejudice and resulting expectations. So, could you, you know, answer the question yet, rather than continuing to avoid it? No worries though, if your logic holds consistently you've finally answered this with the black heritage example below.

which is what you seem to be suggesting that they should be doing.

Not only have I not suggested that, I've already stated directly that in most cases it is not in the best interests of a trans person to do so.

How does he know that the women has such views in the first place?

Because he tells her about it at the beginning.

Finally, we are in the clear here. That sure as heck took you long enough. So, in the example of the man with a black grandfather in the deep south in the 1920s, it is his moral responsibility to share this information about himself with most average individuals, if he wants to date them. Gotcha. Does this basic line of reasoning apply to all the other examples, as well? Assuming similar levels of personal threat, bigotry, etc.

The upshot of this is that the black man can't date anyone, anywhere, without revealing his past history first and foremost.

And this wouldn't come out in normal conversation anyway? Why not?

Huh... why would it not come out in normal conversation with a man of black heritage in the deep south of the 1920s that he has such heritage. I just can't imagine, it seems like it would be the very first thing he would tell most folks on a date.

as well as the hipocrisy of making your sexuality one of the key factors in your life

Sexuality? I thought we were talking about gender and sex. Maybe you think all the words are equivalent, but just to be clear, are we talking about sexual orientation?

Gays are a marginalized community, but you won't find too many gays insisting that it's their right spend time seducing an unaware straight guy and only let their intentions known far down the line

Trans people aren't advocating that they should have a right to hide their intentions. In fact, they aren't advocating that they should have a right to "hide" anything. Many of them assert that they have no responsibility to proffer certain information, and that is the point I'm arguing. If you are trying to make an example where a gay man never tells anyone his sexual orientation, but somehow successfully engages in sexual relations with other people without them ever figuring it out, that seems like a difficult analogy to pull off.

Not wanting to sleep with a trans is not a 'prejudice'

Of course not, but they have an underlying prejudice that leads to the preference. In the same way that a Latino girl might not want to sleep with black men, or a German soldier might not want to sleep with a Jewish woman, because of stories they've heard or internalized stereotypes. These are just sexual preferences, but they are based on prejudices. I know you want to try and pretend that this isn't a prejudice, because you don't want to associate yourself with such. I would sympathize if you weren't actively advocating bigotry. Still, I wish that the word wasn't so reviled, so that we could have a conversation without you denying the obvious.

If a guy found out that a girl had been with 100 lovers before him, and that put him off, why will the reaction be better if she leaves telling him until the next morning? And if she does the latter, or doesn't tell him at all, it's still deceit.

Got it. Women are obligated to tell suitors their total number of past sexual partners before their first sexual encounter as well. Furthermore, they are obligated to tell their suitors under the assumption that it will put them off without ever actually being informed of this. You are certainly consistent when you finally get around to answering the examples.

You seem to be arguing from the point of view that the trans is no different from anyone else

No more or less than I would argue that a Jewish, or Black, or person with breast augmentation, or people with ingrown toenails, are no different from anyone else. All of these people are different from everyone else, that has nothing to do with their moral responsibilities in catering to prejudices people might have against them.

So far, you've used how trans view and rationalise themselves as some sort of template that everyone else must follow

No, I have not. I have used a basic model of human right to privacy that I apply across the board to all people, including oppressed minorities, women, and you.

I read the rest, but am holding off other arguments till this one is worked through, if all goes well I'd be happy to integrate a little more in the next reply.

[–]Torquemada19701 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm so tempted to bite the three-links-all-pointing-to-the-exact-same-event attempt to substitute inadequate evidence for an extraordinary claim you made, but I said I was going to focus you and I am.

I was higlighting that this is major news, that you apparently haven't heard of, making it impressive that you consider it inadequate. You can find more here

Nor will I. I'm ignoring all of your extraneous arguments until I can get you to actually respond to what I've brought up.

Convenient. You highlight what you think are the flaws in my answers, but when it's done in return (or when I provide other examples or backgrounds) it's 'extraneous'.

Which is why I tightened the example to 1920s Germany or the US, no SS operating at that time.

Avoidance. Try again.

So, could you, you know, answer the question yet, rather than continuing to avoid it?

I did. Ask questions about my replies if you don't understand them, that's how it works.

Finally, we are in the clear here.

Really? Considering I've made this statement several times already about trans generally, I do wonder.

it is his moral responsibility to share this information about himself with most average individuals, if he wants to date them.

Indeed - not all people will do this, but they understand the risk being taken if they withold and how much less of a problem it is at the beginning. That said, you can usually glean someone's opinions from them without stating the obvious, despite my already having described this.

Does this basic line of reasoning apply to all the other examples, as well? Assuming similar levels of personal threat, bigotry, etc.

In extreme situations where you could be killed for volunteering it? Are we going to reduce all potential social situations to this?

Sexuality? I thought we were talking about gender and sex. Maybe you think all the words are equivalent, but just to be clear, are we talking about sexual orientation?

Avoidance. Try again.

Many of them assert that they have no responsibility to proffer certain information, and that is the point I'm arguing.

So, they're not hiding anything, they're 'deciding not to share information'. That may be good enough for why you forgot your homework, but it won't wash outside of school. And in any case, I've listed how that's immoral and bound to lead to more trouble down the road.

If you are trying to make an example where a gay man never tells anyone his sexual orientation, but somehow successfully engages in sexual relations with other people without them ever figuring it out, that seems like a difficult analogy to pull off.

And I would be making that point, would I? Instead of highlighting why gays don't generally follow this behaviour? Why would I be doing that, do you think? Avoidance. Try again.

Of course not, but they have an underlying prejudice that leads to the preference.

Wow, so you refuse to acknowledge preferences by themselves? They all come from prejudices, do they? You're now suggesting that people who don't fancy trans do so because they all have a preference based on a lack of information. Righto. And I might not like girls with brunette hair because of prejudice either, I suppose.

In the same way that a Latino girl might not want to sleep with black men, or a German soldier might not want to sleep with a Jewish woman, because of stories they've heard or internalized stereotypes

You carry on, don't let me stop you digging that hole.

These are just sexual preferences, but they are based on prejudices.

Which doesn't mean that all of a person's sexual preference are based on that, and also doesn't mean that it applies to all, making the point irrelevant. You may as well say that all attacks on black people are racism-based, because racists don't like black people.

I know you want to try and pretend that this isn't a prejudice, because you don't want to associate yourself with such.

Oh I see, the 'I've decided on your behalf' argument. I don't have to pretend - I don't have to have a reason to have a preference or choice. Preferring women doesn't mean you're 'prejudiced' against gays, it just means you prefer women. Finding an example of someone that hates gays doesn't change that. And in any case, prejudiced means having an opinion without enough information to back it up. You're throwing the word around a lot considering it doesn't really apply.

Still, I wish that the word wasn't so reviled, so that we could have a conversation without you denying the obvious.

Really? You haven't provided any links to the studies you mentioned showing that there's biologically no difference between a post-op trans and a standard female - so, without providing any information to back up your claims, who's being prejudiced here, exactly?

Got it. Women are obligated to tell suitors their total number of past sexual partners before their first sexual encounter as well.

I would suggest that People are obligated to tell their suitors about their sexual past, I was just using an example. Or maybe you really think that a condom is all you need to fight STD's?

Furthermore, they are obligated to tell their suitors under the assumption that it will put them off without ever actually being informed of this.

They're obligated to tell their suitors regardless of the outcome, and if it puts off the suitors, then you can say the suitor was prejudiced if they'd shown interest up to that point. It wouldn't put me off, for example - if they've had more practice, more fun for me.

You are certainly consistent when you finally get around to answering the examples.

You only have to ask, but it isn't as if I've changed my tune.

All of these people are different from everyone else, that has nothing to do with their moral responsibilities in catering to prejudices people might have against them.

You say prejudices, I say preference. You'd going to have to show how all preferences come from a lack of information for your statement to be true.

No, I have not. I have used a basic model of human right to privacy that I apply across the board to all people, including oppressed minorities, women, and you.

And yet, by your model, a disabled person could sign up for a mountaineering trip, and then complain on arrival that he wasn't predisposed to disclose his disability as it was a private matter. It's easy to hide anything you like under the banner of privacy, but that doesn't change the fact that you're hiding it.

I read the rest, but am holding off other arguments till this one is worked through, if all goes well I'd be happy to integrate a little more in the next reply.

Before you get to that stage, please provide some actual answers of your own.

If a surgery+drugs post-op trans is no different to a 'regular' female, why would people be interested in gender-reassignment via gene-therapy if there is no difference, as you claim?
Where is the biological report you mentioned that proves trans are phyisically no different from their assigned gender?
Please provide a link to show that preferences are based on prejudice.

[–]lailial0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Torquemada19702 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]QuestionsFromApple0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

withholding key information puts them in a far more dire situation, which is what you seem to be suggesting that they should be doing.

Sorry to chime in, as this is not my debate, but how did you arrive at this?

Can you cite that in all, or even a majority, of cases of assault on the transgender are because someone didn't know? At what point is it you suppose disclosure prevents this harm? No. That is not what happens. Trans women are killed because of prejudice. Especially the ones who live "out" lives. Take a look at the day of remembrance page. Women are killed by men who intentionally seek transgender prostitutes. They are killed walking to the car after winking at the wrong guy in the wrong bar. They are killed at the ends of dates, when such men follow what they just found out to be a transsexual non-woman (as you claim). They are all killed. You asserting that this is because they don't tell people enough is not only false, but it's victim blaming at that. So what, even if they did not? No one is given a free pass at murder.The blame is not shifted from the assailant to the victim.

[–]Torquemada19702 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

but how did you arrive at this?

Well we're getting into a different situation here - I'm not suggesting that trans have an easy time all the time...in fact, that's partly why I'm so much more keen on the DNA approach (when it arrives) than creating a physical approximation.

Even so - sure, trans can be killed in the wrong situation, just like anyone - but that's not really the norm, is it? There's a huge trans community in central London, but they're not being slaughtered by the dozen - comparing any situation with a worse-case scenario doesn't really get us anywhere, unless you're on a victim-trip. That said, trans (like gays) follow certain guidelines (like where to go, where to avoid), and they generally don't get into trouble; in the same way as I avoid bars with bouncers (bouncers mean they're either letting in too many people, or the wrong sort of people - either way, it means avoid). For instance, the club I mentioned further up was stuffed with trans, punks, goths...and I went there every weekend for years, but it wasn't as if I ever saw a trans get into a fight.

Can you cite that in all, or even a majority, of cases of assault on the transgender are because someone didn't know?

Why would I be suggesting that this was a primary reason for all violence against trans? I was highlighting how potential trouble could be avoided later on - it seems silly to leave yourself open to further trouble down the line for no real reason, unless (for instance) you're so convinced that you're now physiologically a female that you don't consder that others might not.

No. That is not what happens.

Not all the time - never suggested it was....but then, how would I come up with a study showing that trans informing people in advance are avoiding a fight? What would be the control?

They are killed at the ends of dates, when such men follow what they just found out to be a transsexual non-woman (as you claim).

And you're questioning my option to avoid this?

You asserting that this is because they don't tell people enough is not only false

Just as well that wasn't what I was asserting, eh?

but it's victim blaming at that.

So...if they do tell, and the exchange ends there, then it's not reported (and therefore doesn't exist). If they don't tell, then it's victim blaming to suggerst that it might have been a good idea....?

So what, even if they did not? No one is given a free pass at murder.The blame is not shifted from the assailant to the victim.

100% correct. And if my Wife walks through a dodgy area at 2am, and gets attacked, she's not to blame either. If a black guy attends a BNP rally, he's not to blame if he gets attacked. But both of them could have avoided the situation in the first place with some forward planning - and as a parallel, if the black guy informs the BNP in advance that he's black, then the problem is avoided - is it appropriate, in this situation, for the black guy not to inform the BNP because 'he shouldn't have to'?

[–]QuestionsFromApple1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

but that's not really the norm, is it?

For quite apparent reasons, statistics are hugely lacking in regards to people who have identified as trans. Therefor, this is likely a matter of perspective.

I'd assert it is the norm. A vast majority of "out" (which also coincides with being pre-op or non-op) trans women are subject to physical violence. Are you seriously asserting that transgender women have no higher risk of being murdered than non-trans women? I'd be hardpressed to definitively prove this, of course. But, I'd be astonished if you genuinely believed that to be the case.

There's a huge trans community in central London

I did not inform you otherwise, so I do not blame you for the geographic bias. I do not live in London. A lot of people don't. Just saying.

but they're not being slaughtered by the dozen

Says who? A margin of society being killed off so casually as it is apparent to any casual member of society is not a realistic thing, outside politically assisted genocide. If you can ask and provide verification (a photo from an out trans woman with a sign reading "I've never been subject to serious violence due to being transgender, I do not know any trans woman who has" would do it) I'd be, in a seriously genuine manner, more inclined to believe you. Again, this whole thing is somewhat, by lack of information, considerably anecdotal.

Since you know this community so well, I propose you ask 10 girls to go on a date with 10 men. The men must not know of their trans identity before hand. The women must not be "visibly trans". Send them all on a date with a random guy, in a place that is reasonably integrated into those men's daily lives. Have the women disclose they are trans. See how many of those women are still alive a week later. Easy :)

While i won't assert its so personal that all men will instantly turn into killers, I aim to demonstrate that violence is not "provoked". A lot of what I observe is women being attacked simply by men that have something to prove. A girl innocently dancing away at some night club is hit on by some guy looking for a good time. Guy walks away at some point, feeling let down, as girl innocently denies his advances. Guys friends see. Guys friends yell "THAT'S A DUDE!" Girl is dead in the bathroom, labeled a sex worker, and a nonevent takes place. See "Day of Remembrance" because I'm pretty sure that's what did happen to someone. I could be wrong, so its best to verify. :)

trans (like gays) follow certain guidelines (like where to go, where to avoid)

You've jumped from obligating disclosure to not sitting in the front of the bus. There may not be a reason the back is worse than the front, necessarily. There's no reason a trans person should follow such arbitrary guidelines. If black people don't have to stay in special restaurants to avoid being sprayed with a firehouse, then trans people should not have to go to special restaurants to not be victims of violence, either.

the same way as I avoid bars with bouncers

You aren't blamed for being thrown out by a mean bouncer, are you? You're blaming trans women who do not adhere to these "special zones" responsible for their own deaths. That's like saying anyone who wants a gay marriage in the United States should just move to Canada.

Lastly, there are plenty of men in trans clubs looking for trouble. Go to one in a bad wig with some stick on boobs and find out for yourself, if you don't believe this.

further trouble down the line for no real reason

I understand this as a reason one should disclose, not why one is obligated to. I actually agree with this opinion.

Not all the time - never suggested it was....but then, how would I come up with a study showing that trans informing people in advance are avoiding a fight? What would be the control?

Let's just agree now that any evidence towards perceptions and realities facing trans women is majority anecdotal. If you did run such a study, not that this is possible, I'd def take your side on this.

And you're questioning my option to avoid this?

I said what you are suggesting is the CAUSE of it! >:/

That made me a little upset. To no fault of your own, but it did.

When I said

They are killed at the ends of dates, when such men follow what they just found out to be a transsexual non-woman (as you claim).

I mean that they have followed your advice and do tell these men on the first date! Exclamation marks are do to my own dismay at this. Did you think I meant that men kill women at the end of dates all the time, and that sometimes one of them is trans? Well, I didn't. Disclosure of one's trans status to people who are practical strangers is a serious danger, and this is what I meant to convey with such a grim fairy tale. Just because you think the mature thing to do is to walk away, not everyone feels like that. I don't know how many, but I sure as hell wouldn't be the one you'd ask to chance it. If you are interested in denying this claim, create a controlled experiment and run it :) Anecdotal experience on violence and the (admittedly perceived) risks of such is widely available on request from many "out" trans women. Asserting that its rare that people who don't wear seat belts get in accidents and die is not a good argument as to why one should not wear it anyways.

Just as well that wasn't what I was asserting, eh?

Well thank you for clearing that up. Please clarify what you meant instead of going for the "I didn't mean it like that" stance, maybe? Thanks :)

and the exchange ends there

My point is that it is NOT EVEN REASONABLE to assume that's where the exchange will end. It ends when the perp is washing off the blood and disposing of the body -_- Unless you are ready to claim this has never and will never happen again? And, that you know this? Otherwise, you're simply saying "you should risk it" to trans women. I think not.

If they don't tell, then it's victim blaming to suggerst that it might have been a good idea....?

It's victim blaming to assert violence against them is justified by not telling. Saying "you probably should have" when nothing happens but maybe a breakup is a fair stance, in my opinion. It is victim blaming when you are blaming a victim. Do you disagree?

100% correct. And if my Wife walks through a dodgy area at 2am, and gets attacked, she's not to blame either.

That's my point with the above, just to clear up any misunderstandings. Saying "you'll get murdered and deserve it" because you didn't tell is not something you can use in an argument. Saying if you had told (not took the dog out at 2am) then you would not have been attacked (...yeah) is wrong. Why? The assailant should not have attacked her! Agree :) ?

But both of them could have avoided the situation

And? If a mother let's her kid walk outside and he's kidnapped, she could have not let him walk outside. How do we stop this? By telling mothers everywhere not to let their kids outside because this can happen? No! We punish those who COMMIT crimes, not those who are the possible targets! That's is what I mean by victim blaming, and that is what you are doing :) Stop.

attends a BNP rally

What does BNP stand for? I am going to reply to the argument on the assumption it is the British equal of the Ku Klux Klan in the U.S.

if the black guy informs the BNP in advance that he's black, then the problem is avoided

What is in advance? The problem is the KKK threatens the man with violence simply for being black. Telling them he is black before he shows up? In my mind, this only gives them reason to get their guns ready.

Men who threaten trans women with violence due so because they are trans. Not because they kiss them. Not because they talk to them. Not because they look at them funny. Because they exist, and these men are now faced with that. You may think it is a silly fear and that no one could possibly feel like that, but they do. Some people do.

[Brandon Teena] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unlawfully_killed_transgender_people#1993) was not killed because he was sleeping with some poor sap who didn't know. He was killed for existing.

Erika Keels was not killed because she was going to marry some man without ever telling him. She was killed just because.

If you continue reading down the page, you will see the flaws in your other arguments, as well.

if they do tell, and the exchange ends there

It does not end there. Or, maybe that was only in the case of Sanesha Stewart? Her murderer "learned" (I'd assert the practical way this happened is she told him) that she was trans. She was killed. Oh, but she's just special, yes?

I don't think so.

Felicia Melton-Smyth was in a safe place (just keep scrolling down).

That said, trans (like gays) follow certain guidelines (like where to go, where to avoid), and they generally don't get into trouble

Nope. Still dead. I think 20 "trans allies" is about as safe as you can practically get. She was still murdered.

Maybe attitudes have changed? Nope. Victoria Carmen White. Last year. Killed. By two men who she just happened to tell about it to.

Maybe all this is just a coincidence? Maybe it only happens in romantic situations? Maybe these people were special, and don't represent what usually happens? Maybe, if there were 2 million trans people and this was only a few, I'd be inclined to believe something so blatantly ridiculous.

[–]Torquemada19701 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Crikey, I was only away for three days!

Lots of good stuff here (thank you!), so I'll answer 'em all as posted.

I'd assert it is the norm.... Says who? A margin of society being killed off so casually as it is apparent to any casual member of society is not a realistic thing, outside politically assisted genocide.

I don't see how - sure, trans are at higher risk, but that doesn't mean they're constantly under threat of murder. In some places in the world, the murder of a trans may not been seen as significant, but we can't drag all examples down to the worst place in the world to live. There are still a number of countries that think lynching gays is a great idea, but that doesn't mean I could state that gays are globally under daily threat of murder generally.

Have the women disclose they are trans. See how many of those women are still alive a week later. Easy :)

Or maybe open the paper and see how many murders there were. In the UK at least, murders get reported regardless of gender/ occupation. Doesn't happen - at least, not by the dozen :-)

I aim to demonstrate that violence is not "provoked".

Oh, agreed - there are countries where people can be 'provoked' into murdering their own offspring simply because they have the gall to want to decide who they fall in love with. But I was sort of getting at this in previous posts - yes it's wrong....but yes, there are things you can do to limit the potential. For instance, a bar of guys with an attitude like that would make me leave. Even so, using the girl-example, you're illustrating how the problem trans face (from people wanting to reinforce their own sexual identity) is actually a problem faced by people generally. The same thing could happen to me for supporting the wrong football team.

You've jumped from obligating disclosure to not sitting in the front of the bus.

Erm...not really, I'm advocating both. You have to be honest, but you also have to recognise situations for what they are - I can highlight several examples of what I'm perfectly within my rights to do but might get killed doing to.

Please clarify what you meant instead of going for the "I didn't mean it like that"

I wasn't stating that trans need to tell people more - I was highlighting how it's self-defeating if you decide not to mention the fact to someone; If I tell the bank I have no money, will they be more angry if I let them know at the beginning of the meeting, or two hours later at the close? It just seems to be needlessly upping the stakes.

Why? The assailant should not have attacked her! Agree :) ?

Indeed - it isn't right for her to be at risk just because she goes out, but if she did and got attacked, there would certainly be questions about why she thought that was a good idea.

It is victim blaming when you are blaming a victim. Do you disagree?

Not really - we're not dealing with fair here, remember. We're dealing with people that dehumanise others in order to justify doing whatever they like - and when faced with that, do you follow the best course of action (avoid/ leave/ etc.) or do you stick to your guns and get beaten up or killed 'because you shouldn't have to'?

That's is what I mean by victim blaming, and that is what you are doing :) Stop.

I don't think I am, or that I should. Would you advise a woman to walk through a dodgy area at 2am? Why not? It's her right, isn't it? While the sort of idiots that pick on people exist, I don't see how ignoring the problem simply because it shouldn't exist helps anyone.

In my mind, this only gives them reason to get their guns ready

Because if he tells them in advance, and gets a bad reaction, he's still going to turn up, isn't he? The point of the analogy was to illustrate how trouble can be avoided, not how to make it worse :-)

You may think it is a silly fear and that no one could possibly feel like that, but they do. Some people do.

(Yeah, BNP is our brand of far-right idiots)

Oh indeed - I find it amazing that people are still threatened by gays; if you're a hetero guy, these guys are providing more partners for you (by way of not being interested) and you think that's a problem? :-) However, people who pick on such types will simply find another sort of victim - if no gays/ trans/ etc. are available to hate, they'll start on rival football supporters, foreigners, etc. I personally don't see how (for example) football/ religion seem to be allowed as 'mitigating factors', but they are.

<trans death examples>...If you continue reading down the page, you will see the flaws in your other arguments, as well.

A page which highlights the flaw in your argument - you're using individual cases as examples to disprove my point, when those examples (in the last few years) come at a rate of....one identified case a year globally, even though the same page states one every three days (unless it's just a wiki that isn't being updated). Even if that last figure were correct, that's one every three days out of how many millions of trans?

Oh, but she's just special, yes?

Yes, she was, unless you're going to show how this is the norm and not an exception.

Nope. Still dead.

If you're going assert that my previous statement somehow leads to murder every single time, you're going to have to provide better links.

Maybe attitudes have changed? Nope. Victoria Carmen White. Last year. Killed. By two men who she just happened to tell about it to.

And again, you use a single example. Two men being dickheads doesn't mean they all are, just as two men raping a woman doesn't mean that 'attitudes haven't changed'. Go to a city (like London) where trans/ etc. are more accepted, and you might see a bit more of how things should be.

Maybe, if there were 2 million trans people and this was only a few, I'd be inclined to believe something so blatantly ridiculous.

Because you don't see as many success stories as tragedies? Now who's victimising?

[–]QuestionsFromApple1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The first two postquote responses didn't exactly answer anything.

sure, trans are at higher risk

This is my point. Being trans puts you at a higher risk of physical danger. You cite that this does not happen by the dozen, to which I say "how would you know?"

there are countries where people can be 'provoked' into murdering their own offspring

No, violence is not provoked. Anytime. Anywhere. We do not blame victims of violent crimes for their own deaths/assaults. Got it?

The same thing could happen to me for supporting the wrong football team.

Aw yes. The football murders! People are mercilessly attacked for not liking the same football team all the time! Please. I understand you're trying to address a point, but assuming you made it all the way to the end of my post before replying, that was an asshole move. Hate crimes based on immutable physical characteristics =/= silly squabbles among the intoxicated masses. You are way too intelligent to even make such an assertion.

I'm perfectly within my rights to do but might get killed doing to

Which is why you are not obligated to do the other thing. If you are perfectly within your rights to do one thing, you are not obligated to do the other. There is a huge difference between obligation and acting in your best interest. Do you agree?

with fair here, remember

I thought we were dealing with the law and ethics? Life's not fair. Agree?

I was highlighting how it's self-defeating if you decide not to mention the fact to someone; If I tell the bank I have no money, will they be more angry if I let them know at the beginning of the meeting, or two hours later at the close? It just seems to be needlessly upping the stakes.

Trans people are just as capable (and justifiably so) of putting themselves before the "community". Asking people to live "out" lives is one huge favor. Demanding it? You clearly don't even realize what you're asking of these men and women. Whatever the fact is, choosing personal happiness over being a civil rights activism is nothing new. And people are perfectly entitled to either choice.

Arguably, if no woman or man ever told anyone, we'd see the same benefits and everyone telling. This is a separate topic you should discuss w/ r/asktransgender. It is not part of a debate on obligated disclosure.

one identified case a year globally,

How many trans people do you think there are exactly, in the US (I do not have access to international news)? How many would it take to be a big deal? How many people have to not even die, but be murdered before you go "Oh hey! People get killed for being transgender! That's not good (sad face)!" exactly?! -_-

You rebutted "trans people are killed for being trans" with "like, not that many, or anything". Yeah.

flaw in your argument

It is not a flaw in my argument. I do not subscribe to the 'there's strength in numbers' ideology. I subscribe to the it does happen ideology. I do not possess a survey citing trans subjected to violence, you do not possess one citing trans who have not been so. Let's recognize that and drop the argument of rarity. A rare thing in a community of rare people? Duh.

how many millions of trans?

Exactly how many millions of trans people do you think exist? Not even 1% of the US population is transgender, last I heard (I can't offer cites as I don't have time & my internet just won't work! GRRRR! :) Cite if you have reason to believe otherwise).

And again, you use a single example

And again, how many examples do you think exist? There. are. not. that. many. trans. people. Even fewer trans women. Even fewer heterosexual trans women (a loooot fewer). Even fewer trans women who are postop and reasonably private to the point it is even an option to disclose. Very few. So yes, one case is enough, considering the dwindling availability of these instances.

If you would actually like to disprove my assertions instead of saying "nuh uh! Not all the time!" then cite instances of the opposite, successful disclosure from trans women to heterosexual men at the beginning of relationships. Its a little hard to find dozens for a minute faction of society, yes?

Because you don't see as many success stories as tragedies? Now who's victimising?

I don't see how its victimizing? Trans women know are not unaware of this. If there were success stories of these oh-so out and proud women, where are they? I don't see how this is not a good induction. There are tons of 'failures' and few 'successes'. Therefor, move on to a different way of doing things as it can be assumed doing the same will result in failure.

Go to a city (like London) where trans/ etc. are more accepted

And homosexuals should all move to Canada, African-Americans should all live in Atlanta, Whites should all live in Germany, etc. No. People existence in a certain part of the world is not an argument for anything but how oh-so wonderful your location is. I've said it once, implied it throughout my writing, and will outright state it again. I do not live in London. A lot of people don't! I have never been, and have no intention of going, to London!

Besides, who are you to say how things should be? All trans women should be sentenced to out lives as soon as violence against us is eliminated? Nope.

None of this stuff was relevant to the point of obligated disclosure, it meerely shed light into misconceptions of trans women and the population. Let's disregard all this junk, agree? I do not think it moves us farther into the topic. Do you?

[–]Torquemada19701 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The first two postquote responses didn't exactly answer anything.

Apart from putting your examples into context.

This is my point. Being trans puts you at a higher risk of physical danger. You cite that this does not happen by the dozen, to which I say "how would you know?"

You're suggesting that the entire population of trans is in danger of death, every day? Without figures for attacks as a percentage of trans population generally, why would you assume this?

No, violence is not provoked. Anytime. Anywhere.

In your opinion. I wouldn't expect simply being gay to provoke violence, but that's because I don't think with the same head as the idiots who might think that's a good idea.

We do not blame victims of violent crimes for their own deaths/assaults. Got it?

No, and wearing a £40K rolex into Brixton isn't provoking muggings, either. Got it? Dismissing others' motivations doesn't make them go away - or are you suggesting that avoiding being a victim makes you a victim and should therefore be ignored on principle?

People are mercilessly attacked for not liking the same football team all the time!

Erm...actually, they are. There are enitire mobs of people who go to matches specifically to attack each other, and if you get caught alone in the wrong colours, you're probably going to need either stiches or new teeth - it's noticeable though that when we move into an area you don't seem to know about, they suddenly become 'silly intoxicated squabbles'.

You are way too intelligent to even make such an assertion.

Yeah, giving an example of people attacking and killing others for stupid reasons draws no sort of parallel, does it? I was highlighting that people are killed for all sorts of stupid reasons - I can provide more if you're that keen to knock things down, but the point was is that there are hundreds of examples like this.

You rebutted "trans people are killed for being trans" with "like, not that many, or anything". Yeah.

You'll find that people react like that when you make sweeping statements such as 'trans people are killed for being trans'. Numbers? Percentages? By the link you sent me, it's one a year. Black people are killed for being black, gay people are killed for being gay...that doesn't mean that they're all being killed in scores every week. The UK Media report just about every murder on a daily basis, and trans murders would make bigger news than a regular one.

There is a huge difference between obligation and acting in your best interest. Do you agree?

Indeed - I've never said that trans should be honest in any situation - in fact, I think I've highlighted that twice now.

How many trans people do you think there are exactly, in the US (I do not have access to international news)?

Well, there's 300 million people in the US, so let's say 1%. That's 3 million.

How many would it take to be a big deal?

Well, it depends on what we're talking about. If (for example) you're going to use a single murder out of 3 million to suggest that 'all trans are in danger', then it becomes a different problem.

How many people have to not even die, but be murdered before you go "Oh hey! People get killed for being transgender! That's not good (sad face)!" exactly?! -_-

Sure, people get killed for being trans, just like they get killed for being black, rich, gay, white, etc. - where it becomes significant is when you look at what the percentage of that group being killed is.

I subscribe to the 'it does happen' ideology.

But you can't use 'it does happen' as a basis for behaviour unless your example happens often enough for it to be a likely threat for a person involved. That's the flaw I was talking about - you can't use a tiny percentage of events for justification, otherwise one child being run over means all cars are banned (for example).

Exactly how many millions of trans people do you think exist?

Well, if it's less that 1%, that's still in the millions, and that's just the US.

So yes, one case is enough, considering the dwindling availability of these instances.

In which case, how can you use that as an example of the 'norm'? And again, if a trans is murdered, then that's unsual (compared to 'regular' murders from muggings, etc.) and therefore newsworthy - if attacks were on the up, there would be more interest.

If you would actually like to disprove my assertions instead of saying "nuh uh! Not all the time!" then cite instances of the opposite, successful disclosure from trans women to heterosexual men at the beginning of relationships.

So far, I've already done that - you haven't actually proved that murders are that common. Then you're asking for proof of situations where no-one gets hurt, no-one is attacked...why would you not assume this to be the norm? A gay guy got murdered in Soho a few years ago - it was major, major news; but that didn't mean that Soho was suddenly empty of gays because of what happened to one guy. No, if you're going to insist that murders/ attacks are that common, you can't rest your case on a single incident.

I don't see how its victimizing?

Because you seem to be making the assumption that success stories will somehow be seen as newsworthy. I could assert that men and women don't really like each other, and cite divorce rates/ the number of people living alone. Just because all the relationships that do work don't make the news or statistics, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

I do not live in London. A lot of people don't! I have never been, and have no intention of going, to London!

Now you're getting silly. I didn't say move to London, I was highlighting how there are cities where trans seem to get on as well as anyone else, to counter your assumption that they're all under constant threat - but your reply appears to be falling back on 'they shouldn't have to!' which is true, but as before doesn't change the reality of the situation.

Besides, who are you to say how things should be?

I'm joe public. Same as you.

All trans women should be sentenced to out lives as soon as violence against us is eliminated? Nope.

Er....thanks for disagreeing with what I didn't say.

None of this stuff was relevant to the point of obligated disclosure

Really? I'd say the statistics of number of trans vs. number of murdered trans is hugely relevant considering that's what you're using to justify non-disclosure as an option that won't generate hostility.

[–]QuestionsFromApple1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm trying to make the argument more concise so I totally deleted all my arguments to the above. I didn't think it was relevant to this in particular. It's more of a general argument for r/ethics or something.

I'd say the statistics of number of trans vs. number of murdered trans is hugely relevant considering that's what you're using to justify non-disclosure as an option that won't generate hostility.

I'm not justifying non-disclosure per say. I'm justifying disclosure to be quite dangerous. Non-disclosure is, at least in the U.S., an inalienable right. You simply are not obligated to disclose your medical history.

Er....thanks for disagreeing with what I didn't say.

The above is what i meant You don't need an excuse to not be out :P Why you shouldn't is something that is exclusive and would require an in depth understanding of trans-elitism. Some women just do not wish to be associated with the rest.

Why you can is an ethical matter. That's what I am defending, the option to do such.

We've established its possible already~ please post separate matters to respective subreddits and maybe personal message me a link or two.

These include

Because you seem to be making the assumption that success stories will somehow be seen as newsworthy. I could assert that men and women don't really like each other, and cite divorce rates/ the number of people living alone. Just because all the relationships that do work don't make the news or statistics, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

"In the absense of statistical information, what is it logical to infer about a population?"

[–]QuestionsFromApple1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

2nd post, I guess i really did write a book, I exceeded 1000 characters.

Transgender women are killed for existing. The only defense a woman in such a life has to mitigate this serious and undoubtedly present risk (for simply being alive, at that!) is to place severe limitations on who knows what and when. Until you have a better solution to the risks, rather than a bunch of doubts that there is any danger, the personal feelings people might have on such are not something I deem appropriate to take into consideration.

That said, what do I know? This is not something I will have to deal with for reasons I won't care to go in to now. That said, here's what I can offer up to the table as a strongly preferred alternative.

If I were, by inescapable and rather cruel circumstance, a heterosexual pre-op transsexual woman (i.e. a woman with a penis) and wanted to endeavor in romantic life, I would do so. No one deserves to be alone by default. My control would be to make it clear I would not engage in sex. Period. Or, at least until a later date. In that time, it is (as you have mentioned) very easy to discern someone's opinion on the subject before hand. In a practical sense, I'd probably pop in a couple of Ugly Betty DVDs with some popcorn and look closely for any sour faces, playing it conservative. Then, I might comment on the character Alexis, to double check. Then, I may outright ask him in some what of a playful way. If I were to detect any negative reaction, I'd simply wait a while and weasel out of the relationship in a few weeks.

The woman has solicited her opinion. The man has given ample cause to voice any objections, even if they are subtle ones. No one is dead and labeled a prostitute by the police. No one is not given an "informed" choice about who they have sex with. Fair compromise?

If I were a heterosexual postop transsexual woman, I would not have any issues with the sex thing in regards to personal opinion. That, assuming the man made no headway to gain this information, is an assumed risk of casual sex. It'd only be victim blaming if he were an actual victim, not that he didn't have his unvoiced standards met. You could guess he had a problem with it, and fairly at that. But, you don't know and aren't really obligated to do anything either way as he isn't being physically harmed. Its kind of like the justification of Marjoe in the 70s. The guy wanted to have sex, he did. He's happy. Letting him walk away feeling so does nothing. Nothing happens. A one night stand partner is not obligated (nor should be reasonably expected) to care about someone's emotions.

If I were a heterosexual postop woman pursuing more long term relationship, I'd mash both practices. I'd take extra special care to survey his opinion of transsexuals, sex with transsexuals, and me hiding things from him. I'd want to respect his opinions and this would warrant going through all the trouble and effort to do such. Wouldn't he put all this together? You'd think so. And, maybe. I'd still take it to the grave. It may just be my stance on this, but I'd probably do the same for a lot of things, too. Including being an ex-prostitute, hardcore drug addict, abortion-er, kleptomaniac, schizo on my (really good) meds, radical (and I mean cult) Christian, 1/8th black, degenerative disease-posses-er, yatta yatta yatta. Do you think this isn't a realistic thing to do? I'll tell you right now, I do it all the time. Ask me about it in a personal message, its quite interesting.

In the event he didn't feel chill, I'd have my emotional bags packed. Why on earth would you put your safety on the line by disclosing to people you don't even know, just because some people feel like you should? Answer (as this is only rhetorical)? You don't.

It's not a matter of

shouldn't have to'?

You physically do not have to. And, when you opening your big old mouth could lead to your death, I'd argue you shouldn't. No one is physically obligated to tell. No one is morally obligated to respect a prejudice.

[–]Torquemada19701 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Fair compromise?

All sounds good

But, you don't know and aren't really obligated to do anything either way as he isn't being physically harmed.

You could describe fraud like that, but I get your point.

I would play things in almost 100% the same way you describe - however, you use the word 'prejudice', which I'm not sure applies. 'Prejudice' is an opinion based on a lack of facts - but sexual preference can be just that, a preference. It doesn't have to come from a prejudice, but if your potential one-night stand doesn't regard post-op trans as physically female, then you have a problem - because after that you're, in effect, lying to get what you want which brings it's own set of problems. I could chat up a girl and tell her I'm a millionaire (or rather, withhold the info that I'm not)...and if I leave telling her I'm not until the next morning and she gets upset, I'm not allowed to respond with 'Oh, so you only wanted me for money, then?' because it was my lack of disclosure that made it happen.

I think we can agree that there's no single option to take in any situation as every situation is different - I'd never advocate telling all-and-sundry-because-it's-their-problem in any situation, but what got me onto this was lailia's assertion that trans have the right not to disclose regardless of the outcome, because they're physically identical and people's preferences are always based on prejudice, neither of which I agree with.

[–]QuestionsFromApple1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

lack of facts

Troll transphobia. That is what most people have.

sexual preference can be just that, a preference

Go to transphobia for that one. Hopefully, you'll luck out and get one of the more mature redditors to discuss it with, but I don't want to deviate from the argument. Create a separate discussion and post to r/transphobiaproject and cross your fingers for an intelligent person, 'kay? :)

, lying to get what you want which brings it's own set of problems.

If I don't believe in the Muslim god and I get in my car to drive, I have not broken the law. You are not obligated to except other people's beliefs as fact. As a man or woman, you do not need someone's consent to be a man or woman. You do not need to ask, you either are or are not.

And, what problems? A one night stand? Sex? What problems -_-

If anything, you create more problems by telling than not.

lying to get what you want

Another fallacy that is often held against trans men and women. No. We have lives. Like literally. We live like men or women. If we are women, we are no longer "trans" as far as our lives go. If I am an average woman, chances are (unless I'm VERY unattractive) I will be approached for casual sex at some point. It'd be rather odd to let what's nothing more than a memory from 10 years ago affect your decisions now. You go to wherever, have sex, and leave. It's not lying because you'd just DIE without sex. It's withholding information you don't ever want to talk about again in the first place, and living like everyone else. Much less, feel obligated to chat about it to everyone. People have casual sex. It's called living.

If I were an out trans woman, emailed men soliciting their opinions on trans women, tracked down the one that absolutely HATED the idea, and boinked him without telling- THEN I would be lying (even if by omission) for sex.

tell her I'm a millionaire

You realize men (generalizing) do this and will swear up and down its an okay thing to do, yes?

withhold the info that I'm not

She assumes you are a millionare because? She does not ask if you are this because? There are men who assume a hooker in the street that looks relatively dirty and unkept can't possibly be a cop. You still ask, or its not entrapment :)

Oh, so you only wanted me for money, then?

Yes you are. That's exactly what happened. Have you never seen a documentary on rap groupies? She did only want you for your money! I'm not even talking in a way relating to trans women here, I just find this funny. You defend gold diggers, now?

Homegirl had it coming, its called Karma.

it was my lack of disclosure that made it happen.

No, you are not at fault because she made an assumption that benefited her own bias and did not bother to verify it. There are plenty of women who do sleep with men for money. Any and all would likely laugh at someone who just assumed a guy was rich, made no attempt to verify it, and got upset when the man wasn't, I'd assert.

However, this is the thing with transsexualism. So many freaking comparisons. Being a woman and people not thinking you meet the qualifications due to nothing but personal feeling =/= pretending to be a billionare. If the man was a millionare, and boasted so, but the girl assumed he was a BILLIONARE and got upset he didn't tell her, this would be a better example.

But again, this is a toothless threat of consequence. The man is not going to wake up and go "So you're a transsexual woman, huh?" This is not a bad horror film. Either you tell or you don't. There is no physical difference, consequence, or otherwise. You don't tell, he walks out like "Damn, I just had be a hot bitch and I only shelled out 10 bucks on drinks,too! SCORE!" (I realize that is man-bashing, but it seems pretty accurate to me.) He will not get upset.

You could describe fraud like that, but I get your point

Do I need to explain why stealing money has consequences that do not apply here?

All sounds good

THANK YOU! We've officially setteled this argument! I suggest someone publish that. I waive my right to copyrights :D

regardless of the outcome, because they're physically identical and people's preferences are always based on prejudice, neither of which I agree with.

I'll pick my battles. Glad we've settled this, sir. If you would like to debate my replies to the what's best for trans women in modern society argument, please make a post to r/asktransgender, make a clear thesis (which I'm sure you can do) and wait. I'll see it sooner or later :)

[–]Torquemada19701 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Troll transphobia. That is what most people have.

I don't agree. You're labelling a huge percentage of people simply because of their preferences.

you do not need someone's consent to be a man or woman. You do not need to ask, you either are or are not.

That's correct, but I don't need anyone's consent to be an astronaut, either - the problems start when I demand others treat me as an astronaut.

And, what problems? A one night stand? Sex? What problems -_-

Once deceit is involved, you lose the moral high ground. Not good if the person is the sort that's looking for an excuse...

If we are women, we are no longer "trans" as far as our lives go.

How you view yourself isn't the problem - it's how others view you that has to be reckoned with, and how their preferences relate to you.

It'd be rather odd to let what's nothing more than a memory from 10 years ago affect your decisions now.

There are lots of things from ten years ago that people would still be upset about if you didn't tell them. Most people will only have surgery of any kind a few times in their lives - gender reassignment is fairly major - major enough that you can rationalise it away to yourself, but pretending that it's insignificant (when it blatantly wasn't or you wouldn't have done it) makes you sound contradicted.

It's not lying because you'd just DIE without sex.

That's rationalisation, not justification.

It's withholding information you don't ever want to talk about again in the first place, and living like everyone else.

Maybe so, but as I mentioned above, but it's still there - is this getting into acceptance of oneself?

You realize men (generalizing) do this and will swear up and down its an okay thing to do, yes?

Indeed, but I don't agree with them doing it and much mirth would be made if I was out with guys and one of them went down this road. Men (and women) like to call women 'sluts' based on their predefined standards of how many partners is considered acceptable. I find this crazy - HIV etc. aside, if a girl has had a hundred partners, then who's going to benefit from all that experience? ME! There are hundreds of things like that which men and women do that don't make sense - but in my experience, women are far, far better at detecting BS - I wouldn't presume to try waffling to them in the first place!

I'm not even talking in a way relating to trans women here, I just find this funny. You defend gold diggers, now?

Heheh of course not, maybe my example wasn't very clear - if you allow someone to make a general assumption that they make every day, and don't correct them, it stops being their assumption and starts being your deceit.

Homegirl had it coming, its called Karma.

That's a not-so-nice parallel, because that's exactly the sort of justification that transphobes would use - 'you had it coming - you allowed me to think you were a girl, therefore I feel justified in beating you up'. And worse, they'd see it as karma too.

Being a woman and people not thinking you meet the qualifications due to nothing but personal feeling =/= pretending to be a billionare.

Really? So if I walk into a bar, and give every impression of being a millionaire (as a trans would with being female), and have several opportunities to correct that assumption but don't, and then trade on that assumption, how is that different?

The man is not going to wake up and go "So you're a transsexual woman, huh?"

No he's not - if you don't tell him, just as the girl won't wake up and say ''So you're not a millionaire, huh?" unless you tell her. Unless you already know the guy isn't bothered, you're preserving the illusion based on the witholding of info.

He will not get upset.

You can't say that with any certainty, because he doesn't know. If I lost my job, and go home without telling my Wife, I can't then state that 'she's fine about it' because I haven't told her.

Do I need to explain why stealing money has consequences that do not apply here?

I was highlighting how your justification (no-one is being physically harmed) is the sort that fraudsters would use, and I thought the parallel was amusing :-)

THANK YOU! We've officially setteled this argument! I suggest someone publish that. I waive my right to copyrights :D

Heheheh I wasn't aware my position had changed at all...but we'll split the profits :-)

[–]QuestionsFromApple1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's correct, but I don't need anyone's consent to be an astronaut, either - the problems start when I demand others treat me as an astronaut.

When you're qualified, able to be, and are.. basically all that's left is giving people a reason to consider you somehow not an astronaut. Not your problem. You're an astronaut. Weeeee~

it's how others view you that has to be reckoned with, and how their preferences relate to you.

Which is contingent upon your decision to disclose. Should you choose not to, this is a non-issue. If you desire to be viewed as female 100% by anyone/everyone then why tell? Not doing so makes you a woman, period, which is the point.

Telling is the difference between being the girl I know in law school and the tranny.

Once deceit is involved, you lose the moral high ground. Not good if the person is the sort that's looking for an excuse...

This does not happen with one night stands as there is no "tranny" tattoo on your lower back. Its a non-issue. Its like questioning if the sea will rise up and swallow the entire continent. For all its worth and despite the consequences, the chances of that happening in some convoluted manner manner are so low, who cares? Its certainly not a good enough reason to tell in advance.

There are lots of things from ten years ago that people would still be upset about if you didn't tell them. Most people will only have surgery of any kind a few times in their lives - gender reassignment is fairly major - major enough that you can rationalise it away to yourself, but pretending that it's insignificant (when it blatantly wasn't or you wouldn't have done it) makes you sound contradicted.

Who's saying its not significant? It quite obviously is. It's inconsequential not to tell. (Of course barring the "telling when they are going to find out sooner or later" logic. If no one ever knows, what happens exactly?)

That's a not-so-nice parallel, because that's exactly the sort of justification that transphobes would use - 'you had it coming - you allowed me to think you were a girl, therefore I feel justified in beating you up'. And worse, they'd see it as karma too.

Oh my god, I'm a hypocrite. Thank you for pointing that out. As sarcastic as it sounds (Is there any way not to seem sarcastic online?), I really will go sit in a corner (to meditate & reflect) now.

every impression of being a millionaire

If those impressions include actually having millions of dollars (or pounds?) then yeah. Totally. You may not technically be a millionaire according to people's feelings but you have millions of dollars. Spend it on gold diggers, then? o_O

illusion based on the witholding of info.

It's not an illusion when you generally aren't concerned with whether or not the guy/girl cares. When it isn't your problem (one night stand), it isn't your problem.

He will not get upset. You can't say that with any certainty, because he doesn't know. If I lost my job, and go home without telling my Wife, I can't then state that 'she's fine about it' because I haven't told her.

This is my fault, an error in communicating. He will not get upset because there's nothing to get upset about. If you don't say anything, what? He's got extrasensory perception?

In your example your wife isn't upset BECAUSE you didn't tell her. I didn't say or intend to convey either example wouldn't be upset if you did. I meant, if you say nothing, nothing happens. Literally. No one dies. No one's genitals fall off. No one is propelled into a black hole of cosmic goo. Nothing happens.

Providing that you do not care for the other party's feelings (and aren't expected to) in the event they somehow find out somewhere at some point, definitively, why does it matter?

and I thought the parallel was amusing :-)

-____-

Heheheh I wasn't aware my position had changed at all...but we'll split the profits :-)

What position? Wait, no. Let's let sleeping dogs lie. Lye? Lay? Whatever, lie.

[–]QuestionsFromApple1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

why I'm so much more keen on the DNA approach (when it arrives) than creating a physical approximation.

I was so caught up in correcting you that i did not mention this. While I've so much already, I will say I do agree with this. More research needs to be done. More differences need to be corrected.

I am also arguing that no one "fears" a Y chromosome. At least, not those that understand genetics.

I once joked around and told this guy i found quite unnattractive that I had one, he responded "Is that all?"

Hell I claimed to be a trap to another (I am advanced very frequently, irl, in regards to my attempts to scare them off). He responded "there's always anal".

So, no. I don't think DNA is cause for a marginalized community to bare some ill-defined social obligation.

stuffed with trans, punks, goths

The life gender queer people lead is not equal to or the same as the life most women live. Some women genuinely dislike these settings, as well as dislike being reminded they are somehow "second class" (not fit for everywhere else). I, if I were trans or not, would likely not frequent bars where goths and punks were. I shouldn't have to and wouldn't have to, provided I kept my mouth shut. Why would I go to the special bar? I can't just go to one I like and not wear my "I'm not really a woman" t-shirt?

[–]Torquemada19701 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

More differences need to be corrected.

Indeed, I can't wait - the current options seem like the dark ages. Where it gets interesting is - do you fix the brain to match the body, or vice versa? The immediate choice is to let the brain (= the person) choose, but at what point do you draw the line? How off-key does someone's brain have to be before you start fixing that instead of what their brain currently thinks is normal for them?

He responded "there's always anal".

Heheheh some guys just aren't bothered. What bothers me is that the guys that react totally over the top to gays and the like obviously have issues themselves that haven't been dealt with - the question is, how do you force them to deal with it, if that's even possible?

So, no. I don't think DNA is cause for a marginalized community to bare some ill-defined social obligation.

I thought I was suggesting that the DNA approach will make the social-obligation part a moot point, at least physically - as things stand, guys are a lot less bothered by someone that was reassigned at birth compared to someone that lived for fifteen years as a guy beforehand, but even so it's harder to make it an issue if the person standing before you is genuinely female.

Why would I go to the special bar? I can't just go to one I like and not wear my "I'm not really a woman" t-shirt?

Oh, I wasn't suggesting any sort of segregation - the club I mentioned wasn't specifically for trans, or any other sorts - there were all types there, and that was what was great about it; all sorts would arrive, but differences were treated as irrelevant (I used to love people-watching) - but it wasn't/ isn't as if it was the only club with trans/ etc. in it. The point wasn't 'there is somewhere they can go', more 'there are plenty of places they can go, where everyone's there for a good time'. Of course, there are plenty of 'nightclubs' that trans (or I) could go to and get picked on by thugs, but isn't that the case for all of us? I used to prefer the club I mentioned because the differences were/ are practically encouraged, which to my mind can only be a good thing.

(Phew - thanks for these replies, and the time taken to type them all - I wish I'd checked reddit over the weekend!)

[–]QuestionsFromApple1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Heheheh some guys just aren't bothered.

Indeed. Though, I'm not sure what that says about porn, nowadays.

What bothers me is that the guys that react totally over the top to gays and the like obviously have issues themselves that haven't been dealt with - the question is, how do you force them to deal with it, if that's even possible?

I have a few ideas:

By tricking them into sex with traps (not postop transsexual women, but legit men that happen to be really pretty) and revealing it to them, only to cause a melt down which can only be dealt with by serious therapy and exploration of one's feeling? GregoryGorgeous is my first choice, if reddit decides to hold an election to try it out :)
By wiping religion off the face of the earth. It's my personal theory that every person alive will instantly lose 20 pounds of sheer stupid
Or we can encourage open communication of personal feelings and encourage the emphasis of critical thinking skills as a part of education?

I think we can agree the third is our best option.

I thought I was suggesting that the DNA approach will make the social-obligation part a moot point

Not for the prejudiced and ignorant. Their disdain is based on feeling not fact :) I don't think DNA porn is big, anywhere :P

guys are a lot less bothered by someone that was reassigned at birth compared to someone that lived for fifteen years as a guy beforehand

I find this valid.

I used to love people-watching

Funny, I always wonder who's watching me when I'm out and about :P Now I know.

plenty of places they can go

1) Location bias. There are plenty of places where you happen to live that are tolerant. This is, of course, not universal.

2) Isn't that the point? Trans people should be able to go anywhere anyone else can. There's no reason to think disclosure at one bar is automatically different than at another. And even so, non-disclosure isn't about not being picked for a booty call

However, I apologize, it was my error in misunderstanding. The fact of the matter is trans bars are full of old men that want to have sex with other old men, just in socially taboo clothing. If I were to go to a bar, I'd want to get drunk and bee oggled, like any other woman- not asked what my favorite kind of panties are or who did my "operation" or what my "real name" is. Trans bars highlight why women are not crossdressers and crossdressers are not women, imho. So yes, I misunderstood. Its great your area encourages diversity.

but isn't that the case for all of us?

Again, no. Trans women get beat down for being trans. Agree? Ergo, people who are not trans do not get the said beatdown. Its not "those thugs in the corner", its an omnipresent danger that could be virtually any man at any time for one specific reason. Some women don't like playing russian roulette because "it doesn't happen ALL the time".

(Phew - thanks for these replies, and the time taken to type them all - I wish I'd checked reddit over the weekend!)

I know? Imagine how long it took me to write, edit, and reformat all that? It got a long term debate accomplished, at least.

To re summarize:

Trans women do not have to disclose. There are ways to ensure personal choice is given to partners without the need for disclosure. These ways are fair and impartial. Or, at least as impartial as reddit gets :D

[–]Torquemada19701 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Indeed. Though, I'm not sure what that says about porn, nowadays.

I've noticed that men are a lot more relaxed - I can still remember guys worrying about getting turned on by seeing a hard-on onscreen and what it meant if they got turned on, as well as women avoiding porn altogether - in that respect, we've come a long way.

I think we can agree the third is our best option.

Yeah, I'd dearly love 2) to be a possibility, but 3) seems like the only option!

Not for the prejudiced and ignorant. Their disdain is based on feeling not fact :) I don't think DNA porn is big, anywhere :P

This is true, but taking away a major plank of their wobbly justification can't hurt. You could make fun of someone with an artificial leg, but if they've have a real leg grown so that there's no difference, it seems a bit silly, no? You have me thinking about the potential for DNA porn now :-)

Location bias. There are plenty of places where you happen to live that are tolerant. This is, of course, not universal.

Indeed - but then, at what point do we say that options are limited? The number of places in London (for instance) isn't just significant, it's huge to the point where you'd stop counting. Yes, there are places in the world that are much different (and far worse), but isn't that the case for everyone? There are enough places I can't go - but I don't really care for them, so I don't worry about the why. In more than a few countries, my Wife wouldn't be able to work, vote, drive etc. - but I wouldn't take that as an example of the norm for women globally.

Isn't that the point? Trans people should be able to go anywhere anyone else can.

Oh indeed, but tempered with the knowledge that a chav pub full of Millwall supporters might not be a good starting place. Trans might not be able to 'go anywhere', but as I said earlier, most people aren't able to 'go anywhere'.

There's no reason to think disclosure at one bar is automatically different than at another.

Ooo I think there is - it really hinges on the clientelle (see above example). The number of bars I'd visit socially is a small percentage of bars generally because of precisely that reason.

The fact of the matter is trans bars are full of old men that want to have sex with other old men, just in socially taboo clothing.

Not sure I've ever been to that one.

If I were to go to a bar, I'd want to get drunk and bee oggled, like any other woman- not asked what my favorite kind of panties are or who did my "operation" or what my "real name" is.

Indeed - there's certainly a difference between discussing your past, and making your past the only topic of discussion.

Trans bars highlight why women are not crossdressers and crossdressers are not women, imho. So yes, I misunderstood. Its great your area encourages diversity.

Eddie Izzard is the obvious example - before his arrival, I'm not sure how many people had even considered that a guy might simply like to dress in female clothes and how that doesn't automatically mean he's gay/ trans/ etc. At least, these days, you can reasonably expect people to know the difference....where I live, anyways.

Again, no. Trans women get beat down for being trans. Agree? Ergo, people who are not trans do not get the said beatdown.

Agreed, but with the proviso that the non-trans will simply get beat down for a different reason. It might be your being gay, ginger, effeminate, left-handed, or that you support a different football team. Idiotic assumptions by thugs like this don't disappear simply because there are no trans around. I was illustrating that there are risks for everyone, and while trans are at higher risk in certain countries because 800 years ago someone decided they didn't like it (and so everyone doing it should be stoned), I don't tend to assume that the rest of the world is like that.

its an omnipresent danger that could be virtually any man at any time for one specific reason.

Which is why I view non-disclosure as something dangerous - if you really don't know how someone will react (that's a potential partner), isn't it better to find out sooner rather than later when the reaction, if bad, will be worse now that the person has invested time that they now see as wasted due to, in their eyes, deceit?

Some women don't like playing russian roulette because "it doesn't happen ALL the time".

Maybe not, but I would argue that those women are using lottery logic - with basic care taken, the chances of 'winning' are so slim that they can virtually be ignored. Trans have this option too, and it isn't as if they're limited to a single club in the middle of town to make those odds.

I know? Imagine how long it took me to write, edit, and reformat all that? It got a long term debate accomplished, at least.

Yay! Tell me about it, I've now spent two mornings at work typing replies, instead of...well, working :-)))

Trans women do not have to disclose. There are ways to ensure personal choice is given to partners without the need for disclosure. These ways are fair and impartial. Or, at least as impartial as reddit gets :D

Yay again! Woo-yay, in fact!

[–]Underfolder0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haywire 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]haywire 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]dysfunctionz 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]dysfunctionz6 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But here's the thing: you're simply wrong on the facts. Masculine-leaning boys will be masculine no matter how much pressure is put on them to be the opposite: see the case of David Reimer. Or transgender people, for that matter; despite all the pressure put on them by parents and society to act the role of one gender, they know, sometimes from a very early age, that that doesn't fit them.

Also, as gender roles have changed dramatically throughout history and throughout the world, your line of thinking would imply that children were hampered in their development in every time and place that did not conform to twenty-first-century Western gender roles.

In short, you don't get to just assert that not enforcing gender roles is harmful. Here's some relevant research:

Stacey, Judith, and Timothy J. Biblarz. “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review, Vol. 66.2 (2001)

Ryan et al. "Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults." Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, Vol 23.4 (2010)

[–]thingsarebad-4 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dysfunctionz4 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haywire 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]thingsarebad -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

It's not a simple idea, it's a very fundamental attribute of a person, and most people care about that, and for good reason. I refuse to label someone who refuses to have sex with a transexual as a transphobe, for example, as a lot of people out there would like to have sex with someone of the opposite sex, not just someone who looks like a member of the opposite sex.

There's also the "wanting to have children" thing, but I only mention that as a sidenote, as it's not the crux of my argument.

Personally, I would have sex with a transexual if I weren't already taken, but as the expectation is that if one appears to be of a certain sex, one is, leads me to conclude that if someone I was interested in did not tell me their situation before having sex with me, and had no reason to think I would be the exception to the rule as someone who would not mind bedding a transexual, then that person has betrayed me by intentionally deceiving me for sex - which is likely sexual assault. The specifics are important.

[–]QuestionsFromApple 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

I understand what you are saying.

My stance is it would be preferable to just spill the beans. However, it's simply not practical for anyone else. Amounting being inconsiderate to something as serious as rape (sex as a weapon) is not okay whether I agree with you or not. Nonconsent is an element of rape, as far as I'm concerned, but this is men's rights after all.

Its not about what people "should" do, its about what you can expect to happen. If you are an adult and aware of the possibility, and it is something you find unfavorable, you should have made an attempt to "get at" this information.

I'm quite aware it would be wrong for an HIV+ male to have sex with me and not tell me (even if he was managing it and practicing safe sex). That would be wrong, if not more so, as its something that affects my physical well being.

However, I was not tricked. I was not lied to. I am an adult. I made an assumption. I didn't even ask. I was not raped simply because he did not tell me something I may/may not (but probably did) care to know. I do not see how placing blame on someone else for not blurting out information is unethical. Its not nice. Certainly, I'd respect much the guy if he told me. However, I can't expect to be told anything, and I should at least ask as its something that is relevant to me. It's my business, I should make it my business.

A little of this view is personal. Leave it to mensrights to whine about being taken advantage of.

There's also the "wanting to have children" thing, but I only mention that as a sidenote, as it's not the crux of my argument

At what point does non-disclosure of a transsexual history equate with faking pregnancy? At what point does "I can't have children" beget the add on "because I am a transsexual woman"? I don't see how you couldn't tell someone you can't have kids, in a serious, committed relationship. Its definitely feasible to not say "btw, I might/probably have XY chromosomes".

I'm not saying it should never be discussed. I'm saying you should be making an effort to discover this.

[–]thingsarebad -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuestionsFromApple3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'll ignore our conflicts on what constitutes a woman.

I'm more concerned that if you are aware of something you find unfavorable is a possibility, you would refuse to pursue this yourself?

You know such women view themselves as women and will therefor not disclose any non-woman status they hold to be nonexistent. Delusional or not, you should be reasonably aware of this as a premise, if nothing else.

So, you are choosing not to ask. It's a reasonable assumption that a healthy looking man isn't HIV+ and scummy enough to engage in casual sex/dating without immediate disclosure of such. I ask. I don't understand why you feel it is not something you have to do. You're the only person who would be affected by having your beliefs violated.

Its the same as not getting tested for HIV in my book. Whether its scary, inconvenient, impractical, etc. it is something that (I'd assume that most people who don't wish to die via AIDS) benefits you. Not anyone else. Should you not be in charge of this? It's readily accessible information, barring lying.

[–]thingsarebad-8 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

HIV is a risk, a well-known risk. Transexuality is not.

If a person knowingly infects someone with HIV, they should go to jail, just as if a transexual knowingly has sex with someone that would not want to have sex with them if they knew, they should go to jail.

Most men would not assume that a person who looks like a woman could not actually be a woman, so it is not reasonable to assume they are aware of this as a premise. In fact, even though I know it's possible that a former man could look like a woman, I do not consider it likely unless he demonstrates male characteristics. And therefore any transexual should still be open with me about who they really are. And obviously they know that most people don't consider it, and they have know way of knowing that I could possibly consider it. It is their own responsibility to be honest, not mine to ask.

Still, I'm not sure why you're focusing on me, when I'm not personally adamant against bedding transexuals. I'm focusing on your average Joe who deserves to be informed.

[–]QuestionsFromApple6 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

they should go to jail

You are negatively impacting someone else's well being.

a well-known risk. Transexuality is not

1) Ignorance is not an excuse.

2) Yes, it is. It is obvious you do not have any national survey on the matter to assert this as a fact. Therefor, I assume you are making an assumption based on your personal experiences. Pray tell, how often do you bring this topic up among friends? How do you know what they know?

Anecdotally speaking, my entire class had a debate over homosexuality and the topic od transsexual identity was brought up. Besides a few hinky looks, there was not so much as an implication that anyone didn't know what transsexuality was. Don't assume you know anything about how people feel or what they are aware of, just because you think you know.

If I am wrong, and you can verify its not well known, well good for you.

Most men

You assert this because? Cite evidence, please.

woman could not actually be a woman

I've pointed out this fundamental headbutting thing going on here. You can keep saying some women aren't women. I can keep saying some women are women. Take this into consideration and remove it from your premise. It does nothing to make your argument effective.

Not to mention, they've never seen a guy with long hair? They've never seen a sex change on tv? They've never spotted an unfortunately labeled link on a porn website? I find this, especially the third, rather hard to believe. It's one thing to argue most men don't think about it 24/7. It's another to argue they aren't even aware of it.

In the event they are not aware, they do not have any such personal feelings on the fact. It is your duty to inform them they should have an opinion because?

he demonstrates male characteristics.

Good for you.

and therefore any transexual should still be open with me

You would prefer them to do such. This is a personal belief, yes?

obviously they know that most people don't consider it

You've yet to prove most people don't consider it.

It is their own responsibility

They don't believe there is a risk.

not mine to ask.

You do believe there is something to protect yourself from.

Still, I'm not sure why you're focusing on me

Because you're the one focusing persecuting me. It's nothing personal. I don't know who you are or have a vendetta against you. You are arguing why I should go out of my way to respect yours, and therefor all strangers', feelings. I'm sharing why I am not obligated to do so.

average Joe

Who is what? What traits make up this average Joe?

deserves to be informed

Of what? The ick? People who feel entitled to information are not automatically entitled to it.

If they wanted to know, there's nothing stopping them from asking. Nothing happens to them, should they not ask. Literally, nothing.

Do you agree that the stance that some women are not women is a belief? A personal choice? A decision one deserves to make for themselves?

Are people somehow intrinsically aware of other's personal beliefs? I don't have an all seeing eye sitting in a box in my basement. While I feel its a reasonable assumption that your don't either, I cannot gather that information until I search your basement. I don't wish to be bothered to take the airplane trip to and subsequent invade your home to find out. It's not my problem whether you do or not.

It's yours. Stick up for yourself.

I'll be on your side for a second. Transsexual women are not women. Having sex unknowingly with men is harmful. How do we stop this harm?

Well, we could expect to be told.

Or, we could ask.

The latter simply seems easier. If you'd like transsexual women to be jailed for deceit. Well... gay marriage still isn't legal in the entire US. Proposition 8 happened. Majorities could easily deny a minority their right to privacy. The could force trans women to wear the mark of the beast, should you decide to. You have it in your power to definitively make it possible for transwomen to be identified. Either through some toothless threat of a law, or through just asking. Do one. I simply happen to think the latter is easier. I don't know how on earth you expect to be told anything.

Its not a matter of should it happen. Its a matter of will it happen. Or, at least that is what I meant to convey. Ask. Even if you shouldn't have to (what are you, a kindergartner?).

It benefits you, and you alone.

[–]thingsarebad-2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]QuestionsFromApple3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]QuestionsFromApple3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, I don't demand people tell others about their LIVES before having sexual relations. I demand they tell them what their ACTUAL SEX is because it is so intrinsic to one's being.

Say. This. To. Them. I don't know what else to tell you. If you don't want to, don't.

So I don't blame PUAs for lying to women, because it's always about superficial stuff.

I can't respond to this as I do not know what a PUA is. Nor, do I know what you define to be superficial.

I do however blame for transexuals by lying (even by omission) to sexual partners about who and what they REALLY are.

1) Who you think (but refuse to tell them) they really are, is what you meant.

2) There is no law against lying. If a man I was dating had Asperger's Syndrome and did not tell me, I could not claim I was lied to as I did not ask and he had no definitive knowledge I cared. It wasn't his concern.

Not a lot of people know about the condition. He could probably guess this, if he wanted. Quite frankly, the fact of the matter is I am not being physically harmed and did not care to look after what I consider to be my own well being.

You can blame other's for your inaction all you want to. Doesn't change anything.

[–]thingsarebad2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]QuestionsFromApple1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]QuestionsFromApple2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"Ignorance is not an excuse for unknowingly sleeping with a tranny."

Let's find some equally stupid things to say.

Ignorance is not an excuse for going out on a date with a rapist. You had it coming.

Ignorance is not an excuse for fucking someone who knows they have HIV. You should have asked! Your fault, don't whine about it now.

Come on, when you say something that stupid, that ignorance is no excuse, which really means that any guy who has sex with someone who passes as a woman has a responsibility to ask if they are a transexual, when transexuals who can pass as women are quite rare and not something most people would even consider, it is incredibly stupid. Do women have a responsibility to ask every guy they date if they're a rapist? I mean, rape is so common, right, more common than passing transwomen, so it should be common fucking sense that they ask, right? And if someone doesn't ask a person if they have HIV, they can't complain when they catch it - oh wait, there's legislation that makes not disclosing such a thing a CRIME.

And oh, rape, HIV, and fucking a tranny without your knowledge aren't the same? I disagree. Rape is psychological trauma, HIV results in psychological trauma, and so would unwillingly fucking a tranny. All three are betrayals; all three are WRONG; all three should be CRIMINAL.

There is no excuse for saying something so WRONG.

[–]QuestionsFromApple2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad-2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]QuestionsFromApple2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

because they're not

If I need to go down the road of why 'because I said so' isn't an argument, I can.

Otherwise, you're just putting lipstick on a pig.

Lipstick does not make people women.

You can call 'em women all you want

Yep. Cuz' we do.

even legislate it or have doctors recommend it so as not to hurt their feelings

Obviously, the United States law does not cater to personal feelings. Otherwise, you'd have your "I deserve to know anything I want without even asking!" stance legalized by now. Its kind of like no one's ever said "trans women aren't women" or "I was decieved!" before. Oh wait... :O

Angie Zapata

Gwen Araujo

A lot of people would feel deceived; it does not mean you were. A lot of people feel these murders were justified. Well, they weren't. Trans panic is not a defense. You cannot demand disclosure of anything. There are several people, in fact maybe a majority, that think trans people are crazy. Well, news flash, the law doesn't cater to personal feelings. At this point, you're really in denial.

But they're not actually women

They are actually women.

What a deluded world we live in.

We? What a deluded world you live in. Happy redditting :)

I don't care to convince you of anything. I don't care if you believe in magic corn beef and sock puppets that work without hands. I don't care whether or not you choose to believe some women aren't women. Your feelings do not matter, especially when you refuse to voice them to your partners. Do you understand that?

In fact, when this argument comes up in the future, I will not even address it. It warrants no action whatsoever. It demands people you don't know to do something they simply can't be forced to do. Any recommended action towards such beliefs is no more than a toothless threat. If you're the one feeling like some incredible emotional harm is being warranted towards you and do not wish to make any effort to prevent such (i.e. asking, cuz its just not your problem or anything... yeah), then no one can help you. I'm certainly not going to do it for you.

[–]thingsarebad-2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]QuestionsFromApple2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

As usual, I skimmed your post.

I understand you're trying to belittle me. You're, from my perspective, making yourself come off as lazy and illiterate. If you can't be bothered to read what I write, do not waste my time replying. Its that simple. I gain nothing, here.

They ARE deceived.

Feel deceived. You saying "you're wrong!" does not make anything factual.

When the obvious and assumption is that one is not a tranny

You've no right to make this assumption. That's your problem. People who happen to look really really attractive don't have to wear warning signs.

it is deception to allow one to think one is not a tranny.

How do they know you didn't think that? You didn't say anything.

you are an ideologue who will find any and every excuse to defend your backward views.

I'm not doubtful you seek to invalidate my opinions. Doesn't change much, I've said before that I stand to gain nothing from this conversation. I suggested you ask, you refuse to. You "suffer". It's not a skewed view of reality, that is what will happen. I don't care if you choose not to read things you dislike. This does not affect me.

You don't care what's right or what is true, you believe what you want to believe regardless of reality or any argument.

I'd argue that you don't care what's "right", only what's comfortable for you. I do not feel the need to justify anything "wrong" from a fundamental self-held belief. If I believed for a second that I benefited from something "wrong", I would own up to it being wrong and still do it. You're just refusing to gain information for yourself that you are aware of (you do not have an excuse) and asserting people should cater to it. Not that you're reading this, or anything. However, I don't mind wasting my own time.

No argument will ever convince you you are wrong because you are emotionally invested with a lie.

I am not emotionally invested in this lie. You are asserting a bias that does not exist. I could explain why this is, but I do not care to convince you I'm not misrepresenting information. I stand to gain nothing. You do. I've said this before. Throwing out biases that don't even exist kind of makes me laugh :) Maybe I'll do an IAMA on why this is.

Honestly I grow tired of arguing with people who promote sexual assault who obviously will never get a grasp on reality no matter what is discussed.

I promote you asking a question. Voiced non-consent and consent are two very different things. Not saying anything is a personal problem.

You cannot honestly expect people to respect opinions they do not know that you have.

All you've done to refute this is call out ulterior motives (that do not exist), play victim (men's rights? I'm not surprised), and belittle sexual violence as anything that is could be amounted to personal preference at best, and prejudice at worse.

You've basically, as I understood, said "these are facts! No one can make you believe these facts because you then you couldn't feel good about lying to men!"

I equate this with in denial religious zealots resorting to "you don't want to believe these FACTS [no matter how often you assert something is a fact, it does not make it so] becuase you're angry at my god for [insert ridiculous motive]!"

If you stop arguing, again I stand to neither gain nor lose anything.

I do not need to justify not telling someone something. My soon to be husband knows what literally amounts to everything about me. The law has not changed. The weddings still set. [insert sarcastic shock face] Why do I need to believe not telling is okay? I do not need to not tell. I don't care for you to answer this, its meant to be rhetorical.
Women will not suddenly turn into men because you think they are.
You still won't ask. You'll never find out. Unless, you have some (likely invasive) test to perform. Your refusal to communicate does not constitute ethics. That's no one's problem but your own.
Even if you do find out, you can't do much if anything about it. Or, maybe you can. As I said, this does not affect me.

I tried to look out for your best interest. You voiced that it would be a concern for you. You seem to have trouble with my argument. Identify which part of it is wrong, it may just sway me (though, as I've said, this makes no difference, I do not gain either way) to your side of the argument.

Before I drop this topic, just to entertain you, are you saying no one who is not personally invested in believing this would agree with my stance? That you can be expected to ask such things? Think about your response.

For that matter, do the people you assert are not women look like women? Yes? Then its not a reasonable assumption that anyone who looks like a woman is a woman. No? Then its not a problem.

And lastly, why on earth would it be insulting (as I presume you feel it is, as you make a note of letting me know) that you do not read things in their entirety? Does that not heighten the likelyhood that you are misunderstanding something? Is it not the equal of children sticking their fingers in they're ears and yelling "I can't hear you!" ? Just because you chose not to read it does not mean it is not there to be read, and by someone else who appreciates the concept of debate, at that.

If you don't wish to respond to me, you don't have to. If you don't wish to bed trannies, you don't have to.

[–]thingsarebad0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]QuestionsFromApple2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I thumbs-up-ed this for your intellectual honesty here

I suppose I am trying to belittle you because you say stupid things. Good call.

While, I'll still call you on unfortunate diction, at least its proof you're willing to submit to an opposing view.

I didn't read the rest except for the last sentence, which I'd like to correct.

No offense, but if you cannot be bothered to read what I write, I am fine walking away from this debate. I have repeatedly told you that I am looking out for your self interest. I have repeated that I stand to gain nothing, legally, ethically, morally, or otherwise. You are not respecting or responding to this.

be honest about it

This is a fundemental disagreement. You are asserting that transsexual women are (somehow) not women. I am asserting they are. Therefor, if you are somehow wishing to convince me (why?) or others of any opinion, then you should reconstruct your argument on a premise that is widely accepted by the opponent. You cannot persuade someone that abortion should remain legal by yelling "FETUSES DO NOT HAVE SOULS, YOU ARE STUPID" when you realize they do believe these fetuses indeed do have souls. Whether or not you respect that, you need to learn to be a mature debater and work around it.

My arguments (that you seem to disagree with but have not identified which of these you disagree with or why):

Some transsexual women are women. Assuming a man's is heterosexual, he is attracted to and engages in sex with women. Therefor, they are not obligated to disclose that they are, in fact, women.
Even if you don't believe they are women, assumptions are not a defense. If you walk up to a very feminine man in the gym, he doesn't have to say anything. You made an assumption. It was wrong.
People have no way of surveying and collecting information on other's opinions without influencing them in some way. You cannot know whether someone wishes not to have sex with some women for whatever reason. If feelings go unvoiced, it is no one's particular obligation to find out. I don't know what my Homeroom teacher's stance on gay marriage is. I don't care to find out. Should he disclose to me that he does not support it, I would be offended. Why? Because. However, I knew it was a possibility he could disagree with homosexual civil rights. I chose not to ask. This is a concept that is widely accepted, called personal responsibility. I feel adults should be independent enough to handle their own beliefs. Period.
You aren't obligated to respect people's personal beliefs, in the first place. You do not have to care. If I draw the prophet, Muhammad, people may be offended. I am aware they may be offended. I do not have to care, even if I am standing outside a mosque with my canvas and paint. Other people do not have to respect your beliefs, even if they did definitively know you had them.
Rape is a form of sexual violence. It is sex as a weapon. Not sexual trickery. Not a prank gone wrong. Not sex when "I didn't know __ beforehand". That guy from the Zapata case did not exactly get off on a defense of "I was tricked." Neither he nor his lawyer claimed he was somehow forced to have sex with physical violence.

I don't care if you want to have sex with transsexual women, transvestites, or transgender people in general. This does not directly affect me in any feasible fashion. I care about truth. I care about justice. Evil is a loaded and subjective word. But, as I said, you don't wish to do anything anyways. If you refuse to ask, its not my problem. Or anyone elses. If your issue is that most people don't know to ask, then awareness is the issue. Pick your evils clearly and decisively.

And, on a sidenote, stop acting like this is somehow personal for me. It's not. You have repeatedly accused me of bias and ideology when you are the one who exhibit these things (the expectations that you know what is right, and that people will decisively agree with you are pretty "ideal"). Honestly, you sound like a child watching a corny anime.

Even if you were being harmed, you and everyone else have it in your power to mitigate this. Your only argument is "I shouldn't have to". Well:

1) not everyone agrees with you.

2) That's your only feasible option. Your only weapon of defense. Knowledge.

Either ask, or don't. You are making a conscious choice to do one or the other. Neither affects anyone but you.

[–]thingsarebad-2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's not personal for me either. I would have no qualms about having sex with a transexual, though I would certainly feel betrayed if they lied about it.

The fact is, taking hormones and having surgery DOES NOT CHANGE YOUR PHYSICAL SEX. This is absolutely undeniable.

Lying to one's partner about one's physical sex is a betrayal, and likely sexual assault.

I am only saying this because I value truth over delusions. It is delusional to believe that it's okay to trick someone into sleeping with you when you are a born a man, physically, for example, and have had an operation to APPEAR to be a woman. A person is NOT a woman after surgery anymore than a dwarf on stilts is tall, and just as I don't blame women for liking men who are REALLY taller than them, I don't blame anyone for not wanting to have sex with someone who isn't REALLY the opposite sex. It's incredibly absurd and deluded, and the fact that anyone could think otherwise is truly a testament to how screwed up this society is.

[–]QuestionsFromApple2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

though I would certainly feel betrayed if they lied about it.

Then, it is personal for you, as this is the topic we are discussing. I would not feel betrayed, albeit, slightly put off, by having sex with a guy who was a postop transman. As far as casual sex goes, that's a hell of a lot of trust. Whether or not someone feels betrayed is their problem. You have the power to mitigate this by simply inquiring information.

DOES NOT CHANGE YOUR PHYSICAL SEX

1) Define physical sex.

2) I'd argue that it does alter all physical characteristics to that of the desired sex. How is that not changing your sex? That is actively what you are doing, hence the term sex change.

3) Not all transsexual women need to alter their genitals. Ponder away at this and identify some misconceptions you may have.

Lying to one's partner about one's physical sex is a betrayal,

This is an emotional crime at best. It is not tantamount to sex as violence. Period. I expect such comments from men's rights. However, no matter how opposed you are to having sex with trans women, lying does not equal rape. Rape is a serious and violent act. I will not respect having it denounced to not having a prejudice met.

a dwarf on stilts is tall

No, but a dwarf who grows 3 feet taller is not a dwarf. Whether or not medicine is used to accomplish this is irrelevant. The dwarf is not by definition any longer a dwarf. Choosing to believe so and asserting it as fact is delusional.

REALLY the opposite sex

I resent your diction, though I do not oppose this either. Are you accusing me of yet another (imaginary) ulterior motive?

It's incredibly absurd and deluded, and the fact that anyone could think otherwise is truly a testament to how screwed up this society is.

The Westboro Baptist Church feels the same way. I'm not even kidding. Scary how much you have in common with bigots, yes?

Please reread the post I made before, as you have not responded to anything I have said. You are needlessly repeating yourself and wasting my time. Take any qualms you have with reality to your preferred deity. Denying reality [that you cannot pick which women are and are not such and expect everyone to agree because you said so] and spinning it to make it so I am doing so due to my [non-existant] ulterior motives is a testament to how truly screwed up you are.

I will not reply to you repeating the same thing again and again. I am happy to engage you in debate, but I've been given a limited amount of time on the internet. If you would like to discuss how some women aren't women, please take it to some LGBT subreddit. Read the response I previously made, specifically catering to your point of view, and either acknowledge and reply to them in a scholarly manner (i.e. with the intent to gain new insight, not whine about how people don't respect your opinions) I will happily respond.

[–]thingsarebad-2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]QuestionsFromApple3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I see. Well, its easy to say "you're wrong". It's easy to assert your opinions as facts. Its a lot more difficult to factually respond to questions posed to you and disprove them beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't know anything about them

That is my fault for assuming you were American. Sorry about that. I will still cite instances in US legal rulings due to the concept of common law.

even bigots sometimes say things that are true

No, because then, they would no longer be what we call bigots. Pretending your personal opinions are undeniable facts (denial?), possessing a radical expectation of near universal agreement (strength in numbers), and refusing to pursue/entertain any other viewpoint (shutting one'self down) are the elements of bigotry that breed bigots.

You, sir, have gotten nothing "right". I don't think this has been a factual discussion at all. You've certainly not been able to cite any unbiased source that says "some women are still men, here's why". I can present cites that say trans women are women, but its more convinient for me if you simply head over to r/asktransgender and engage the scholars there.

You have not presented any court rulings in your favor, allowing for what is essentially discrimination of privacy rights in a minority of women (that some women MUST tell someone something, but not others). But, where is my proof that you don't have to tell? Well I can't offer that either. But, should you not tell and something happen, you're still going to prison. What Happened to those guys That Killed Gwen Araujo

What happened to the Murderer of Angie Zapata

Why You Do Have to ask if You Care

Why No One is obligated either legally or ethically to respect your personal feelings on anything

Your only argument is that some men, the ones who've somehow never been to an internet porn website or seen Ugly Betty reruns, do not always think of this as a possibility. Nay, in fact they don't even know this is a possibility, in fact! They assume that those who you equate only look like women are women! And these women must respect that?! I rebutted that ignorance is a symptom of another problem, not an excuse and not a warrant for disclosure of private information without even so much as a request. You loosely quoted what I said & rebutted "well that's stupid! You're stupid for thinking that!" Then, you called out a bunch of biases that, should I choose to do an IAMA to disprove, only make you look biased and unable to defend your position in light of reality.

So yeah. Good Luck with that, sir.

Ask.

[–]thingsarebad-19 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

See the following: http://www.reddit.com/r/ButterflyPhobia/

So in order to be proven right I need court rulings and perhaps some cited studies to prove that surgery and hormones don't magically transform a person into something else?

If I taped plastic wings to my shoulders then unless you could prove otherwise through court rulings and cited sources, I really AM a butterfly. And if you disagree, you're a bigot. And dumb! Rawwrrr!

Look. Some people have common sense. Some people don't. Why should I argue with you when you clearly don't have any? No matter what I say you will insist that if I am a butterfly if I say I am.

flap flap Those are my wings.

whoosh whoosh bzzz - That's butterfly for "I already had 'conversations' with a few of your vacuous comrades and there's really nothing more I can say or do to argue further."

whoosh bzzz - "From now on I'd appreciate it if you'd address me as 'Master Sergeant Naughty Butterfly'. I find the human concept of pronouns offensive and I am a Master Sergeant in the butterfly community (and naughty)."

bzzz bzzz whoosh zap - "Also it's my potential sexual partner's responsibility to ask if I'm a butterfly before engaging in sex with me - if they don't, they have only themselves to blame if they don't like my antennae up their rears or my sequestered plant toxins in their mouths."

[–]QuestionsFromApple8 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This "response", if one could call it such, as it responds to nothing, is ridiculous.

So in order to be proven right I need court rulings and perhaps some cited studies to prove that surgery and hormones don't magically transform a person into something else?

Yes. I'm shocked you're even asking that. Is this unreasonable?

common sense

I'd assert the above is common sense. Facts are not facts if you cannot prove them. They are opinions. Personally held convictions. Things you think, not know. That is common sense.

If I taped plastic wings to my shoulders then unless you could prove otherwise through court rulings and cited sources, I really AM a butterfly.

Butterflies are not human beings with plastic wings. That is not a sound comparison in any manner, whatsoever. I'd assert that you know this, but I can't read your mind and inductive reasoning leads me to believe you might not. That's sad. You must be American. Only an American school can manage to bastardize critical thinking and effective comparison techniques to allow someone to so much as type something like that in good faith. That's an opinion, just so you can start to pick up on the difference.

Some people have common sense. Some people don't. Why should I argue with you when you clearly don't have any?

Did I just compare irreversible, legally defined sex altering surgery to plastic wings on another species? Nope. I'd assert its those who think they are smarter than everyone else in the world that lack common sense. And, seeing as you believe you know better than any reputable scientific organization, you fall into that category. Therefor, you lack common sense. <-----See that? If you bothered to read it, since your time is just that valuable. That's called a syllogism. You use it BEFORE you make an argument to prevent saying stupid things and getting nothing accomplished.

"Also it's my potential sexual partner's responsibility to ask if I'm a butterfly before engaging in sex with me - if they don't, they have only themselves to blame if they don't like my antennae up their rears or my sequestered plant toxins in their mouths

I don't understand the reference, here. I understand you are patronizing the conditions of other human beings. But, toxins in your mouth? Do you have some kind of insect fetish? Don't answer that.

So, to summarize my response:

You cannot prove what you assert are facts. Things that you believe to be true but cannot factually prove are called opinions. Therefore, you have an opinion.

Do you disagree with either premise or that the conclusion is not the only one that could be drawn?

People cannot know what your opinion is without asking. No one can respect an opinion they do not know that you have. Therefore, if you do not voice your opinion, no one can respect it.

Ditto to these premises and the following conclusion.

You seem to be the one denying reality, logic, and rationality. I can fly with my wings too ;) Just don't ask me to prove it or anything :O

I will not respond to crap, mudslinging, and outright slander again. Being that this is a public forum of debate, I cannot stop you from voicing your opinions (as I have used logic to prove they are such). However, I will not entertain your desire to repeat your outlandish claims of ethics without bringing any factual evidence to support any such thing.

Do not mistake this as admission- that I cannot prove you wrong, if I desired to do such. I simply have lost my patience. Because I wish for you to be educated and therefor able to make these "informed decisions" you claim people have a right to (this is not even in the Constitution, is it?), I will even go as far as to cater to your desire to educate you on things you have made no inquiry about. I am linking this conversation to r/transphobiaproject where, hopefully, one of the members will be able to remain civil (as you are now refusing to do) and inform you of why this argument is not even an argument. I, personally, am fine with debating a view point. But, when I have to make your position for you, I draw the line. You have displayed a dismal education (again, I blame your local schooling system, not you) and an ineptitude for logic and rationale. You simply wish for everyone to agree with you, because you said so. Am I wrong? You, therefor, are not worth my time. In fact, you are not worth the data transfer required to post this response.

[–]thingsarebad-13 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]QuestionsFromApple6 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad-9 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Oh, I'm certainly not trolling.

Like I've already said, a man with wings strapped to his back is as much a butterfly as a man who has surgery to change his penis into something resembling a vagina is a woman.

Accept reality or forever remain unable to accept yourself for who you are.

Go argue with this guy if you want, he actually takes the time to rebut obvious bullshit, whereas I do not have the patience: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/kjohp/from_the_moderators_please_welcome_the_newest/c2l7t5n?context=3

I really do think it is sad that people like you cannot accept who you are. Being a rather odd duck myself, I like to think that if I were born with a gender identity crisis, I could accept who I am, rather than hating myself and everyone else, which is exactly what you are doing. These healthy types of transexuals DO exist, mind you.

[–]QuestionsFromApple3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad-9 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]haywire 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IBDPhoenix 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]kragshot 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]IBDPhoenix 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]kragshot 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Fair enough.

The issue of revelation is one that is going to be a point of contention in here with some folks. I had a "discussion" with "throwawaydirl" trying to just understand it.

That is one viewpoint that is going to take time to overcome with some folks. Suffice it to say that there are some of us in here who will not agree with you and your peers on that one.

For the record, I respect the reasons that have been presented for not revealing birth sex. I honestly do not know if I am totally fine with not revealing that info to a potential long-term sexual partner, but I do respect and understand the viewpoint. As I said to "Throwawaydirl," I understand that the surgery "simply" allows transpeople to finish becoming what they already were inside. For all purposes except reproduction, they have become their apparent sex. Because of that, "why should the surgery matter" to a partner. As I said to her, I get it. But it's going to be a hard sell to quite a few others....

[–]IBDPhoenix 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It is a hard sell. It's probably one of the most difficult positions to defend that I support, but I try to have very good reasons for it. I also understand that with proper medical treatment and without discrimination, that quite a number of people (myself included) would have dealt with this before puberty, which makes it, in my eyes, more of a non-issue. If no one acquires the label "male" then acquiring the label "female" later probably wouldn't seem so bad to many. Ironically though, the only way that medical treatment has improved is with people forming communities and adopting "trans" as an identity.

Edit: It's still hypocritical to say that "everyone is welcome" then delete posts by certain groups you disagree with for responding in a like manner. Had they at least deleted both, it would be harder to say anything.

[–]thingsarebad -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]IBDPhoenix -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago* (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago* (33 children) | Copy Link

You don't have the right to determine what other people are for them.

Agree! But I do have the right to determine what other people are FOR ME.

Sorry, but the primary "concerns" I've heard from transwomen who troll here are 1) Call me a woman, even though I'm not technically a woman! If not you're scared of transexuals and you hate me! Wahh!, 2) If I want to sleep with a man without informing him that I'm a transwoman, not a woman, it's my right, and if you oppose this you are just scared of me again and you still hate me! Wahhh!

I respect transexuals to be whoever they want to be, to do what they want with their bodies. But I reserve the right not to call people who I don't respect women. Transwomen who constantly whine about how they're women and if I don't agree I hate them or about how it's okay to mislead men about who and what they actually are: I won't call them women. Transwomen who aren't so fucking nuts, I'll gladly be courteous to them and call them women. But it's my choice, and it doesn't make me a bigot no matter how much certain people would like to play the victim and scream bigotry.

I don't respect people who would lie to potential sexual partners in such a serious way, and yes, not indicating that you're a transwoman IS lying by ommission, and a very serious lie at that. It's sexual assault to boot. And no, that's not because I hate transexuals, it's because I respect people's right to decide for themselves what kind of person they want to sleep with, man, woman, or otherwise. It's unfortunate that some people are born a certain way, but that doesn't mean they are immune to the same accountability that everyone else has, or that I will excuse sadistic behavior.

Honestly I have seen a great deal of bigotry from transexual trolls here. Screaming "transphobia" every time someone doesn't wish to have sex with a transexual or doesn't wish to call someone something they're technically not IS BIGOTRY.

If don't run around harassing lesbians calling them "manphobic" and then claiming victimhood.

Healthy transexuals need to accept who they are and accept that some people don't want to fuck them, just as everyone else needs to do. I am what I am, and some people don't want to fuck me. I can deal with it without hating everyone and claiming everyone hates me and is "me-phobic". It's called sanity.

There are sane transexuals out there, and a few of them are MRAs. But most of the people who take issue and scream "transphobia" that I've seen on Reddit are not the sane type.

Of course, that's not to say everyone who screams "transphobia" is a transexual, but it is to say that none of them are sane. The perpetual victim thing is a common theme, and mentally unstable people attract to it: for example, the type of people who support special privileges for women (victims) or affirmative action for blacks (victims).

People who subscribe to victimhood in order to gain special privileges often want to bolster the effect of claiming victimhood by agreeing with other purported victims. As an MRA, I won't use victimhood in order to gain special privileges.

But many of the transexual trolls on Reddit do try.

[–]IBDPhoenix 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

A trans woman is a woman. Transgender is not an identity -- at best it's something you go through. 1 in 100 people have some sort of gender issue, whether they know it or not. (And many don't.) To pick one of those issues and say that these people are ok to discriminate against is not right. It's a medical issue. You deal with it and move on with your life. You don't become it. The reason that there is a community at all has everything to do with discrimination -- not identity.

Further, you don't respect other people by telling them what or who they are. There is more than enough variation in the category "women" to include people who have transitioned. Medically they are women. To them they are women. Only to people who would box and label them transsexuals would they be anything else, but that doesn't change the fact that they are defined as women. You just don't like the definition.

You should be very honest about that in relationships if you think hiding anything is dishonest. Ironically, taking responsibility for your own beliefs would solve your fears too.

[+]thingsarebad -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago* (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]IBDPhoenix3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I say so, and most people have the same understanding, as is quite natural and sane.

Most people? No, sorry. This is you pretending reality is something it is not. Which is fine, many do it. (maybe even most) But it doesn't make them right. Edit: If you think popularity should change your mind, consider your negative popularity here.

If you look at how man/woman is actually defined in human beings, it's not as simple as you would like to make it out to be. And the people that study such things say that a woman who has transitioned is still a woman. One of the places that this has actually been studied is for sports testing, ie the Olympics. The found such variation in human beings that they couldn't reasonably exclude women who had transitioned -- and they don't. They are women as defined by the reality of human existence and its careful study.

The "fear" I was talking about was your fear of sleeping with someone who transitioned. Trying to call my attempts to address your issues "bigotry" is laughable. (Haha, see?) And what anger?

[–]thingsarebad-3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IBDPhoenix6 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kabukistar-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IBDPhoenix3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kabukistar2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IBDPhoenix4 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad-2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IBDPhoenix5 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IBDPhoenix3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad-2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IBDPhoenix2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IBDPhoenix1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IBDPhoenix1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not narrowing my definition to "exclude" them. I'm merely saying they're not men or women because they're not. You are attempting to broaden the definition of men and women to include intersex. Welcome to reality.

Treating intersex as male or female when they're not would be unnecessarily discriminating by forcing someone to fall into a single sex category, which would deny them adequate treatment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male

Most mammals, including humans, are genetically determined as such by the XY sex-determination system where males have an XY (as opposed to XX) sex chromosome. It is also possible in a variety of species, including human beings, to be XXY or have other intersex/hermaphroditic qualities. These qualities are widely reported to be as common as redheadedness (about 2% of the population).[2] During reproduction, a male can give either an X sperm or a Y sperm, while a female can only give an X egg. A Y sperm and an X egg produce a boy, while an X sperm and an X egg produce a girl.

[–]IBDPhoenix0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad-5 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IBDPhoenix2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IBDPhoenix1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]A_Pathological_Liar0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IBDPhoenix2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]A_Pathological_Liar-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And exactly who are you to proclaim what is reality and not perception? You toss that phrase around so casually and condescendingly as if the people you are talking to don't have some vested interest in reality.

There's a certain level of ambiguity when dealing with transsexuals, and the core of the problem is perception. You advocate for a grey area where personal perception(and outwardly, the perception of others) to define genders. The opposite idea here being uniformity through a singular definition of the term.

Quite frankly, I don't care much about the subject. It is barely relevant to Men's Rights. The only reason I've said anything at all is because I have a particular disdain for how dismissive you became once someone pointed out that you believe in two separate conflicting(Being in between, yet having a defined place) ideas.

Personally I remember you trolling many trans threads.

How far back to you remember? Once upon a time, I didn't troll trans-concerned posts. I engaged in thoughtful discussion hoping to learn more, and wound up getting bitten in the ass.

These days? I bet it certainly looks like that. To be fair, I'm trolling specific people, and those people happen to be trans, or people who post in R/TPP. I'm fairly selective about it.

[–]Underfolder 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]amyts 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]A_Nihilist -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]A_Nihilist 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]A_Nihilist 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlyoshaV 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago* (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago* (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlyoshaV 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I chose a co-mod that would disagree with me on issues because I didn't think that a circle-jerk of mods was either effective or appropriate. I don't expect to see eye-to-eye with AnnArchist on every topic, but that should have no effect on his ability as a moderator.

What people don't seem to understand is that moderating is more like a job than it is a prestige title. The people who represent the Men's Rights Movement best are the people like Glenn Sacks, Pierce Harlan and Paul Elam - the people who have blogs supporting the cause, who write their own material advocating for issues, and who spend their time fighting public issues. Being a moderator of a subreddit isn't being a leader, it is being a janitor.

Kloo2yoo was very effective at being both a janitor and an advocate for Men's Rights. But he can be an advocate for Men's Rights without being a moderator, and he could have been a moderator without being an advocate for Men's Rights.

I really don't care to listen to anyone who doesn't understand that, and I will continue to be derisive of people who show such a lack of understanding.

[–]AlyoshaV 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlyoshaV 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

a) you are taking context out of his comments

the context: a 15 year old girl (a victim of sexual assault, and with neglectful parents) has sex with men, they get arrested for statutory rape

AnnArchist's solution: kill her

the context: a judge sentences an 18 year old to eight years in prison for graffiti without the chance of parole

AnnArchist's solution: kill her

the context: a woman has falsely accused men of rape at least four times

AnnArchist's solution: kill her

welp he looks pretty shitty in context too

b) his views don't affect his moderation

beep boop annarchist's a robot

a large group of the population support murder as a valid self-defense

first of all, none of those were self defense. like, in any way, at all. he was suggesting vigilante murder. secondly, by definition, murder is not self defense. if it's self defense then it isn't murder.

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlyoshaV 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NiceGuysSTFU -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlyoshaV 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]bbeard 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlyoshaV 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]bbeard 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlyoshaV-2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bbeard4 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NiceGuysSTFU 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlyoshaV 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NiceGuysSTFU 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]NiceGuysSTFU 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fliksan 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]flip69 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRealPariah 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRealPariah -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRealPariah -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRealPariah -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheRealPariah0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheRealPariah1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheRealPariah1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheRealPariah1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheRealPariah1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheRealPariah1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheRealPariah1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheRealPariah1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheRealPariah1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheRealPariah1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheRealPariah1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Offensive_Brute -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]NotTheHumanTornado -12 points-11 points-10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hardwarequestions 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]hardwarequestions 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]vorpalsword92 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlyoshaV 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NiceIce0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Youre_So_Pathetic -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]gprime 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Youre_So_Pathetic -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]luciansolaris 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]G-O -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]darkamir -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]Blaidd_Dwrg -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]therealbarackobama -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]A_Nihilist 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]therealbarackobama -13 points-12 points-11 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]A_Nihilist 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]A_Nihilist 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]A_Nihilist 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]vintermann 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ENTP -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]thingsarebad -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]vintermann 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]AlyoshaV -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlyoshaV 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlyoshaV 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thingsarebad 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bbeard -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 14 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mugsnj 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -15 points-14 points-13 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]NBRA -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola[S] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	From the Moderators: Please welcome the newest moderator of r/MensRights
Author	ignatiusloyola
Upvotes	30
Comments	459
Date	September 18, 2011 6:26 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/kjohp/from_the_moderators_please_welcome_the_newest/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/from-the-moderators-please-welcome-the-newest.1034488 https://theredarchive.com/post/1034488

Comments

It's yours. Stick up for yourself.