# Honesty in a relationship is a PRIVILEGE, not a right



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

This isn't a satirical position at all. I just decided to hijack Swordsman of Mana's title.

When I was going through the "http://personalitycafe.com/sex-rela...ut-your-s-o-liked-dress-women-s-clothing.html" thread, I had observed some of the responses, and saw issue with them.

Even if these responses weren't explicitly femmephobic or transphobic, they were filled with ignorance of how exactly trans women or gender non-conforming men work.

A lot of the cis women in the thread stated they were upset that their partners wouldn't be honest with them.

The fact of the matter is, rationally, there are multiple reasons why a trans woman wouldn't be honest with you. You don't have to go far to see that reason. In fact, look at the thread. The response of around 40% of cis women spells out the tip of the iceberg.

Some of them said they would outright dump an assigned male at birth partner for wearing makeup or a dress. One time, out of curiosity or just liking the thrill. One comment in particular considered these people mentally ill for not having the gender they were assigned at birth. Other comments gave me the impression that these women, if faced with that scenario, would get upset with someone for coming out to them as trans.

In a world where cis people in general have the ability to really fuck up any gender non-conforming person's life for the worse, you have to go above and beyond to prove to your husband or wife that you are not like that. That doesn't mean that you have to stay with them, but at least understand where they're coming from.

Trust is a fragile thing, and it is slowly gained through empathy and compassion. The idea of compulsory honesty in a relationship is not an empathetic view. It doesn't take into account that society at large is still transphobic, and trans people face harassment for simply trying to pee. A common thread between many LGBTQ individuals is that they have the risk of losing their loved ones permanently by coming out, and forcing them to come out through some twisted view of honesty is extremely awful.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

I'd date someone bi, neutral, ect . With ONE requirement: if they're with me it's just me. No one else regardless of gender. If I came home & my SO was in my clothes I think I'd be amused.... Is that terrible? If it was an ongoing thing we may have to talk about it, but leaving someone for that is odd. 

That said, I slightly do have a fear that I'd end up completely in love with a man who was completely gay & in denial. That would fucking suck....

HOWEVER:  honesty & loyalty are the two most important things in a relationship to me. SO if they hid something that big (more than just a one time: I was curious), I'd be upset and hurt. I'd be hurt because after everything they knew about me they wouldn't trust me to be open and accepting and not judge. If they don't believe that about me then I'd question why we were together... And I'd question what else they were hiding. 

If however: they were upfront, I wouldn't be judgemental & would really try it understand/ work things out.

and id prob be a sick fuck & suggest role playing as each other. XD


----------



## sink (May 21, 2014)

If my partner would leave me because I'm not the most feminine of females or because of my sexual orientation, I wouldn't want to be with them anyway. I'd rather not date someone that is such a traditionalist in their thinking and holds on to gender stereotypes for dear life.

There's always going to be people out there that would rather be in a delusional relationship than an honest one. But there is also people that truly want an honest relationship and that want to be open about who they are with their partner. Personally, I want to be who I really am in a relationship and not have to hide certain things for fear of abandonment.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Torai said:


> This isn't a satirical position at all. I just decided to hijack Swordsman of Mana's title.
> 
> When I was going through the "http://personalitycafe.com/sex-rela...ut-your-s-o-liked-dress-women-s-clothing.html" thread, I had observed some of the responses, and saw issue with them.
> 
> ...


*outside of a relationship:* yes, just like whether or not one is out of the closet is their own choice (for reasons of safety and privacy)
*inside of a relationship:*...um....NO. if I am dating a biological male with gender disphoria, I deserve to know that, because I want to date a male, not a female. if you are not prepared to be honest about who you are with your partner, don't date them.


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

If you commit to someone, it is your duty and responsibility to be open and honest with them. It is their right to know the things about you that could impact the relationship greatly, as their time, energy, and finances are also on the line. Why be in a relationship where you hide something like being gay or cross dressing? Just to be in a relationship? By withholding that information from a potential partner, you are willingly opening them up to possible hurt and criticism. 

Be open with the person, if they don't want to be with you after the fact, then it wasn't going to work out anyways, and you would be better off finding someone who you are compatible with from the start.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> *outside of a relationship:* yes, just like whether or not one is out of the closet is their own choice (for reasons of safety and privacy)
> *inside of a relationship:*...um....NO. if I am dating a biological male with gender disphoria, I deserve to know that, because I want to date a male, not a female. if you are not prepared to be honest about who you are with your partner, don't date them.


Actually, no, you don't. If someone dumps you without telling you, it is not your obligation to know their life.

Trans people who are out open themselves up to violence. It's a fact. How does she know you're not gonna blab your mouth? How does she know you're not going to go insane and beat her (because apparently trans panic is a thing)?


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Apolo said:


> If you commit to someone, it is your duty and responsibility to be open and honest with them. It is their right to know the things about you that could impact the relationship greatly, as their time, energy, and finances are also on the line. Why be in a relationship where you hide something like being gay or cross dressing? Just to be in a relationship? By withholding that information from a potential partner, you are willingly opening them up to possible hurt and criticism.
> 
> Be open with the person, if they don't want to be with you after the fact, then it wasn't going to work out anyways, and you would be better off finding someone who you are compatible with from the start.


Not everyone knows before the relationship. If a trans person dumped the other person without explanation taking that into account, would you have the same point of view?

First of all, crossdressing and drag isn't a big deal. It has no impact on a relationship. People do it for fun a lot of the time. Being transgender does have an impact, but you probably don't think that exists, so this conversation really doesn't apply to you.

Say a woman was a feminist and secretly went to suffragette meetings in the 1900's. Would she be obligated to tell her husband that?


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Honesty is hard because we have to evaluate whether or not we can trust someone enough to disclose personal information that makes us feel vulnerable. That being said--I feel like it's a good idea to be able to trust your partner enough to be honest with them. A relationship that is lacking in trust and honesty isn't going to have a very strong connection or much true intimacy.

The foundation of a relationship is choice. We choose to be in it. When we obscure the truth, we are limiting the power of the other person's choice. It weakens the relationship because people aren't exposing who they are...and so it is unclear who their partner is choosing to be with. Besides, they may accept us, and lying doesn't give them that chance.

I could say the same thing about other secrets. But the best feeling is when a person knows your vulnerabilities, accepts you anyway, and nurtures and cares for the entire you.

We never have to open up and express these kind of things to people we can't trust. Because someone could ruin your reputation or do other hurtful or emotionally abusive things to you if they know you cross dress. But the people who would do that do not deserve to be in a relationship with you anyway.

I absolutely agree we have the right to keep personal, vulnerable information secret. And we should when it could endanger us for no other reason than many of the population might be fuck-wads who abuse others out of ignorance and intolerance. But I do not need a relationship bad enough to be in one with someone who like that, or someone who would not choose to be with me with full knowledge.

It's hard because many people don't want to disclose that they are sexist, trans-phobic, or whatever other quality, while many people don't want to disclose that they violate or break gender rules because they don't want to be unjustly treated. So it seems like talking about core value issues like this is a good idea in the beginning of getting to know someone. Talking about transgender issues and feminism, and seeing where people stand on these issues before trusting pre-maturely or revealing potentially dangerous info.

It's funny because some dating experts say to steer clear of political/social topics that are polarized while dating. But that's ridiculous because they reveal core values and also potential dangers. After being slut shamed and emotionally abused by my ex, I never want to pre-maturely trust someone like that again. I am now afraid and ashamed of disclosing my sexual history (including losing my virginity to date rape) to a future partner, and so I am not trying to dismiss your position about honesty and trust. But I also dont want to be with someone like my ex, and so hopefully getting a better feeling for the values of a potential partners might help me to avoid misplacing trust like that again.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

Torai said:


> This isn't a satirical position at all. I just decided to hijack Swordsman of Mana's title.
> 
> When I was going through the "http://personalitycafe.com/sex-rela...ut-your-s-o-liked-dress-women-s-clothing.html" thread, I had observed some of the responses, and saw issue with them.
> 
> ...



For the most part I agree with you, but I do think that honestly and vulnerability and trust are all important in a relationship. I would not expect for someone to come out right away and say, "I like dressing in women's/men's clothes", because it takes time to trust and open up and they need their partner to be patient and non-judgemental about it and will to go at their pace, but I can understand, why, after being in a relationship for years, that one would feel hurt that they did not tell them sooner. That said, I suppose when there is fear, or that we are ashamed of ourselves it can be hard to open up, and I do think sharing about being transexual or even just liking women's clothing is not the same as lying about other things (such as anything from lying to breaking a dish to cheating), because one is about not being ready to open up and earning that trust and the other is about avoiding consequences for wrong actions, so I don't agree with the people who said trust would be broken, persay, but I do understand that they may not feel like there is complete openness in their relationship and, after a time, I'm not sure that it is really okay if you are leading your partner to believe that they know everything about you. This may be hard and unfair, but I think it would be important to say, "Listen, there is one more thing about me, that I am not willing to share just yet, and I am asking you to be patient with me".


That all said, I suppose one could say that a relationship is a privileges as well and each person can define their own terms for what they want in a relationship or be single. What I mean is, although I disagree with it, if someone does not want to be with someone because they cross dress, I may question whether they actually loved their partner and I would feel that that is wrong, but, if said person would rather be single, then that is their right (I may think less of them, but a relationship is a "privilege" (although there are people who don't want a romantic relationship at all, but I mean privilege as not a right or really even something that is earned, it is something that two parties choose to give each other usually based on a perceived connection).


----------



## Strayfire (Jun 26, 2010)

Apolo said:


> If you commit to someone, it is your duty and responsibility to be open and honest with them. It is their right to know the things about you that could impact the relationship greatly, as their time, energy, and finances are also on the line. Why be in a relationship where you hide something like being gay or cross dressing? Just to be in a relationship? By withholding that information from a potential partner, you are willingly opening them up to possible hurt and criticism.
> 
> Be open with the person, if they don't want to be with you after the fact, then it wasn't going to work out anyways, and you would be better off finding someone who you are compatible with from the start.


It's just hard. 

How's this for a pickup line?

"Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy but I'm trans... so call me maybe?"

Tell them too early - the majority freak out and run away. Ruin your public image.

Tell them too late - they accuse you of being dishonest. Ruin your public image.

I doubt there's even a right time for you to tell someone.

You have to scope them out. Estimate how they'd react.

Some people will react with a great deal of prejudice. Make the transperson a subject of derision to the wider community. 

I don't believe there is a win-win solution for either side. It's truly quite difficult for most people to accept their partner is trans. Conversely it is extraordinarily difficult to muster the courage to tell people how you feel about your gender. 

^.^


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

If you can't be honest with your partner, you don't deserve a partner. Having a partner is a PRIVILEGE, not a right.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Torai said:


> Not everyone knows before the relationship.


in that case, they have a responsibility to tell their partner about it after taking a reasonable amount of time to come to terms with it themselves.



> If a trans person dumped the other person without explanation taking that into account, would you have the same point of view?


yes. ideally, they would say something like "it's not you, it's a personal issue", but if they wish to break up for reasons they wish not to disclose, that is there business.



> First of all, crossdressing and drag isn't a big deal. It has no impact on a relationship. People do it for fun a lot of the time. Being transgender does have an impact, but you probably don't think that exists, so this conversation really doesn't apply to you.


cross dressing/drag is not a big deal, you are correct (hell, I know a few cisgender, hero. being a different gender than what you partner things you are; however, is.



> Say a woman was a feminist and secretly went to suffragette meetings in the 1900's. Would she be obligated to tell her husband that?


no, because that is irrelevant.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> in that case, they have a responsibility to tell their partner about it after taking a reasonable amount of time to come to terms with it themselves.
> 
> yes. ideally, they would say something like "it's not you, it's a personal issue", but if they wish to break up for reasons they wish not to disclose, that is there business.


Damned if you do, damned if you don't. That's the world trans people live in.

I did not mean to express that someone should stay in a relationship with another person if they're trans or that a trans person has carte blanche to lie and trap someone in a lavender marriage. It was mainly to express a climate of very restricted gender roles that those who are assigned male at birth face due to femmephobia.

I don't approve of lavender marriages. However, I also don't approve of the person who's cis or straight to demand that the other partner reveal their sexual identity or gender role. I was troubled that people were using the "honesty" line to shame others into outing themselves.



> cross dressing/drag is not a big deal, you are correct (hell, I know a few cisgender, hero. being a different gender than what you partner things you are; however, is.
> 
> no, because that is irrelevant.


My response to Apolo is not the same as my response to you. From the conversations I've had with him, he is a fundamentalist Christian who believes homosexuality is a sin against God and most likely doesn't believe trans people even exist. Crossdressing is irrelevant to the relationship other than to the opinion of people who have a bias against it, like if a woman is a suffragette, and that was my point to him.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

Honesty is always better than lying. I think people have a right to know what they are getting, because if they lie on something, how it works, is "the truth hurts," they don't seem to realize the other half of that saying, "but, it will set you free," so they lie to cover up the original lie. Then they need to lie some more, to cover up that lie, so it is a downward slope. What makes it bad, is the person lying has a lot of pride at stake, they don't want to lose that pride, so they lie, to others, but, by lying to others, you are deceiving others, and, that may go against their value system, because, they put stock in your story, but, your story is one big fabrication. So, when others find out, they feel hurt, and, used, for another person's agenda. That's why lying in a relationship, no matter how small, is wrong.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Torai said:


> Damned if you do, damned if you don't. That's the world trans people live in. I did not mean to express that someone should stay in a relationship with another person if they're trans or that a trans person has carte blanche to lie and trap someone in a lavender marriage. It was mainly to express a climate of very restricted gender roles that those who are assigned male at birth face due to femmephobia.


"femmephobia?" is that the hip way of saying "patriarchy" these days :tongue:



> I don't approve of lavender marriages. However, I also don't approve of the person who's cis or straight to demand that the other partner reveals their sexual identity or gender role. I was troubled that people were using the "honesty" line to shame others into outing themselves.


then, like I said, they should date someone who understands them, accepts them and, most importantly, is attracted to their real self. 



> My response to Apolo is not the same as my response to you. From the conversations I've had with him, he is a fundamentalist Christian who believes homosexuality is a sin against God and most likely doesn't believe trans people even exist. Crossdressing is irrelevant to the relationship other than to the opinion of people who have a bias against it, and that was my point to him.


I see. mea culpa


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

Being honest is not the same thing as being candid.


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

Baefire said:


> It's just hard.
> 
> How's this for a pickup line?
> 
> ...


Well of course, no one ever unloads baggage right away, but certainly before you enter into a committed relationship. Rarely do people meet day 1 and decided to go "steady" day 2.


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

Diligent Procrastinator said:


> If you can't be honest with your partner, you don't deserve a partner. Having a partner is a PRIVILEGE, not a right.


EXACTLY!!! 




Swordsman of Mana said:


> "femmephobia?" is that the hip way of saying "patriarchy" these days :tongue:


I greatly dislike all of these stupid buzzwords people use to demonize/shame others these days, and how pervasive they are.


----------



## Blessed Frozen Cells (Apr 3, 2013)

This is how I see it. My policy is to get any dealbreakers out there as soon as possible that I'm asexual, almost completely aromantic, romance repulsed and transgendered. What I look for is an open-minded person. If anyone thinks I need to go see a doctor or I take any of these lightly or I'm just trying to be "hip" or "different" like a bunch of teenagers, I can never get along with that person. It is a dealbreaker for me if someone sees my sexuality, romanticism, my views on romance and my gender identity as dealbreakers.

If the tables are turned and my partner is non-cis or anything that's not common, I don't care. I've dated people of all kinds in the past. I also have an aesthetic weakness for genderqueer, non-binary and genderfluid folks. They are so freaking attractive. They can communicate with me when they want to about these things. Most of them did pretty early anyway since I'm very vocal about my support for transgendered community.


For other people... I think the best thing to do is test the waters. Bring up topics about LGBT+ casually. Let them discuss their views. If it's positive, move onto discussing how they feel about dating one and go from there. If it's negative, run and never look back


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

This is one reason I've stopped seeking out straight cis women primarily. It's somewhat of a catch-22: you could either be upfront about it, and face even more rejection than your average person, or hide it, and face the consequences later. I think for some people, no matter when you come out with it, that's going to be a deal breaker no matter what. Yet another reason to find out where your potential other stands on these issues, even before becoming involved with them.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Mr. Meepers said:


> For the most part I agree with you, but I do think that honestly and vulnerability and trust are all important in a relationship. I would not expect for someone to come out right away and say, "I like dressing in women's/men's clothes", because it takes time to trust and open up and they need their partner to be patient and non-judgemental about it and will to go at their pace, but I can understand, why, after being in a relationship for years, that one would feel hurt that they did not tell them sooner. That said, I suppose when there is fear, or that we are ashamed of ourselves it can be hard to open up, and I do think sharing about being transexual or even just liking women's clothing is not the same as lying about other things (such as anything from lying to breaking a dish to cheating), because one is about not being ready to open up and earning that trust and the other is about avoiding consequences for wrong actions, so I don't agree with the people who said trust would be broken, persay, but I do understand that they may not feel like there is complete openness in their relationship and, after a time, I'm not sure that it is really okay if you are leading your partner to believe that they know everything about you. This may be hard and unfair, but I think it would be important to say, "Listen, there is one more thing about me, that I am not willing to share just yet, and I am asking you to be patient with me".
> 
> 
> That all said, I suppose one could say that a relationship is a privileges as well and each person can define their own terms for what they want in a relationship or be single. What I mean is, although I disagree with it, if someone does not want to be with someone because they cross dress, I may question whether they actually loved their partner and I would feel that that is wrong, but, if said person would rather be single, then that is their right (I may think less of them, but a relationship is a "privilege" (although there are people who don't want a romantic relationship at all, but I mean privilege as not a right or really even something that is earned, it is something that two parties choose to give each other usually based on a perceived connection).


Complete honesty is one of those things people take for granted, and get pissed off if someone else doesn't feel comfortable being honest with them.

It's like sex. If you're not having the amount you desire, then your relationship's probably crap, but no one's entitled to it. It's the entitlement mentality that pisses me off more than honesty being a virtue in relationships.

I want to cultivate an atmosphere in where a partner would be honest with me. I also would like to be honest to that partner. But people are individuals first and foremost, and that individuality requires respect in the relationship dynamic. If my relationship doesn't go ideally for my partner, I wouldn't want to force them to justify themselves if they feel like they have to leave. I wouldn't want them to feel pressured to tell the truth if there are inhibitions keeping them from doing that. I would love for them to be honest in order to work through scenarios, but I wouldn't want them to feel obligated to.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> "femmephobia?" is that the hip way of saying "patriarchy" these days :tongue:


It's just a nice shorthand for the devaluation of femininity in assigned male at birth individuals. It doesn't necessarily mean patriarchy, although I believe it stems from that.



> then, like I said, they should date someone who understands them, accepts them and, most importantly, is attracted to their real self.


By all means, people should ideally. Ideally, there would also be no transphobia.

The issue I have is more in the realism end. A lot of trans women have built infrastructure in the closet. Many of them have wives, husbands, children. All when it was in the back of their head, but they didn't know until it was too late to change anything.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Torai said:


> Ideally, there would also be no transphobia.


honestly (and this has nothing to do with your point, but), I hate words like "transphobia", "homophobia" "femmephobia" etc, because no one has a "phobia" of gay/trans/feminine people. they don't fear them, they *hate* them. saying they are afraid makes it sound like THEY are the victims rather than said gay/trans/feminine person. 



> The issue I have is more in the realism end. A lot of trans women have built infrastructure in the closet. Many of them have wives, husbands, children. All when it was in the back of their head, but they didn't know until it was too late to change anything.


then they should tell their wife/husband. maybe it will end in divorce, but that's better than someone thinking they love you when they, in fact, love something which is not the real you.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Not in my relationship, I don't have time for lack of honesty. The moment I know my s/o hasnt been honest is the moment I end the relationship. If you want to be with me then you will be honest or else there won't be a relationship.

If you aren't comfortable with your self then you shouldn't be in a relationship. Being dishonest, and lying is what ends relationships, it doesn't make them stronger. You should be with someone who accepts you for you, but if you're going around being dishonest about yourself then you can't blame people for not accepting you for who you are when they never had the chance to know who you really are. 

If you want someone to care for who you are, then you are going to have to show that person who you are. If they cannot accept you, then that's good for you because now you know not to waste your time. Lying, and being dishonest, will never help you in your relationship, it will only make it worse, I assure you. Go into the relationship by presenting who you truly are to avoid problems in the future, because if not then all future problems that have to do with your dishonesty will be directly your fault and nobody else's.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Fuck no. If you're not honest then I have no intention of having a relationship with you.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

I believe in honesty, but I also believe in privacy. The idea that I have a right to know every little detail of my partner's life sounds kind of oppressive and maybe abusive to me. I think that respect is what really matters, and I don't think that a person who is constantly invading privacy is being respectful. Then again, its also not really respectful to be keeping secrets, so a two way street is kinda required.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> honestly (and this has nothing to do with your point, but), I hate words like "transphobia", "homophobia" "femmephobia" etc, because no one has a "phobia" of gay/trans/feminine people. they don't fear them, they *hate* them. saying they are afraid makes it sound like THEY are the victims rather than said gay/trans/feminine person.


"I hate the word homophobia. It's not a phobia. You are not scared. You are an asshole." - Some person on Twitter impersonating Morgan Freeman



> then they should tell their wife/husband. maybe it will end in divorce, but that's better than someone thinking they love you when they, in fact, love something which is not the real you.


What if your husband/wife is an asshole and thinks because of your gender identity, you shouldn't be around your kids?

I mean, fuck your spouse, but what about your kids? They don't deserve that shit.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I think it's also important to consider that honesty is really pretty gray. You can attempt to be honest, but true understanding and expression is complicated enough that it is always a process. There will always be misunderstandings, and honesty is also about correcting those when possible and accepting that there are some elements that remain unknown. It is a process of expression and understanding.

But I want to point out that people give off signals when they are hiding something or being dishonest. In a relationship, that can sometimes be subconsciously registered and felt as "uh oh" feelings, or just a constant edginess (or some other sensation), or a look in the eyes. Sometimes people will throw smoke and mirrors out to maintain dishonesty...being evasive and defensive when their partner has done nothing offensive. 

At higher levels, it can be gaslighting, which can make a person feel crazy without understanding why. So the consequences of dishonesty can be severe in a trusted relationship. I do think we should consider how our behaviors could hurt our partner in this way, and be considerate of them, especially if all they've done wrong is to trust us. (I'm just expanding this outside of the transgender topic, to address the importance of honesty in relationships.)


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Torai said:


> "I hate the word homophobia. It's not a phobia. You are not scared. You are an asshole." - Some person on Twitter impersonating Morgan Freeman
> What if your husband/wife is an asshole and thinks because of your gender identity, you shouldn't be around your kids?
> I mean, fuck your spouse, but what about your kids? They don't deserve that shit.


hmmm, ok, I see your point.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

Diligent Procrastinator said:


> If you can't be honest with your partner, you don't deserve a partner. Having a partner is a PRIVILEGE, not a right.


Agreed. A relationship with any dishonesty is a sham, and transpeople or intersex don't get a free pass to deceive.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

Cross dressing may not be a big deal. Being a totally different gender or physical sex than your partner thought you were could be a huge issue if your partner is exclusively attracted to one gender or sex. I understand a person not revealing that they are trans immediately at the beginning of the relationship, but it's more problematic if the person didn't reveal it after a relationship has been going on for years. If I had been in a relationship with a person that I thought was a man for years and discovered that the person was actually a transgender woman, I would feel upset and deceived. I would have a serious talk with this person and ask to hear her side of the story. I would explain that I'm not sure if I could continue the relationship since I'm straight and, more importantly, she kept something that huge from me. I would probably want to separate for a while to give myself space to figure out how I feel about the issue. I don't know ultimately what I would do, but I might decide to end the relationship. If I did, I could still be her friend and I wouldn't deny any children we had from having contact with her. I certainly wouldn't go around telling other people if it would make her feel uncomfortable, but I would probably ask if she would be okay with me telling my immediate family since they wouldn't spread the information if I asked them not to spread it and wouldn't do anything harmful to her. I hope she would give me that permission since I would feel uncomfortable lying to my family.

I think that a person isn't obligated to stay in a relationship for any reason. A person may not want to date a transgender person in the presented scenario, but they don't have to make the transgender person's life a living hell.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Your point being?

That people have preferences?

Becoming transgender'd is not an innocent and inconsequential act that we're supposed to accept for the sake of political correctness, it reflects on a multitude of issues regarding a relationship.


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

Honesty is a right,
I have the right to information in order to make informed decisions that will judge my life,
And abide to my moral standards.

Though I personally don't see an issue if my partner is Trans*,
I do not think it is right or fair for them to hide it from a future partner,
As that would also be selfish on their part to not allow the ones they 'love' to at least make their own decisions.

Just because something is hard to do,
Doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.

If my partner is not honest with me,
Continuously so,
Then I can simply say there will never be a relationship,
Break up on the spot.


----------



## EccentricSiren (Sep 3, 2013)

I think there's a difference between saying trust is earned and saying that honesty is a privilege. Saying that trust is earned is saying that you are not obliged to tell your partner everything about yourself right away, and you need to feel that they are trustworthy before you give them sensitive information about yourself. That makes sense. You want to make sure you're not dating the sort of person who'll use all your dirt against you in your next fight or make your life a living hell in the event of a breakup before you give them any information you wouldn't want used against you.
However, saying that honesty is earned is like saying it's ok to flat out lie to your partner until they've proven themselves. That's a horrible idea. If you want to trust them, it would make sense that you would also want them to trust you. If you're telling them lies, how do you expect them to trust you? There's a difference between not telling your partner that you like to wear the opposite gender's clothes when no one is looking and telling them you're totally straight when you know for a fact you're gay (or the other way around) and they're just your cover or your experiment. There's a difference between not telling your partner your last relationship was abusive until you know them better, or not telling them you're coping with a serious illness until the relationship seems to be getting serious, and saying you're single when you're actually married or saying the STD test came back clean when you know it didn't.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Ayrılık;13524802 said:


> Honesty is a right,
> I have the right to information in order to make informed decisions that will judge my life,
> And abide to my moral standards.
> 
> ...


There are plenty of private things that a partner doesn't have to know about.

Do you have the right to know where your partner is, at all times? Do you have the right to know your partner's passwords to every piece of social media? If your partner goes to a therapist, do you have the right to know what goes on in that session?

If your partner was raped during your relationship, do you have a right to know that? Does a partner have the right to know your entire sexual history? Does a partner have the right to know whether your parents were abusive? If you find out secondhand about any of these, would you consider them a horrible liar?

I've already said I don't approve of lavender marriages. However, a trans person doesn't, or rather, shouldn't, have to out themselves to get out of one, and a cultural mentality that says so is a misguided one.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

EccentricSiren said:


> I think there's a difference between saying trust is earned and saying that honesty is a privilege. Saying that trust is earned is saying that you are not obliged to tell your partner everything about yourself right away, and you need to feel that they are trustworthy before you give them sensitive information about yourself. That makes sense. You want to make sure you're not dating the sort of person who'll use all your dirt against you in your next fight or make your life a living hell in the event of a breakup before you give them any information you wouldn't want used against you.
> However, saying that honesty is earned is like saying it's ok to flat out lie to your partner until they've proven themselves. That's a horrible idea. If you want to trust them, it would make sense that you would also want them to trust you. If you're telling them lies, how do you expect them to trust you? There's a difference between not telling your partner that you like to wear the opposite gender's clothes when no one is looking and telling them you're totally straight when you know for a fact you're gay (or the other way around) and they're just your cover or your experiment. There's a difference between not telling your partner your last relationship was abusive until you know them better, or not telling them you're coping with a serious illness until the relationship seems to be getting serious, and saying you're single when you're actually married or saying the STD test came back clean when you know it didn't.


How many times do I have to repeat, "I don't approve of lavender marriages" for everyone to see I don't approve of lavender marriages? A lot of trans people don't know until late in life, and they should be able to get out of the marriage without having to out themselves. Partners can become possessive and abusive when they figure out their partner is trans (like trying to cling to "it may just be a phase"), and it's not as clean a break as everybody says. People have the right to autonomy without their partner's interference.


----------



## EccentricSiren (Sep 3, 2013)

There's a difference between not realizing something pretty significant about yourself until later and telling your partner the opposite of something you know to be true about yourself when it would affect the other person and their relationship with you. I never said they didn't have the right to autonomy of that you have to tell your partner everything, I just said that it's not okay to flat out lie to them. If you lie to them, then you're forcing them to make decisions that affect them using faulty information. That's not doing much for the partner's autonomy.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

EccentricSiren said:


> There's a difference between not realizing something pretty significant about yourself until later and telling your partner the opposite of something you know to be true about yourself when it would affect the other person and their relationship with you. I never said they didn't have the right to autonomy of that you have to tell your partner everything, I just said that it's not okay to flat out lie to them. If you lie to them, then you're forcing them to make decisions that affect them using faulty information. That's not doing much for the partner's autonomy.


If you're breaking up with them/divorcing them, their decision is irrelevant. Keeping your identity secret would do nothing for or against their autonomy.

And transition isn't as clear cut as knowing/not knowing. Most people try to push it back and then when it becomes too much to bear, that's when they come out. They want it very very much not to be true, but it is. Most people are scared, and the last thing they need is the possibility of an antagonist in the whole process.

It's not just the closeted trans people that cling, it's the cis people who are in love with the false image. Coming out often isn't sufficient to end a doomed relationship.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

Torai said:


> There are plenty of private things that a partner doesn't have to know about.
> 
> Do you have the right to know where your partner is, at all times? Do you have the right to know your partner's passwords to every piece of social media? If your partner goes to a therapist, do you have the right to know what goes on in that session?
> 
> ...


A partner doesn't automatically have the right to know things, but some things would be helpful to know if they could impact the relationship after the time has been taken to build trust. A person's location or social media passwords are definitely not things a person would need to know, and hopefully a person isn't going to some secret location or using social media to cheat on their partner. You may want to know if you're in a relationship with someone who goes to a therapist if whatever problem that person has could impact your relationship.

A person might want to know if their partner was raped so that they could support the partner and deal with how it might impact the relationship. A person's sexual history can information a person would want to know before they decide to sleep with them, and nobody should pretend to have a low number of previous partners (or none) if they know that it's important to the other person. If a person's parents were abusive, the other partner might want to know if it could impact their relationship.

A person may not have the right to know things. But it's not good to avoid telling your partner things that could impact your relationship such as your true gender identity. If a transgender person wants to get out of a relationship, they don't have to out themselves. If it's been a long-term relationship, the person may ask why the transgender person wants to leave. The other person could reasonably feel hurt and confused and ask questions if they thought that the relationship was happy and then it was suddenly ended. A transgender person doesn't have to out themselves, but they might get questions that could be hard to answer without outing themselves. They have no obligation to answer the questions, but they can't expect to maintain a positive relationship of some other kind with a person after they have left them for no apparent reason (according to the other person's point of view).

ETA: I hope for a world in which there is more LGBT acceptance. In that world, people may feel more able to be open about themselves and avoid trapping other people in relationships that are built upon some kind of falsehood such as lavender marriages. I don't think that the other person's feelings about a deception (if it's deliberate) are irrelevant.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

TurtleQueen said:


> A partner doesn't automatically have the right to know things, but some things would be helpful to know if they could impact the relationship after the time has been taken to build trust. A person's location or social media passwords are definitely not things a person would need to know, and hopefully a person isn't going to some secret location or using social media to cheat on their partner. You may want to know if you're in a relationship with someone who goes to a therapist if whatever problem that person has could impact your relationship.
> 
> A person might want to know if their partner was raped so that they could support the partner and deal with how it might impact the relationship. A person's sexual history can information a person would want to know before they decide to sleep with them, and nobody should pretend to have a low number of previous partners (or none) if they know that it's important to the other person. If a person's parents were abusive, the other partner might want to know if it could impact their relationship.
> 
> A person may not have the right to know things. But it's not good to avoid telling your partner things that could impact your relationship such as your true gender identity. If a transgender person wants to get out of a relationship, they don't have to out themselves. If it's been a long-term relationship, the person may ask why the transgender person wants to leave. The other person can feel hurt and ask questions if they thought that the relationship was happy and then it was suddenly ended. A transgender person doesn't have to out themselves, but they might get questions that could be hard to answer without outing themselves. They have no obligation to answer the questions, but they can't expect to maintain a positive relationship of some other kind with a person after they have left them for no apparent reason (according to the other person's point of view).


So you agree honesty is not a right.

What most of you are missing is that trans people often are forced to burn a lot of bridges without explanation just because people don't always have the empathy to be accepting. Their relationships are often strained simply because of that cultural disapproval. Clean breaks aren't possible a lot of times, especially if you live in a town with conservative values. If you tell a partner and break up, and they tell others out of spite, and they tell others because gossip, that outs you to a lot of people. Your entire safety and reputation could be in danger, especially if you're a trans woman.

It's never as simple as truth and lies, and we preemptively castigate LGBT individuals for what we percieve as lying. Society oftentimes pretends they understand what their truth is, and it's a very common reason for all the mistrust of most individuals in the privileged group. It's not simply the behavior of those who are hateful, it's an entire system and our values and morals get tainted. Honesty is a virtue, but at what point does safety overlay that virtue? Everyone gets hurt by a society of non-acceptance, and everyone participates.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

Torai said:


> So you agree honesty is not a right.
> 
> What most of you are missing is that trans people often are forced to burn a lot of bridges without explanation just because people don't always have the empathy to be accepting. Their relationships are often strained simply because of that cultural disapproval. Clean breaks aren't possible a lot of times, especially if you live in a town with conservative values. If you tell a partner and break up, and they tell others out of spite, and they tell others because gossip, that outs you to a lot of people. Your entire safety and reputation could be in danger, especially if you're a trans woman.


If you consider "honesty is a right" to mean that a person should feel entitled to know a person's passwords for all websites and know where they are every second of the day, I would agree that honesty is not a right. That "right" just sounds like a creepy attempt to own your partner. I don't think that it's best to conceptualize things in relationships as rights since that can get us into very creepy territory very quickly. It's better to conceptualize these things as expectations since that can lead us to consider if such expectations are reasonable. A certain amount of honesty and openness are expectations that most people would have when it comes to relationships, and I don't think that these expectations are unreasonable. I personally think that people should be honest in relationships about big things, and a person's gender is an important consideration for a lot of people in choosing a partner. 

I understand why these things can happen and why a transgender person might cut their losses without giving an explanation in that kind of situation. I understand that transphobia is a huge deal. However, I also understand how cutting their losses so quickly without giving an explanation can hurt the other person in a relationship. I don't think that it's okay for a transgender person to hurt a partner even if a transgender person cannot think of how to have a clean break. I'm not a gossip, and I wouldn't just spread information around out of spite. In my personal life, I'm a lot more accepting of people who are honest with me and avoid keeping secrets that could hurt me, but I wouldn't be an unreasonable asshole to some transgender person or put their safety at risk for any reason.

Many transgender people have reported some knowledge of being transgender from a fairly young age. If society was more accepting of trans people, they could be open about their identities from a very young age and avoid getting into relationships that may lead other people to feel deceived or forced into situations they don't want. If they try to repress their identities to fit in, they are unhappy and can end up hurting other people in the lavender marriage scenario.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

TurtleQueen said:


> I understand why these things can happen and why a transgender person might cut their losses without giving an explanation in that kind of situation. I understand that transphobia is a huge deal. However, I also understand how cutting their losses so quickly without giving an explanation can hurt the other person in a relationship. I don't think that it's okay for a transgender person to hurt a partner even if a transgender person cannot think of how to have a clean break. I'm not a gossip, and I wouldn't just spread information around out of spite. In my personal life, I'm a lot more accepting of people who are honest with me and avoid keeping secrets that could hurt me, but I wouldn't be an unreasonable asshole to some transgender person or put their safety at risk for any reason.


It shouldn't be okay. But it is what it is.

Not all cis people do X, but enough do for it to be a valid fear.

And their behaviors don't exist in a vacuum. It's influenced by what I say, what you say, and the attitudes we all express. We all have said something bigoted towards an oppressed group, even our own. It's our job to try and do a bit better each day in order to make the world a better place.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

TurtleQueen said:


> Many transgender people have reported some knowledge of being transgender from a fairly young age. If society was more accepting of trans people, they could be open about their identities from a very young age and avoid getting into relationships that may lead other people to feel deceived or forced into situations they don't want. If they try to repress their identities to fit in, they are unhappy and can end up hurting other people in the lavender marriage scenario.


It's rarely a clear knowledge. Many people have strong doubts, just like many do about being gay or bisexual. Many transgender people don't have the classic trans man or trans woman, there's non-binary, genderqueer, etc...

It's the little circumstantials that build up and make people realize these things, and then realizing that most straight people don't have such a fascination for the same sex, or that most cis people don't from time to time, look at their body as a failed body of the other sex.

Many transgender people don't have classic medical symptoms, and for some, it could be as simple as using a different pronoun and dressing different ways.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

Torai said:


> It shouldn't be okay. But it is what it is.


I'm going to disagree with the idea that hurting another person is okay. I'm talking about the most extreme examples in which a person has been married to another person for over 10 years and leaves them without saying why or when a person has been concealing a big thing (their gender identity) for over 10 years when they know the partner is gay or straight and probably would not have decided to date them if they were presenting with their true gender identity. That kind of thing could be understandable, but it is never okay. 



> Not all cis people do X, but enough do for it to be a valid fear.
> 
> And their behaviors don't exist in a vacuum. It's influenced by what I say, what you say, and the attitudes we all express. We all have said something bigoted towards an oppressed group, even our own. It's our job to try and do a bit better each day in order to make the world a better place.


I agree with the idea that these situations don't exist in some kind of vacuum and that trans people can have valid fears of how cis people might react to learning their gender identity.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

TurtleQueen said:


> I'm going to disagree with the idea that hurting another person is okay. I'm talking about the most extreme examples in which a person has been married to another person for over 10 years and leaves them without saying why or when a person has been concealing a big thing (their gender identity) for over 10 years when they know the partner is gay or straight and probably not not have decided to date them if they were presenting with their true gender identity. That kind of thing could be understandable, but it is never okay.


That's a lavender marriage.

My point was not to condone those. The "knowing for 10 years" is rarely ever the case, and it's usually being married without knowing and then you explore for a year, discover, and you have that infrastructure built already. Well, you hurt your spouse in any situation. If you reveal it, they may assume you've been lying and hold it against you. I mean, people don't react well to the idea that the one they love may be going away.

The idea that all people trapped in these marriages are willfully being dishonest and selfish is the one that bugs me. Most times, they aren't.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

Torai said:


> It's rarely a clear knowledge. Many people have strong doubts, just like many do about being gay or bisexual. Many transgender people don't have the classic trans man or trans woman, there's non-binary, genderqueer, etc...


I did try to keep it to the binary to have a simpler discussion. For instance, @Swordsman of Mana said that he wants to date a male and not a female. I would also want to date a male and not a female. I didn't mean to leave out non-binary people unnecessarily, but I am trying to make a clearer point on this topic. 



> It's the little circumstantials that build up and make people realize these things, and then realizing that most straight people don't have such a fascination for the same sex, or that most cis people don't from time to time, look at their body as a failed body of the other sex.
> 
> Many transgender people don't have classic medical symptoms, and for some, it could be as simple as using a different pronoun and dressing different ways.


If they didn't clearly know they were transgender or gender non-conforming in some way that could present an issue for their partner before they got into the relationship, that's a different situation. If we lived in a more accepting world, I think that people could be more honest and open and might figure out that most straight or cis people don't have the feelings that you mentioned.



Torai said:


> That's a lavender marriage.
> 
> My point was not to condone those. The "knowing for 10 years" is rarely ever the case, and it's usually being married without knowing and then you explore for a year, discover, and you have that infrastructure built already. Well, you hurt your spouse in any situation. If you reveal it, they may assume you've been lying and hold it against you. I mean, people don't react well to the idea that the one they love may be going away.
> 
> The idea that all people trapped in these marriages are willfully being dishonest and selfish is the one that bugs me. Most times, they aren't.


In those cases, I think that the transgender person should leave or inform their partner of the situation as soon as possible. The transgender person is more likely to get a positive reaction if they explain how they were confused and would not have attempted to get into the relationship if they had known that they were transgender before the relationship began. If they decide to inform the partner, the partner may decide to call it quits despite the explanation. The partner doesn't have the right to harm the transgender person by spreading that information or cutting off contact with children.


----------



## imaginaryrobot (Jun 11, 2013)

I think the appropriate time to be honest about this is probably about the same time you'd talk about other important/serious things of your past or who you are. Past relationships, sexual partners, whether you have children, your past in general. If you get to these topics and are open about everything else but hide this, I would say you have reached the point in time where keeping it to yourself is not okay. 

You don't have to say to somebody "I'm transgender" upon first meeting them. Or even the first few dates. But once you hit the point of sharing yourselves, it should be mentioned, in my opinion. Not only for consideration of the other person, but also yourself. You should want to be with someone who you can be honest with and who accepts you. If you can't be honest about something important to you, it is your own loss. Yes, the person could end up dumping you. But when you think about it, a person who reacts that way just wouldn't be the one for you. Don't live a lie just to be in a relationship.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> *outside of a relationship:* yes, just like whether or not one is out of the closet is their own choice (for reasons of safety and privacy)
> *inside of a relationship:*...um....NO. if I am dating a biological male with gender disphoria, I deserve to know that, because I want to date a male, not a female. if you are not prepared to be honest about who you are with your partner, don't date them.


THIS exactly what he said ^


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> *outside of a relationship:* yes, just like whether or not one is out of the closet is their own choice (for reasons of safety and privacy)
> *inside of a relationship:*...um....NO. if I am dating a biological male with gender disphoria, I deserve to know that, because I want to date a male, not a female. if you are not prepared to be honest about who you are with your partner, don't date them.


I agree. It's extremely wrong to hide something like that from your partner.

If your partner is a heterosexual woman and is dating you because she likes that you are a man, and you actually are a female, that's reprehensible of you.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

emberfly said:


> I agree. It's extremely wrong to hide something like that from your partner.
> 
> If your partner is a heterosexual woman and is dating you because she likes that you are a man, and you actually are a female, that's reprehensible of you.





Cinnamon83 said:


> THIS exactly what he said ^


Contrary to popular belief, most trans people aren't trying to trap you into sex or a relationship. RTFT, keeping in mind that narratives favor cis people, and reality generally doesn't reflect that narrative.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Torai said:


> Contrary to popular belief, most trans people aren't trying to trap you into sex or a relationship. RTFT, keeping in mind that narratives favor cis people, and reality generally doesn't reflect that narrative.


Some people don't have much of a choice. Others are unaware, in-denial, or closeted. The problem with these arguments is they favor the other person's side, and blame the other for "lying" to everyone. Then when they do reveal their big secret, they get accused of being selfish, wanting to break relationships and families apart, etc. 

I'm sure most trans people, if given the option, would not pursue a relationship with someone who saw and treated them as a member of their assigned gender. It's rarely as black-and-white as some people make it sound.


----------



## Hei (Jul 8, 2014)

Interesting thread... 

Me personally, I have deep pool someone has to wade into and dive in to gain my trust. I must trust someone implicitly before dating them, so there must always be communication and honesty from pretty much day 1. I hold no other values higher than these, and they are enough to end friendships if broken yet alone relationships.

I would not appreciate being mislead at all in a relationship of all things. To me honesty is a duty and it is something your significant other of all people is fully entitled to and deserving of. If you don't have full honesty and full trust... then you are missing the key aspects of a truly strong relationship. It only takes one thing to mess that up because there will always be a degree of uncertainty and that is no way to live.

Telling your significant other you identify as another gender will not blow over well with just anyone. Which really this whole scenario can be avoided entirely if you commit to the right people, that you establish strong friendships that share that honesty and trust with to begin with in the first place, that all the facts are present before entering a committed relationship. That this really isn't something that should ever be swept under the rug until later, it's not at all fair to the other person who has emotionally invested in someone who hasn't been openly themselves. You can't make this all about you. 

So if you came out to me as trans I'd naturally be really upset, it's entirely unfair to have mislead me. I couldn't be in a relationship with anyone that would lie to me when I go above and beyond to stress the importance of communication honesty and trust. And given my circumstance of being firmly gay I am not interested in dating anyone that isn't a man. I shouldn't be expected to change myself at my core instincts to make that relationship work for you. That's a highly one-sided attitude. I'm not going to ask you to change, you are who you are. But if you mislead me, thinking you would make this work in the end, that is just hypocritical and grossly unfair.

I'd be accepting of who you are, we might still be able to be friends if my trust in you isn't completely shot to shit, but the whole dating thing would never work. You should have known that in the first place, before stringing me along an emotional trip.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

LondonBaker said:


> Interesting thread...
> 
> Me personally, I have deep pool someone has to wade into and dive in to gain my trust. I must trust someone implicitly before dating them, so there must always be communication and honesty from pretty much day 1. I hold no other values higher than these, and they are enough to end friendships if broken yet alone relationships.
> 
> ...


At what age did you come out, if you don't mind me asking?

Most gay people realize and come out in their teens. Now, looking at that from the point of view of a straight person in that gay person's family, wouldn't you see that coming out as lying to them? Or would you say it's more complicated?


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Torai said:


> Contrary to popular belief, most trans people *aren't trying to trap you* into sex or a relationship. RTFT, keeping in mind that narratives favor cis people, and reality generally doesn't reflect that narrative.


This doesn't really matter as far as I'm concerned, because that's effectively what happens either way.

Just because they had 'good' intentions (for them), doesn't make the outcome any less bad or reprehensible.
It doesn't really matter what narrative we look at, the fact is relationships need honesty and trust in order to flourish. When you hide things from your partner in order to "save the relationship" or because you're "unsure," you're still lying, and you're still hiding things from someone who has a right to know.

And I'm not sure how merely coming to question your gender during the relationship still wouldn't have detrimental effects on it. This doesn't happen all of a sudden; so what is bound to happen is that the partner questioning their gender will start to pull away from their partner, either by being emotionally closed off, or refusing sex. Even the most self-absorbed person will start to doubt the status of the relationship when their partner seems less interested in sex than they used to be.

I don't think a transgendered person has any leg to stand on in this to be honest, even if they started questioning their gender during the relationship and not before. If you hide something from your partner that affects the status of the relationship because you want to protect yourself from shame, you're still in the wrong. Society might dictate how other people will react towards you, given your transgendered status, but why should that stop you from being honest with your partner?

(third-person you.)


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

DaphneDelRey said:


> This doesn't really matter as far as I'm concerned, because that's effectively what happens either way.
> 
> Just because they had 'good' intentions (for them), doesn't make the outcome any less bad or reprehensible.
> It doesn't really matter what narrative we look at, the fact is relationships need honesty and trust in order to flourish. When you hide things from your partner in order to "save the relationship" or because you're "unsure," you're still lying, and you're still hiding things from someone who has a right to know.
> ...


Heck, even if you do tell them everything, they still tend to assume you're lying. People tend to selectively accept the information they want to for the sake of the relationship, and the narrative always favors cis people.

Most people assume it's just a phase, and you have to strongly assert that it's not.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Torai said:


> Heck, even if you do tell them everything, they still assume you're lying. People tend to selectively accept the information they want to for the sake of the relationship, and the narrative favors cis people.


But so what? Why does a fear of consequences make lying any better?

And again, if you are in a relationship with someone who assumes you're lying all the time, it's probably best for the transgendered person to just leave anyway. So it's in their interests to be honest.

It's not like an abusive or bigoted partner would want to save the relationship, they'd probably want to cut contact. The only issue here is if children are involved, but only if they are young enough or impressionable enough to be swayed by the resentment of the cisgendered partner. If the children can think for themselves, it's unlikely that the bigoted partner would be able to stop the child trying to communicate with their transgendered parent.

But if the children are young, and manipulated by the bigoted parent to cut contact with the transgendered parent, this will most probably work against them in the end because the lies will be exposed for what they are at some point. It'll just take some time.



> Most people assume it's just a phase, and you have to strongly assert that it's not.


But then it's on the transgendered partner to defend their boundaries and stick to their guns. However, anyone who claims to love someone and want the best of them, would be happy for them even if it meant the relationship had to end.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

DaphneDelRey said:


> But so what? Why does a fear of consequences make lying any better?
> 
> And again, if you are in a relationship with someone who assumes you're lying all the time, it's probably best for the transgendered person to just leave anyway. So it's in their interests to be honest.
> 
> ...


1st paragraph: The consequences don't happen in a vacuum. You could be outed to everyone, and shit happens.

2nd: Not black-and-white. Cis people, in general, don't really understand trans experiences unless they've been in the community and talked to trans people (And I don't mean an LGBT group that has one token trans person). They may mean well when they say it's a phase, and think they're helping. And the trans person may believe they are helping. I think you're denying exactly how deeply transphobia sinks itself into a person's psyche.

3rd: An abusive or openly bigoted partner would have a chance of severely injuring or murdering you. Hate crimes against trans women aren't exactly a rarity. Cut off contact, break up, and don't tell them as a duty to yourself.

4th: Just world fallacy. Transphobia doesn't happen in a vacuum, the children may be a bit transphobic themselves and believe the bigoted parent anyway.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Torai said:


> Contrary to popular belief, most trans people aren't trying to trap you into sex or a relationship. RTFT, keeping in mind that narratives favor cis people, and reality generally doesn't reflect that narrative.



I never said that was the case, but from the thread you took from the topic was if someone did such things and one didn't know and this thread was about people not having to disclose that. I never suggested tho that everyone who is trans is trapping or tricking anyone. The original thread and then this thread were on that topic. And answers were in responding to that.

And I did not imply any negativity on the subject in any of my answers in terms of an individuals own prerogative. I answered the questions in general.


----------



## aeralin (Jul 11, 2014)

I think it's weird to hear "oh, I'd be angry they were lying to me" etc. Let's say your in a long term relationship with someone. This someone dresses as a women or they come out to you as trans. Its hard for me to believe you would throw a long term relationship without even trying to make it work. I would even go so far, as to say, I would question their integrity.

It's okay to feel anger, betrayed, etc. however, I feel people are constantly changing and finding new things about themselves. The chances of your SO being the same after 5 or more years in a relationship seems low to me. There may be a number of reasons why a trans person has been hiding it, and it has nothing to do with the fact they don't trust their SO. Perhaps they haven't even accepted it themselves. Not everyone is on the same continuum of finding themselves. Not everyone is the kid at 13 who realizes they want to be a women and has supportive parents. To only think of yourself, when someone needs you the most, is pretty selfish. Even if they don't trust their SO, well, can you blame them? Trans is the most misunderstood population in GBLTQ, cause people understand someone liking another gender and can empathize. However it's different to say hey my mind really tells me I would rather be a women. 

I think part of this is relationship expectations. I think many people expect a relationship where "you can't tell where the other person beings and you start" and knowing 100% of a person. I suppose for me, I might be upset if we were in a long term relationship and they had no intention of even working it out with me after they told me. Though I guess if they thought they would rather be with a man it would be different (cause I am not getting a sex change to be with them).


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Cinnamon83 said:


> I never said that was the case, but from the thread you took from the topic was if someone did such things and one didn't know and this thread was about people not having to disclose that. I never suggested tho that everyone who is trans is trapping or tricking anyone. The original thread and then this thread were on that topic. And answers were in responding to that.
> 
> And I did not imply any negativity on the subject in any of my answers in terms of an individuals own prerogative. I answered the questions in general.


No, it was about outing and people's entitlement to their interpretation of the "truth".

You can keep your identity secret and divorce/break up with someone, especially if children aren't involved.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Torai said:


> 1st paragraph: The consequences don't happen in a vacuum. You could be outed to everyone, and shit happens.


Again, someone who genuinely loves you would not do this. And it's not a must you have to out yourself in order to leave the relationship, you could just say "I don't think we're a good fit anymore."



> 2nd: Not black-and-white. Cis people don't really understand trans experiences. They may mean well when they say it's a phase, and think they're helping. And the trans person may believe they are helping. I think you're denying exactly how deeply transphobia sinks itself into a person's psyche.


I'm not sure how many people would actually do this. So I have to assume you're talking about your own personal experiences?

I think you're assuming that everyone is transphobic. Not understanding or being scared of change isn't necessarily the same as transphobia. It could be a cisgendered person is denying the elephant in the room due to other related fears such as, what will happen to the kids?



> 3rd: An abusive or openly bigoted partner would have a chance of severely injuring or murdering you. *Cut off contact and don't tell them as a duty to yourself.*


Right, so if you know you have this option, why bother lying and staying in a relationship you don't want to be in at all?

And I think you're making a blanket statement here. In any form of abusive relationship where the rejected partner kills their spouse, it's almost always men doing the killing. But these men usually have serious problems to begin with, and not everyone is going to be in such abusive relationships. So you can't use a very tiny chance event and then make out like it's a huge widespread problem. Because chances are, if a partner kills their spouse for being transgendered, it's going to draw even more attention to something they clearly would have wanted secret.



> 4th: Just world fallacy. Transphobia doesn't happen in a vacuum, the children may be a bit transphobic themselves and believe the bigoted parent anyway.


Where is the just world fallacy? All I said was if the cisgendered partner lied to the children in order to manipulate them, it's likely that the lies will be revealed in time. That's not a fallacy, that's just the nature of lying.

If the children are transphobic, it's highly unlikely they'll continue to be so if their parent comes out. I think you're making blanket statements again. The chances of this are so rear because of the nature of a parent-child bond, especially if it was strong to begin with.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Torai said:


> No, it was about outing and people's entitlement to their interpretation of the "truth".
> 
> You can keep your identity secret and divorce/break up with someone, especially if children aren't involved.



So what exactly is your objective. 

I am just confused as to why I was even linked and quoted to your response. I really didn't shame anyone for what I see as their prerogative. And yet I am linked to a response educating people from your opinion on entitlement vs individual opinions of people of what is or isn't appropriate to disclose in a relationship. I guess all I am saying is that I did not use shaming tactics or bigotry on reference to anyones lifestyle. (I wouldn't do that). Having an opinion on how people disclose their individual lifestyle and prerogatives to those closest to them should not necessarily merit blatant labels its counter productive to the entire subject.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

@Torai: I think you should stop talking now or at least emphasize that what you're saying is your opinion and only your opinion. You're acting as the mouth for 'transsexual' people around the World, which you're not. Please don't ruin public opinion even more.

sincerely,

Someone you're ignoring to PM back


----------



## Hei (Jul 8, 2014)

Torai said:


> At what age did you come out, if you don't mind me asking?
> 
> Most gay people realize and come out in their teens. Now, looking at that from the point of view of a straight person in that gay person's family, wouldn't you see that coming out as lying to them? Or would you say it's more complicated?


Well I never pretended to be straight, which this question assumes. I simply never experienced any sexual attraction toward woman, just exclusively men, and it can be said after 2 years of development into my teenage years I said to myself I am beyond a doubt gay.

Does this then mean I have to stand on a podium and tell everyone I know? Absolutely not, it's unnecessary. It has no bearing on my social life unless I am seeking or dating, and it seems idiotic for there to be a need for anyone that diverges from being straight to have to tell everyone they know due to societal intolerance. The notion that until you have done so you are committing dishonesty is absurd. I simply told my mum when she asked out of curiosity. Same for close friends, and the rest came to see that through my dating of boys. Which is how it should be.

So I must underline here that not directly spilling out information of one's sexuality that is unnecessary knowledge outside of dating other individuals is by no means a form of lying or even withholding. The idea that it is a result of heteronormativity, that you ought be more careful about. There's no obligations for other sexualities. 

Now, Do some lie? Sure, environments of intolerance make it so for one's safety and survival, but not the case for all. But there is also something important that needs to be addressed...

This is also neglecting the matter that it is rare people know where their attraction lies before early teen years... it's really near impossible due to lack of development, and those that do know by only a few years are uncommonly genetically more hormonally wired. Most individuals begin with inklings around 10, as hormones are just starting to really shift, your brain just beginning to be wired for sexual attraction

So not knowing your sexuality until your teens... straight, bisexual, gay, pansexual, asexual is not a form of lying. This is the norm. Children occasionally enter straight meaningless relationships as children, but this is correlated with heteronormative culture and values (disney movies, cartoons, music, art, literature) that kind of emphasizes and promotes that the natural course of action is to date as such and that dating is fantastic and should be a goal. If they turn out to be straight it is more statistical than anything. If it is same sex then it can be correlated with a lack of heteronormative pressures in their life, usually due to liberal upbringing, very open-minded and supportive parenting. But again these relationships overall are a result of pressures from ideas, and not sexuality.

Now back to my criteria for relationships. Because depending on one's sexuality and values you are going to have a different answer on this. This is more case by case, because one size certainly doesn't fit all.

I'm not going to start dating anyone I haven't already held a strong friendship with. I need to know well beforehand I have strong communication with this individual, that there has always been honesty and trust. Lying can't be an option that crosses our minds. So not to promote it when forming a meaningful strong friendship or say something more significant like a potential life long relationship of no regrets.

Then if we figure we may want to date, it is their job and my entitlement for them to dish out their intimate desires in the relationship, goals, and all aspects of their sexuality and identity that hasn't been expressly said. Of which much should be sorted in your 20s. You should even be aware of lingering inklings if you have done enough exploring, soul searching, and honesty with yourself. Identity is fickle but it isn't something that springs up in your 30s+, the mind possess uncertainty and challenges beforehand due to hormonal and chemical development in teens to mid 20s. I want and deserve to know of anything. And vice versa, you are fully entitled to mine. And if we come to find incompatibility upon doing so then the relationship does not happen. I refuse to date someone that isn't certain of their identity, because I will not be strung along on an emotional trip with massive loss, when I could have had success and not hurt feelings and not wasted time with someone else .

I have no problem with my significant other being bisexual or pansexual. Heck my first boyfriend (who is also my best friend) is pansexual. You can have attraction to other sexes. But as a gay man I have no attraction to any other sexes. That has to be understood. You need to be, and know that you are male, being that I am circumstantially firmly gay I can not make exceptions to this. And you are entitled to this information, as I have said before, before entering the relationship.

It isn't fair to me at all for you to have these inklings and might want to seek change, and withhold them from me. Again there being no real excuse to begin with in my book given how I go about relationships. If it isn't meant to be we can still have an amazing friendship and suffer no emotional pain at the end of the rainbow. By entering a relationship withholding uncertainty of your identity, all you will succeed in is emotionally stringing me along for an indefinite period of time. 

It will not work. It is not fair to my feelings, and it is selfish to do that to someone that trusts you and cares about you. Gender unfortunately is an aspect that matters for my sexuality, it doesn't for everyone but it does for me. It is not okay for you to expect me to be okay with having uncertainty about your gender. I'm sure you can find someone that can do that, but I'm not that person. You might like me, and I might like you but tough shit, I'm not going to commit knowing things can go sour. I'm not going to waste my intimacy with someone that I won't be able to work with if they come to terms with this. You withholding the information, and then thinking somewhere down the road when you tell me that we could still make the relationship work is absurd. As if I could bend my sexuality to meet with your identity. It is hypocritical and again unfair. There's no arguing against that. It's also equally unfair with you withholding this knowledge and knowing it can go to shit between us, and being okay with that. That you get to enjoy the emotional trip until you are all sorted. That's selfish.

There's no good excuse for that in my book given my standards.

I know I've repeated myself a bit here but I really hope this drives home my viewpoint for you as to leave no further questions. This is why I disagree. Honesty is not a privilege, but a right as far as relationships go.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

AesSidhe said:


> @Torai: I think you should stop talking now or at least emphasize that what you're saying is your opinion and only your opinion. You're acting as the mouth for 'transsexual' people around the World, which you're not. Please don't ruin public opinion even more.
> 
> sincerely,
> 
> Someone you're ignoring to PM back


You know, you're right.

I've been so obsessed with winning and standing my ground that I've become combative and forgot that perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle. Perhaps living in the Bible Belt has radicalized me because coming out as anything carries a certain risk there. (I currently live in a city that's been called the buckle, and know quite a few people who have been utterly fucked by the system. I guess I'm in those beginning stages of anger.)

Disintegration to CP6 is a funny thing. >.<

But what I would like to say as a finishing note is to listen to their story. We often are framed to believe a single story about trans individuals, and the view of them as intentionally misleading deviants is a common one. Keeping that in mind, we should look at everything case by case. People fuck up, and sometimes it's important to look at the fuck-up in context, or figure out the best way to solve the fuck-up.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

My fiancee is trans. I knew before, fell in love regardless. It's part of our lives, but I love him regardless. Do I care? Nope. He could be a drag queen for all I care.


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> *outside of a relationship:* yes, just like whether or not one is out of the closet is their own choice (for reasons of safety and privacy)
> *inside of a relationship:*...um....NO. if I am dating a biological male with gender disphoria, I deserve to know that, because I want to date a male, not a female. if you are not prepared to be honest about who you are with your partner, don't date them.


fucking preach!


----------



## Athena (Apr 10, 2010)

In the context of Swordsman of Mana's answer, I completely agree. If you are going to date someone, make sure you are not hiding who they are really dating. 

However, I do agree with the OP's very general premise that honesty is a privilege in some cases. Let's say its something way more innocent than transgender. Let's say you find the person lacking in some fundamental way that they cannot change, and you want to break up with them. Do you owe them the truth if you know it will hurt them and they cannot change it anyway? What if they are the emotional type and you know from experience that they will make the situation way more painful than necessary? You do have the right to say what you need to say to keep things as drama-free as possible, even if it means not telling them the truth. I know this is a bit OT, but the thread title really has me thinking about honesty in relationships.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

I see where you're coming from OP and agree with a lot of it but I think saying honesty is a privilege may be going too far in the other direction.

I think it is very understandable why someone would keep certain things from a partner, such as the thing about being gender-nonconforming which is the main topic of the OP. And also every relationship is different. So you can't really set rules, IMO, on when it is appropriate to share this kind of thing with a partner. It might be something you can share on the first date, it might take much longer before you become comfortable with sharing that part of yourself. It just depends on the situation. So I definitely don't judge someone for laying all that shit out right up front, there's all kinds of personal and private things about a person that you learn over time in a relationship. Not saying something like that right up front is not necessarily indicative of dishonesty or even an unwillingness to share necessarily, it might just feel awkward and not socially appropriate until a certain time.

At the same time, I agree with something someone else said about how having a relationship is a privilege and not a right. If your partner finds out something like this and it turns them off of you, I mean it sucks, but I honestly feel that's just kind of the way the cookie crumbles and there's not a lot that can be done about it. People have a right to choose their partners, and if they want to dump you over that, it might be petty depending on the circumstances but I have a hard time saying they're bad people for that. The alternative is that you're telling people to stay in relationships they don't want to be in, which I not only think is wrong for the person you're judging but its also very bad for the other person in the relationship. I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with someone who couldn't accept me, and if someone I cared about couldn't accept me because of something like that, it would really hurt me, but what I can do about it? It's their life and their choice.

Similarly on the topic of honesty, people have different tolerances for that kind of thing, and I think people have a right to set certain standards in this area. If they're a person who is going to be completely not understanding of keeping something like that private for a length of time, that might suck but again, it's their life. And again, why would you want to be with someone like that anyway? On the subject of gender stuff though that almost seems like a moot point, because I think anyone who would be understanding and accepting of that would probably also understand what a difficult thing is to be open about and why they were kept in the dark about it.

I guess what I am saying to summarize is yeah, the way some people think trans or gender nonconforming people in general have some kind of special obligation to put all their issues on the table from the word go is stupid and fucked up and a double standard, its not like people think you have to tell someone your whole sexual history on the first date (though I bet some of the people who think you have to put all the trans cards out on the first date would probably say women should do the same thing about their sexual history lol). At the same time I wouldn't go quite so far as to say honesty isn't to be necessarily expected in a relationship, because it really just depends on the individual relationship and the dynamic there. I think honesty is always the best policy and it is always better to be honest, and that should be recognized. However at the same time I understand why people with certain issues may not be totally "honest" (someone else I think said describing this behavior as "dishonest" wasn't very accurate, and I agree with that) about them at first and I don't judge those people for that.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Torai said:


> Contrary to popular belief, most trans people aren't trying to trap you into sex or a relationship.


But you clearly stated in your original post that it is okay for trans people to lie to their partner about being trans because "honesty is a privilege."

Read your own fucking thread?



Athena said:


> In the context of Swordsman of Mana's answer, I completely agree. If you are going to date someone, make sure you are not hiding who they are really dating.
> 
> However, I do agree with the OP's very general premise that honesty is a privilege in some cases. Let's say its something way more innocent than transgender. Let's say you find the person lacking in some fundamental way that they cannot change, and you want to break up with them. Do you owe them the truth if you know it will hurt them and they cannot change it anyway? What if they are the emotional type and you know from experience that they will make the situation way more painful than necessary? You do have the right to say what you need to say to keep things as drama-free as possible, even if it means not telling them the truth. I know this is a bit OT, but the thread title really has me thinking about honesty in relationships.


I agree here. If your spouse let themselves get obese and you're no longer sexually or physically attracted to them but you're at a point in your relationship at which that no longer matters--you still love them and have no need to ever reproduce with them again--then I see no reason to tell them that. It's just not relevant to the relationship.

^This assumes you're like me and don't value sex highly. Maybe if you're an sx dom this will be relevant to you. That's not what I'm talking about, though.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

Geoffrey Felis said:


> A relationship with any dishonesty is a sham, and transpeople or intersex don't get a free pass to deceive.


I agree with you 100% here. You're a very intelligent, wise, and handsome man.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Geoffrey Felis said:


> I agree with you 100% here. You're a very intelligent, wise, and handsome man.


Hey Bae <3

Is it Geoffrey as in Haughty Haughty *JOFF*FREEEEEYYYY

Or Geoffrey as in *JEFF*freeeeee

?

Please respond at your earliest convenience, I am stuck and unable to move on until I know for sure.
This confusion and anxiety is killing me.

Thank you <3


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

DaphneDelRey said:


> Hey Bae <3
> 
> Is it Geoffrey as in Haughty Haughty *JOFF*FREEEEEYYYY
> 
> ...


Hahahaha !! Geoffrey is just a fancy user name for my real name Jeff.

Not all the time do I agree with myself 100%. I do have inner conflict from time to time. :wink:


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Geoffrey Felis said:


> Hahahaha !! Geoffrey is just a fancy user name for my real name Jeff.
> 
> Not all the time do I agree with myself 100%. I do have inner conflict from time to time. :wink:


You should do it more often, it's hot
:wink:

I like a guy who knows how to take charge of his inner conflict.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Shahada said:


> I see where you're coming from OP and agree with a lot of it but I think saying honesty is a privilege may be going too far in the other direction.
> 
> I think it is very understandable why someone would keep certain things from a partner, such as the thing about being gender-nonconforming which is the main topic of the OP. And also every relationship is different. So you can't really set rules, IMO, on when it is appropriate to share this kind of thing with a partner. It might be something you can share on the first date, it might take much longer before you become comfortable with sharing that part of yourself. It just depends on the situation. So I definitely don't judge someone for laying all that shit out right up front, there's all kinds of personal and private things about a person that you learn over time in a relationship. Not saying something like that right up front is not necessarily indicative of dishonesty or even an unwillingness to share necessarily, it might just feel awkward and not socially appropriate until a certain time.
> 
> ...


Interesting what happens when you flip the moral power structure, though.

Society's general scenario is one where cisgender people are almost always in the right.

My advocated scenario was where transgender people are almost always in the right.

In essence, I advocated an slightly oppressive power structure towards cisgender people and in favor of transgender people, something that doesn't exist in society.

What happened, though? People who had been formerly considered radical advocates fell somewhere in the middle of two positions, something considered a cogent position. However, the middle is rarely ever cogent, because "middle of what"? I mean, the middle position of killing everyone in the world and killing no one is severely injuring everyone or killing 3.5 billion people. Most people try to advocate a 'middle ground' between oppression and equality, i.e. oppression lite.

So, by advocating extremism, I got people to advocate a middle ground of thoughtfully considered equality. Sure, some people are and may always be ignorant to that, like the strong conservative-minded people in the thread.

I'm not about to say this was a thought experiment or anything. But perhaps it wasn't as fruitless as it appeared.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Arturo said:


> Honesty is hard .


Honesty is hard. Why would you date someone you could not be completely honest with?

In the grand scheme of things how someone dresses is pretty unimportant. Whether someone can accept someone's needs, wants, and desires is more important.

My standards are the lady I date will HELP me fulfill or understand my needs, wants, and desires if possible.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Torai said:


> I
> In essence, I advocated an slightly oppressive power structure towards cisgender people and in favor of transgender people, something that doesn't exist in society.
> \.


What if we consider a bigger picture. Does society get to determine what rights are appropriate for the bigger good? This is called democracy.

If you believe people should have the fundamental RIGHT to do whatever the fuck they want behind closed doors, as long as it does not interfere with others (especially minors), the word for that is libertarian.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

drmiller100 said:


> Honesty is hard. Why would you date someone you could not be completely honest with?
> 
> In the grand scheme of things how someone dresses is pretty unimportant. Whether someone can accept someone's needs, wants, and desires is more important.
> 
> My standards are the lady I date will HELP me fulfill or understand my needs, wants, and desires if possible.


I would not want to date someone I could not be completely honest with. But communication isn't ever easy. That was my point.

And I think the standards you define are good. It's about balancing both people's needs. Both listening. Both expressing. It's not simple. 

I can say that the best policy is to have no "need" to be dishonest. That is to say, to live my life according to what I feel is right, so that I never feel like I have something to be ashamed of.

However, when we get into issues where people are threatened because of something that isn't unethical. Where they could suffer economically (like being fired from bigotry) or attract violent attention, then being open and honest can be very dangerous.

I do not believe it's right to lie to someone in order to get them to stay with you. But to wait until trust is established to reveal something that is potentially going to endanger you or your loved ones, then yeah.

It's something to consider. Your loved ones are the ones you should be able to trust. But they also have to be trustworthy...and it is "hard" to go through the process of becoming vulnerable to someone. You know...you should only become vulnerable to trustworthy people, but how can you know who is trustworthy without showing some vulnerability? That is a hard situation...but it's reality.

Being "too honest" can put people in danger (so perhaps--too open). That was also the point I was trying to make. That honesty and truth is nice, but I don't agree with it if it will endanger innocent people.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Arturo said:


> I
> 
> Some people are "too honest" and it puts them in danger (so perhaps--too open). That was also the point I was trying to make.


Smiles..... Thank you. What most of us do when we enter a relationship is share something about ourselves, and see how it goes. Then we share more and more over time. Eventually we hit a landmine, and learn how the other person responds.

I disllike shame. I try pretty hard to not give it. And I won't accept it.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

drmiller100 said:


> Smiles..... Thank you. What most of us do when we enter a relationship is share something about ourselves, and see how it goes. Then we share more and more over time. Eventually we hit a landmine, and learn how the other person responds.
> 
> I disllike shame. I try pretty hard to not give it. And I won't accept it.


I also dislike shame and try not to give it or accept it.

I think I see the issue here being about questioning absolute virtues. Like I was raised with stories of the president who cut down the cherry tree "I will never tell a lie", or the Christians who refused to lie about being Christian, so they got eaten by lions. As if we should expect honesty just because it's a good thing.

It is transformative and there is a good lesson about sacrificing one's self to it. But I still think that should be a choice. And it's one thing if people who aren't persecuted go on about how virtuous the truth is, but it's another thing to place that expectation on others who have more to lose.

So I feel like it's a good issue to bring up because when you are a minority, trust becomes about trusting people with your secrets and being trustworthy with them as well. Privacy and secrets are also something to be valued.

And we can't treat people like they are bad because they do not want to be subjected to mistreatment for doing nothing wrong.

In various times in history secrets have had to be kept (like who would fault the underground railroad?) But I think in Western culture right now, we don't value privacy that much, while it's easier than ever to disseminate information to the ignorant masses with impunity.


----------



## Strayfire (Jun 26, 2010)

Geoffrey Felis said:


> Agreed. A relationship with any dishonesty is a sham, and transpeople or intersex don't get a free pass to deceive.


I'm just fascinated how society views by default trans/intersex as dishonest. 

The answer is obvious, but at the meta level, it intrigues me.

C'est tout.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

Baefire said:


> I'm just fascinated how society views by default trans/intersex as dishonest.



Not dishonest or bad--just outside the great majority of people. Because the great majority are either 100% male or female in sex or gender, this is what most all people expect. Because of this, a disclosure is necessary. Not to punish transgendered or intersex people, but to clarify relevant important facts. 

It is unfortunate that prospective romantic partners will run at the thought of a transgender or intersex partner. But this is no excuse to hold back deciding information until there is heart to heart. This is playing with a person's heart in the worst way.


----------



## Strayfire (Jun 26, 2010)

Geoffrey Felis said:


> Not dishonest or bad--just outside the great majority of people. Because the great majority are either 100% male or female in sex or gender, this is what most all people expect. Because of this, a disclosure is necessary. Not to punish transgendered or intersex people, but to clarify relevant important facts.
> 
> It is unfortunate that prospective romantic partners will run at the thought of a transgender or intersex partner. But this is no excuse to hold back deciding information until there is heart to heart. This is playing with a person's heart in the worst way.


I was referring to the previous posters. 

But just interesting. How do we frame the lying? We can frame it like this.



> People outwardly look like one gender but are a different one inside.
> 
> So people assume don't they... and 99% of they are right?
> 
> ...


Or we could frame it like this:



> Conversely, one could argue, not correcting and informing people is a lie in amongst itself, but precisely when it becomes the case is not readily apparent.


People do not instantly transmit information to one another, so when does the lack of correction become a lie/dishonesty?

All intriguing questions I would like to propose for the sake of interestings.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

@Baefire 

Timing is everything. When to disclose is a judgment call. I would say before the first date absolutely or before you leave the bar.

To be fair, if I were picking up women at a bar, I would be honest by wearing this shirt. :tongue:


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@Baefire

In my opinion, a person's gender identity is a lot more relevant if I am in a romantic or sexual relationship with that person. When I first meet someone, I don't expect them to tell me any sensitive information about themselves. If I'm friends with someone, I might expect them to share information about themselves to the degree that I have shared information about myself. If I had a friend who hadn't told me they were transgender, I might feel mildly hurt if I had shared information about myself that could make me feel vulnerable. Still, it wouldn't be a huge deal since a person's gender doesn't impact my decision to be friends with a person. 

A person's gender or physical sex _does_ impact my decision to be in a romantic or sexual relationship with a person because I am not attracted to people of any gender or sex, and it's an important consideration for many other people. Therefore, any attempt to conceal information on these issues is typically more serious within the context of a romantic or sexual relationship. I appreciate that transgender people may be in a difficult position, but I still need to know this kind of information to make decisions based on what I want.

I agree with what @Torai said earlier when she said that a person shouldn't assume that a trans person who recognizes their gender identity during a relationship deliberately tried to be deceptive to their partner. I think that transgender people have the same responsibilities as cis people to be as honest as they can be in their romantic or sexual relationships.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Baefire said:


> I was referring to the previous posters.
> 
> But just interesting. How do we frame the lying? We can frame it like this.
> 
> ...


You raise great points. It is simply a lie by omission. Different trans people (or intersex people) have different times of honesty that they feel comfortable with. However it is never acceptable to save the information until after things start getting serious. It should be said in one of the first dates, if not before you even start dating the person.

It's just extremely inconsiderate of the other person's time (as well as your own) to lead on a false idea of yourself. It's unreasonable of them to be burdened to ask you if you're trans or intersex since the vast majority of humans aren't. The burden is really on the minority in this case to be up front about it.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Geoffrey Felis said:


> @Baefire
> 
> Timing is everything. When to disclose is a judgment call. I would say before the first date absolutely or before you leave the bar.
> 
> To be fair, if I were picking up women at a bar, I would be honest by wearing this shirt. :tongue:


Let me ask all of you something. What if the transsexual girl is 100% stealth (a term transsexuals use to say that they can not be spotted and look, sound, act, etc 100% like any other girl, since they had their surgery, etc) in such a case you're just dating a normal girl who won't ever bring up the topic of trans, who doesn't care about that topic, and who doesn't even identify (in most cases) with trans people. In such a case, dating her, would be like dating any other girl, who for some reason is infertile. 

Is it the duty of an infertile girl to tell you before the first date: "Ohhh hey I have to tell you something before we date. I'm infertile ..."?


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Baefire said:


> I was referring to the previous posters.
> 
> But just interesting. How do we frame the lying? We can frame it like this.
> 
> ...


I think it's assumed that we understand the dominant cultural values. 

If you are um...less valuable in general than something else according to others values, then you are supposed to know people will discriminate against you, and you are supposed to tell them or else it's lying.

That sounds so horrible but I think that's it. The problem in this is that SINCE it's a quality that is already discriminated against, it also might put you at risk to disclose.

Edit: I think that it's about whatever is assumed to be personally valuable too, but probably what is culturally valuable information is important, and maybe untimely disclosure will be treated with less contempt and accusation if it's not also culturally devalued because people will not assume the same intentions.

So I really think it's the best idea to understand the values of the individual you're talking with, and to know and trust that they will not harm you with that information. 

I'm thinking of this because I knew a man who went around to the community, asking various people about his "debate" with his ex-girlfriend. Apparently she was a virgin when she met him, but he didn't think she really was because she had had sex with a woman before him. Now this was a woman who was very active in her church and who hadn't had sex with a man, and he was identifying her by name. I suppose most people aren't like that--but you can see how she was in a vulnerable position because she had disclosed that information to him in trust.

I don't think any one can really understand the experience of another person, and truth is really about making an effort to understand as well as an effort to express. Avoiding invalidating their experience by making assumptions about their feelings, motivations, and experiences. While I think that exploring the experiences of minorities helps them to build a voice that works against stereotypes...and gives an alternative definition for those groups than the one given by the dominant culture (which is often messed up), speaking out also puts people at risk and so timing is important.

It's not black and white. I am almost certain that a woman wearing men's underwear would be considered less deviant, and have less assumptions placed on her than a man wearing women's underwear. That is because of our cultural values. We can't assume everyone's internalized the same ones as us though, and so I don't think it's right to assume someone's purposefully deceiving.

I certainly think we should consider that some people are expected by many to tell more personal info than others because they are in a minority position that we are privileged not to be in, that they are not responsible for putting themselves into. That should be acknowledged.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

AesSidhe said:


> Let me ask all of you something. What if the transsexual girl is 100% stealth (a term transsexuals use to say that they can not be spotted and look, sound, act, etc 100% like any other girl, since they had their surgery, etc) in such a case you're just dating a normal girl who won't ever bring up the topic of trans, who doesn't care about that topic, and who doesn't even identify (in most cases) with trans people. In such a case, dating her, would be like dating any other girl, who for some reason is infertile.
> 
> Is it the duty of an infertile girl to tell you before the first date: "Ohhh hey I have to tell you something before we date. I'm infertile ..."?


No, but it is the moral duty to say I am a post-op transsexual.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Geoffrey Felis said:


> No, but it is the moral duty to say I am a post-op transsexual.


To anyone before the first date? Before you even know what they are as people? Before you know if they can be trusted? Before you know if they're mentally stable people? Before you know if you telling them will get you outed while you're living a normal life with no one knowing? Before you know if they might kill you for it?

Well then everyone has the moral duty to tell people to tell everyone before they go on a first date: "Ohh I got arrested x times" "I take these and these medicines, for this, this and this" "I've seen in psychiatrist like x times in my life" "When I was a teenager I was a bully and beat up people daily" "I hate this, this and this" "I like this this and this" etc etc etc.

But people don't do this. Dating is learning process, it is the way how you get to know someone and as trust grows and grows you share more and more about yourself. And then one day dating turns into a relationship, which is based on trust. Dating is just the technique used to develop the trust in order to create the relationship.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

AesSidhe said:


> Let me ask all of you something. What if the transsexual girl is 100% stealth (a term transsexuals use to say that they can not be spotted and look, sound, act, etc 100% like any other girl, since they had their surgery, etc) in such a case you're just dating a normal girl who won't ever bring up the topic of trans, who doesn't care about that topic, and who doesn't even identify (in most cases) with trans people. In such a case, dating her, would be like dating any other girl, who for some reason is infertile.
> 
> Is it the duty of an infertile girl to tell you before the first date: "Ohhh hey I have to tell you something before we date. I'm infertile ..."?


The relevant characteristics for me to be attracted to a person would include gender identity (as I could determine it through appearance and gender expression) and physical characteristics. I think that a trans person shouldn't feel obligated to bring up how they're infertile before a cis person naturally would. Fertility or desire to have kids are not normally things that are brought up before a first date or before a relationship is considered more "serious." I don't want to have kids, but I wouldn't bring up the topic of children on a first date. Transgender people shouldn't be expected to share that information before a first date if a transgender status is only relevant for fertility reasons.

I think it's good for partners to not be suddenly surprised by a trans person's identity. For example, it would be a good idea to mention the fact that you are trans before your friends or family members could mention it to your partner. Generally, people are less likely to react well to surprises.

ETA: I might feel hurt if a trans man I was in a relationship didn't share that fact when I had revealed some of my personal information that has a stigma attached to it. I have been mentally ill and taken medication for it in the past. Right now, I'm going to a therapist for some "issues." I'm aware of how it might feel to share information that could "scare" someone away from me and would hope that my vulnerability could be reciprocated by my partner's vulnerability.


----------



## Strayfire (Jun 26, 2010)

emberfly said:


> You raise great points. It is simply a lie by omission. Different trans people (or intersex people) have different times of honesty that they feel comfortable with. However it is never acceptable to save the information until after things start getting serious. It should be said in one of the first dates, if not before you even start dating the person.
> 
> It's just extremely inconsiderate of the other person's time (as well as your own) to lead on a false idea of yourself. It's unreasonable of them to be burdened to ask you if you're trans or intersex since the vast majority of humans aren't. The burden is really on the minority in this case to be up front about it.


I'm a coeliac. I can't eat anything with gluten in it (wheat products, basically). 

A friend of mine baked a lovely cake for me once. 

"I'm flattered, but I really can't eat it." 

Understandably, she was furious she wasted her effort on baking a surprise birthday cake.

She assumed I could eat wheat flour... like the majority of the populace.

Try as I might, eating the cake to appease her would only make me sick. 

Unfortunately I can't tell her before she baked her surprise cake either, emphasis on 'surprise'.

There's no way I can resolve the situation easily. 

Telling people I'm a coelliac isn't fun either:

People who aren't close stop inviting to events and functions because it's too annoying to cater for people like me - it's that or they like to play doctor and tell me it's not real. It's that or they get irritating with too many of the same questions. 

I was partly my fault for not telling her, but I suppose I wasn't entirely expecting a surprise birthday cake (how did she even know it was my birthday?). I clearly don't introduce myself as "Stray the coelliac". Draw parallels as you will, but from experience it is an extremely annoying thing to deal with. Maybe pretend to be a vegetarian.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

TurtleQueen said:


> ETA: I might feel hurt if a trans man I was in a relationship didn't share that fact when I had revealed some of my personal information that has a stigma attached to it. I have been mentally ill and taken medication for it in the past. Right now, I'm going to a therapist for some "issues." I'm aware of how it might feel to share information that could "scare" someone away from me and would hope that my vulnerability could be reciprocated by my partner's vulnerability.


In such case I believe transsexual people will open up, because in this kind of situation most transsexual people will feel that you will be capable to understand/empathize, because you were in a 'similar' situation.

In the case they really never bring it up, it means that they are extremely healthy members of society who have stopped considering themselves transsexual. Which is the dream state of mind for most of them, because that's why they transition, it's to feel and be normal members of society. Demanding of transsexual people to tell you that they are transsexual, is demanding of them to see themselves as abnormal members of society: which (re-)triggers their gender dysphoria, with all the effects that causes.

So forcing someone that is stealth to out themselves, is telling them that they are (sick) abnormal members of society, that don't deserve the same rights as other people. This is fundamentally the reason why I'm against the words trans, transsexual, etc etc, because it's a way to box people in order to tell them that they are different of others and have less rights than people of other boxes. And this is why I don't like the boxes and why I want to see them made absolute, because boxes will always lead to one box telling another box that they are better, because of this, this and this.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

@AesSidhe


> *And then one day dating turns into a relationship, which is based on trust. Dating is just the technique used to develop the trust in order to create the relationship.


You just made my argument for me. Trust can not be developed leaving this vital fact out. And there is much more chance of you being killed if you reveal after the first date. Also, if you're not out already, you have no business dating.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Geoffrey Felis said:


> @AesSidhe
> 
> 
> You just made my argument for me. Trust can not be developed leaving this vital fact out. And there is much more chance of you being killed if you reveal after the first date. Also, if you're not out already, you have no business dating.


I did not make your argument, since 'dating' and 'relationship' aren't the same thing, which is something you presume if you think I made your argument. 

This information is information that is shared in a much later stage of dating, often for transsexual people this is the last information that is shared before turning dating in a relationship. Often dating is a stage that happens for months, testing and trialing if you're emotionally and intellectually compatible with each other. So no, disclosing this kind of information should not happen after the first date, if it should than it means the relationship is not an emotional or intellectual relationship, but a sexual relationship. In the case you are looking for a real relationship, it is much more important to know if you're emotionally and intellectually compatible, which you learn through deep conversations, spending time with each other, and so much more that normal couples do.

Now I do agree with you a little bit that someone who hasn't had their surgery yet, has an obligation to disclose this information before dating, as to not create a surprise at some stage, and because transition is such an emotional roller coaster, and a possible future partner should be aware on what kind of emotional roller coaster they're joining. But since post-ops are beyond this emotional roller coaster there is no need to disclose this information when entering the dating scene


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@AesSidhe

I made the analogy to some of my sensitive personal information, but I don't think most people would freak out as much about my issues as some people seem to freak out about someone being transgender. Some of the details of it could freak people out, but I think they might be more likely to be weirded out or gossip about it rather than try to kill me or something. My stigmatized issues are still not something that I would reveal on a first date, so it's unreasonable to expect that level of disclosure from a transgender person.

Thanks for taking the time to explain why it would be wrong to expect a transgender person to tell you about that aspect of their history and how it could bring up gender dysphoria issues. I wouldn't like it if I was expected to automatically disclose my past regarding mental illness if I had moved past those issues, so I can see why a transsexual person wouldn't want to tell someone that they're transsexual before they even go on a date with a person.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

@AesSidhe
Obviously we disagree. I will let you have the last word here as I don't see how we can come eye to eye ,and I don't want to risk personal attacks. Hopefully, we can agree to disagree.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Romantic relationships are a privilege, not a right.

It's a person's prerogative to not be romantically involved with a "trans woman" or "cross dressing man" if they don't want to. They don't owe you a chance or the time to gain your trust to "come out". They are not responsible for your life or happiness. The fact of the matter is, if they reject you for this choice, then they likely will do so at any point; you might as well get it out of the way before becoming very involved. They have every right to only date people who meet their criteria; dating is personal and private, not a public thing where you are owed equal opportunity. 

People also have a right to make moral judgments of other's behaviors and choices. Just because you don't agree with it, because it conflicts with your desires, because it hurts your wittle feelings, because it may require you to be honest about the things you do, because it's not the trendy belief of the day, doesn't mean that they have to conform to your standards and your viewpoints. Better that you know quickly where they stand on these things anyway.

Some people find smoking to be a deal-breaker, others find very different religious or political views a problem, and some will find cross-dressing a big turn-off or worse. Hiding any of these things when they are MAJOR factors in attraction and compatibility is harmful to someone else, and their needs are not any less than the person who is lying. People perfectly understand it is unacceptable to post deceptive photos in online dating or to lie about drug use, etc. These things touch on personal values, beliefs, lifestyles, goals, attraction and identity, which very much affect basic compatibility. 

If you have to lie and hide something like this about yourself to appeal to someone, then you are not compatible with that person.

Sometimes people have sexual desires or other things they want to try with a partner, but when they open up about it, they discover their partner does not want to do this. Well, then they have the option of valuing that person enough to stay with them and accept they don't want to or ending it and finding someone who does want to try it. It becomes a matter of valuing the partner over the desire (whether sexual or not). The OP seems to think HIS desire and identity is more important than a partner's, and this strikes me as very selfish and self-centered. If the hypothetical male just likes women's clothing for a thrill now and then, then it shouldn't be a big deal to give up if his partner is disturbed by it. If it's his very identity, then he is a liar to have hidden it long enough to get into a committed relationship. Slow revealing honesty over mere preferences which can be sacrificed or changed are one thing, but honesty over basic identity must be upfront. 

The level of entitlement in the OP is just gross to me.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

OrangeAppled said:


> Romantic relationships are a privilege, not a right.
> 
> It's a person's prerogative to not be romantically involved with a "trans woman" or "cross dressing man" if they don't want to. They don't owe you a chance or the time to gain your trust to "come out". They are not responsible for your life or happiness. The fact of the matter is, if they reject you for this choice, then they likely will do so at any point; you might as well get it out of the way before becoming very involved. They have every right to only date people who meet their criteria; dating is personal and private, not a public thing where you are owed equal opportunity.


I totally agree with everything you wrote here. People have the right to date whomever they please and reject a person for any reason even if others might consider it petty.



> People also have a right to make moral judgments of other's behaviors and choices. Just because you don't agree with it, because it conflicts with your desires, because it hurts your wittle feelings, because it may require you to be honest about the things you do, because it's not the trendy belief of the day, doesn't mean that they have to conform to your standards and your viewpoints. Better that you know quickly where they stand on these things anyway.
> 
> Some people find smoking to be a deal-breaker, others find very different religious or political views a problem, and some will find cross-dressing a big turn-off or worse. Hiding any of these things when they are MAJOR factors in attraction and compatibility is harmful to someone else, and their needs are not any less than the person who is lying. People perfectly understand it is unacceptable to post deceptive photos in online dating or to lie about drug use, etc. These things touch on personal values, beliefs, lifestyles, goals, attraction and identity, which very much affect basic compatibility.
> 
> If you have to lie and hide something like this about yourself to appeal to someone, then you are not compatible with that person.


I think it's necessary to try to gauge what matters to a person so that you know when you aren't compatible with a person. In some cases, I can see why a post-op transsexual person may not reveal that in the first interaction with a person. I do think it's reasonable for a trans person to try to gauge how a potential partner might feel about dating someone who's transgender and to share the fact that they are transgender before dating could become a relationship as @AesSidhe indicated. Also, it's important to acknowledge that trans identities can be more stigmatized than smoking or different religious or political opinions.



> Sometimes people have sexual desires or other things they want to try with a partner, but when they open up about it, they discover their partner does not want to do this. Well, then they have the option of valuing that person enough to stay with them and accept they don't want to or ending it and finding someone who does want to try it. The OP seems to think HIS desire and identity is more important than a partner's, and this strikes me as very selfish and self-centered. If the hypothetical male just likes women's clothing for a thrill now and then, then it shouldn't be a big deal to give up if his partner is disturbed by it.


The situation presented in the other thread concerned a man who was wearing clothing typically designed for females and didn't specify why the man was wearing those clothes. It may not have anything to do with a sexual interest, much less a sexual interest with which he expects his partner to engage. I sure as heck hope that you are not referring to the OP in this thread or that you are making some kind of mistake by using "he" and "his" since @Torai has indicated that she identifies as a woman. Frankly, I wouldn't change my clothing just because it "disturbed" my hypothetical boyfriend, and I would think that a boyfriend who tried to make me change would be a control freak. I would rather have a guy dump me over my clothing than put up with weird attempts to control or change me, and I wouldn't feel obligated to change my clothing for someone else just because it isn't a "big deal."



> If it's his very identity, then he is a liar to have hidden it long enough to get into a committed relationship. Slow revealing honesty over mere preferences which can be sacrificed or changed are one thing, but honesty over basic identity must be upfront.
> 
> The level of entitlement in the OP is just gross to me.


I agree that people should be as honest about their basic identity within committed relationships as possible, but I don't think it's fair to expect transgender people to reveal everything about their personal history in cases where it may not seem particularly relevant or to expect them to reveal something so potentially risky after one date.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

OrangeAppled said:


> It's a person's prerogative to not be romantically involved with a "trans woman" if they don't want to.


As I've already described before, most of these woman see themselves as and are normal woman. It's just a certain political active group that embraces the name 'trans' for themselves. Those who do not embrace that 'term' are in every other way normal members of society, who (sadly enough) like so many other girls and woman in the World have a condition that makes them infertile, nothing more and nothing less. And if you want to have children of your own with your girlfriend, then that is an 'okish' reason for you to break up with her. (yet I'm sure if you go to forums about infertility, you might find thousands of people who'll be saying similar and most likely much harsher things than I'm saying here) Except for this single reason there is no (medical) reason to see them as anything else than just another girl. So breaking up with them for any other reason than this or the relationship not working on an emotional or intellectual level, asks of you to dig in yourself and do some self exploration.



OrangeAppled said:


> If you have to lie and hide something like this about yourself to appeal to someone, then you are not compatible with that person.


I don't know what cup of breasts you have, but many woman wear push-up bras, and fill them up, to look like they have bigger breasts and many others get cosmetic surgery in order to look prettier, but do you tell this to the guy you've just started dating? I mean you might look like a D, and then you get in the bedroom and the bra comes off, and suddenly the guy realizes that it was a wonder bra with extra filling. And you know, many of these superficial men choose women based on their cup size you know ...

What you're saying is extremely similar to what happened in this article

This Man Was Able To Successfully Sue His Wife For Being Ugly To The Tune Of $120,000

Did you ever think, that people alter themselves NOT for YOU, NOT for someone ELSE, but that they alter themselves in order to love themselves. They don't change themselves so they can easier fool you. They don't change themselves because they want to have a straight boyfriend or lesbian girlfriend, NO, they change themselves in order to feel healthy, in order to look in the mirror and not feel sad. They're not doing this for you, they don't owe you an explanation, they only owe an explanation to themselves. (and the psychiatrist, because he/she is a part of transition). Believing that you owe an explanation of why someone wants to be a more healthy person, only shows that you're the unhealthy person, because you've started considering healthy, as something that should be judged.

So no, they don't lie to you, telling you that they are trans and are different of you, that is the real lie, because they're not different from you


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

TurtleQueen said:


> I think it's necessary to try to gauge what matters to a person so that you know when you aren't compatible with a person. In some cases, I can see why a post-op transsexual person may not reveal that in the first interaction with a person. I do think it's reasonable for a trans person to try to gauge how a potential partner might feel about dating someone who's transgender and to share the fact that they are transgender before dating could become a relationship as @_AesSidhe_ indicated. Also, it's important to acknowledge that trans identities can be more stigmatized than smoking or different religious or political opinions.


It is also a bigger moral issue for many people, and they have a right to not be duped into violating their own moral standards because of someone else's deceptiveness. 

I cannot believe this has to be spelled out for people...



> The situation presented in the other thread concerned a man who was wearing clothing typically designed for females and didn't specify why the man was wearing those clothes. It may not have anything to do with a sexual interest, much less a sexual interest with which he expects his partner to engage. I sure as heck hope that you are not referring to the OP in this thread or that you are making some kind of mistake by using "he" and "his" since @_Torai_ has indicated that she identifies as a woman. Frankly, I wouldn't change my clothing just because it "disturbed" my hypothetical boyfriend, and I would think that a boyfriend who tried to make me change would be a control freak. I would rather have a guy dump me over my clothing than put up with weird attempts to control or change me, and I wouldn't feel obligated to change my clothing for someone else just because it isn't a "big deal."


I obviously brought up a hypothetical situation, hence the word "hypothetical". Otherwise, I have no concern for the feelings of the OP, who has demonstrated no concern for anyone else's feelings. I didn't note the gender and the content implied the OP identified as male.

The point was - is it an identity or something they just like to do sometimes? If you wear certain clothing ALL the time, then that's part of your identity. If you just like to dress up here & there, perhaps in private or for certain events, then that's just something you like to do sometimes. The sexual desire was illustrative for "something someone likes to do" that they may be able to give up or that can be accommodated more easily. Those are things people often don't reveal until after being intimate, yet it can be a great surprise to the other partner. The point there is to not be so selfish as to expect someone to adapt to YOUR desires, especially when it's not a matter of identity or fundamental needs. Again, the identity issue is when it becomes full deception to not disclose it from the get-go, when hiding something is downright unethical. Not being selfish means considering THEIR identity also - does it compromise their rights, beliefs, morals, etc, to be deceptive about who you are? If you are so selfish as to force your preferences on others without their knowledge or consent, then you shouldn't be dating anyway.




> I agree that people should be as honest about their basic identity within committed relationships as possible, but I don't think it's fair to expect transgender people to reveal everything about their personal history in cases where it may not seem particularly relevant or to expect them to reveal something so potentially risky after one date.


If you think someone will be upset over it and would not continue to date you for it, then it's VERY relevant to bring up right away. 
If you have very solid reason to know it would not upset some people to interact in a romantic context and perhaps have affectionate or sexual contact and then to later learn the full situation, then why not just seek out those people?



AesSidhe said:


> To anyone before the first date? Before you even know what they are as people? Before you know if they can be trusted? Before you know if they're mentally stable people? Before you know if you telling them will get you outed while you're living a normal life with no one knowing? Before you know if they might kill you for it?
> 
> Well then everyone has the moral duty to tell people to tell everyone before they go on a first date: "Ohh I got arrested x times" "I take these and these medicines, for this, this and this" "I've seen in psychiatrist like x times in my life" "When I was a teenager I was a bully and beat up people daily" "I hate this, this and this" "I like this this and this" etc etc etc.
> 
> But people don't do this. Dating is learning process, it is the way how you get to know someone and as trust grows and grows you share more and more about yourself. And then one day dating turns into a relationship, which is based on trust. Dating is just the technique used to develop the trust in order to create the relationship.


Those are not comparable to someone being transsexual; it's apples and oranges. Those issues do not deal directly with sexual preferences and sexual morality, but may be more about long-term relationship preferences. There is nothing else really comparable to this, save being a family member or something like that (ie. you know you are family, but the other person does not). Even then, it may bother someone less if the family member is still the preferred sex by birth. 

The information should be revealed before anything becomes romantic and especially before any sexual contact. Many people would feel violated to unwittingly engage in romantic and/or sexual acts with a transsexual. It is treating their moral and perhaps spiritual preferences with disrespect, by deceiving them enough to lead them to do things they'd never willing do had they known the whole truth. A first date for some may include a kiss, holding hands, a lingering hug, light incidental touches as flirtation, flirty tones & looks, suggestive banter, etc, things that you may not do with a platonic friend. 

As for the infertile thing - that affects long-term compatibility, not immediate romantic and sexual preferences. People often do ask on the first date how you feel about kids, IF they are looking for something long-term. People not looking for something long-term may not do that, but they may be upset to find they were duped into something romantic/sexual they may deem immoral or very distasteful due to that person's physical state. That is their prerogative to decide what is acceptable for themselves morally or what they find palatable sexually. Deal-breakers can change with the context, but this is one that tends to preclude the context ever being romantic, because it's a basic physical thing.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

@AesSidhe


> I don't know what cup of breasts you have,*


Probably about the size of oranges shaped like apples.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

OrangeAppled said:


> Romantic relationships are a privilege, not a right.
> 
> It's a person's prerogative to not be romantically involved with a "trans woman" or "cross dressing man" if they don't want to. They don't owe you a chance or the time to gain your trust to "come out". They are not responsible for your life or happiness. The fact of the matter is, if they reject you for this choice, then they likely will do so at any point; you might as well get it out of the way before becoming very involved. They have every right to only date people who meet their criteria; dating is personal and private, not a public thing where you are owed equal opportunity.
> 
> ...


^^
This 3 billion percent.

However, I have the problem where I meet people on a regular basis who think lying by omission, or hiding things about themselves, or making themselves out to be something other than what they are is acceptable, because *they* don't want to be faced with possible rejection.

Honestly, I don't understand this notion, and I will never care for this notion either. If you fear that you will be rejected by someone you like, then that's your problem. That does not make lying, deception or manipulation okay at all.

It just serves to increase the amount of anger you will be faced with when the person you are dating knows they've been lied to. But you can bet your bottom dollar, the person who did the lying will still be the victim - so therefore we're not allowed to get mad at them. And if we do, we're just automatically transphobic, as opposed to being pissed off that someone who told us they loved us would deceive us in such a deplorable way.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

OrangeAppled said:


> It is also a bigger moral issue for many people, and they have a right to not be duped into violating their own moral standards because of someone else's deceptiveness.
> 
> I cannot believe this has to be spelled out for people...


I can't believe transphobia has to be spelled out for you.



> I obviously brought up a hypothetical situation, hence the word "hypothetical". Otherwise, I have no concern for the feelings of the OP, who has demonstrated no concern for anyone else's feelings. I didn't note the gender and the content implied the OP identified as male.


I'm pretty sure the examples I used were of trans women trapped in lavender relationships with cis women. But any lavender relationship works. My point was that shit happens, and a lot of trans people are late-in-life transitioners. My point was closer to "she should be able to leave without having to justify why she shouldn't out herself". I just decided to let people believe that I advocated lavender relationships after getting mad about it and trying to explain since it was kinda funny to see the cisgender people feel threatened after a while.

And, yes, I chose the male symbol, but for quite a few reasons. I've been ambivalent about using the female symbol, since I can't speak to the experience of someone filled with estrogen. I haven't exactly been socialized as a woman and have lots of testosterone running through my body, so...

And I wouldn't consider myself a bigender, gender-variant, gender neutral, or agender person, so I don't feel right using the gender-neutral symbol. I did use it for a while. I kinda hint at it by using a Skitty as my avatar, since she's a 75% female gender ratio Pokémon.

But you don't care about my feelings regarding that, so I really shouldn't have bothered explaining that.



> The point was - is it an identity or something they just like to do sometimes? If you wear certain clothing ALL the time, then that's part of your identity. If you just like to dress up here & there, perhaps in private or for certain events, then that's just something you like to do sometimes. The sexual desire was illustrative for "something someone likes to do" that they may be able to give up or that can be accommodated more easily. Those are things people often don't reveal until after being intimate, yet it can be a great surprise to the other partner. The point there is to not be so selfish as to expect someone to adapt to YOUR desires, especially when it's not a matter of identity or fundamental needs. Again, the identity issue is when it becomes full deception to not disclose it from the get-go, when hiding something is downright unethical. Not being selfish means considering THEIR identity also - does it compromise their rights, beliefs, morals, etc, to be deceptive about who you are? If you are so selfish as to force your preferences on others without their knowledge or consent, then you shouldn't be dating anyway.


But how about if you date someone to get a feel for whether they would be cool with trans issues and then break it off if they don't feel the same? People date people all the time like that. Some people try to get a feel for others' preferences on religion, issues of race, and bisexuality. You don't always spout those kinds of things on the first date.

I mean, why the fuck would a trans person wanna fuck someone who's disgusted by trans people anyway? Even trans fetishists are better than that crap.



> If you think someone will be upset over it and would not continue to date you for it, then it's VERY relevant to bring up right away. If you have very solid reason to know it would not upset some people to interact in a romantic context and perhaps have affectionate or sexual contact and then to later learn the full situation, then why not just seek out those people?


A trans person should out themselves right away to someone they sense could be a bigot (not in the "I won't date you" sense, but in the opening up oneself to stuff like verbal abuse)? You don't exactly consider yourself a trans ally, do you?



> Those are not comparable to someone being transsexual; it's apples and oranges. Those issues do not deal directly with sexual preferences and sexual morality, but may be more about long-term relationship preferences. There is nothing else really comparable to this, save being a family member or something like that (ie. you know you are family, but the other person does not). Even then, it may bother someone less if the family member is still the preferred sex by birth.
> 
> The information should be revealed before anything becomes romantic and especially before any sexual contact. Many people would feel violated to unwittingly engage in romantic and/or sexual acts with a transsexual. It is treating their moral and perhaps spiritual preferences with disrespect, by deceiving them enough to lead them to do things they'd never willing do had they known the whole truth. A first date for some may include a kiss, holding hands, a lingering hug, light incidental touches as flirtation, flirty tones & looks, suggestive banter, etc, things that you may not do with a platonic friend.


Can you stop using transsexual as a noun? It's offensive, and much like using "female" as a noun. I don't care if you don't care about my feelings, but please respect the feelings of the trans people on the forum instead of just trying to spite my loudmouthed ass. There's way more than you think there are.

Plus, that could be argued the other way, and since the person who doesn't want to kiss should be able to decide the interaction and most people don't want to kiss people who could possibly be disgusted by them...

And flirty tones? Who the hell is traumatized by using a flirtatious tone with a trans person?



> As for the infertile thing - that affects long-term compatibility, not immediate romantic and sexual preferences. People often do ask on the first date how you feel about kids, IF they are looking for something long-term. People not looking for something long-term may not do that, but they may be upset to find they were duped into something romantic/sexual they may deem immoral or very distasteful due to that person's physical state. That is their prerogative to decide what is acceptable for themselves morally or what they find palatable sexually. Deal-breakers can change with the context, but this is one that tends to preclude the context ever being romantic, because it's a basic physical thing.


... Okay, everyone, the gig is up. Let's unveil our evil plan to screw all the cis people and reveal it to them later to give them existential horror. :dry:


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Torai said:


> But you don't care about my feelings regarding that, so I really shouldn't have bothered explaining that.


Before I begin my answer, I just want it known that I believe transgender people deserve the _exact same rights _as is afforded to everyone else in society. I am disgusted with the fact transphobia even exists.

However, in terms of transgender issues and identity in a relationship (what your OP is about), this is a very hypocritical statement on your part. Someone who lies about who they are to their partner clearly doesn't care about their partner's feelings either.

Your feelings/rights end where theirs begin. Why should you then crowd out that equilibrium in order to satisfy your own emotional needs? Why are your needs prioritised over theirs when the decisions you make affect _both of you_? Because you're a vulnerable minority?

So?

And also, I'd just like to point out that when the identity of the transgender person is made public to their partner, it is natural, rational and completely understandable that they will start to question everything you've ever told them since you met. Because if you hide/lie about something so integral to you, as your _identity _then what else would you lie about?

I wouldn't blame anyone in this position to exit the relationship based on the lie alone to be honest. That person has shown them anything that affects both of them that be hidden in order to "preserve my identity(feelings)."

(third-person you****)


----------



## Morpheus83 (Oct 17, 2008)

I doubt dating rejection is the only thing that's on some trans people's minds if some trans people are initially reluctant to disclose a very personal and vulnerable part of their identities. Maybe there are also concerns with potential hate crime violence. Then again, I suspect many trustworthy partners would be hurt and frustrated if something important were to be kept 'hidden' for so long. I can't be bothered trying to take any 'side' here: different concerns and feelings are at stake.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

DaphneDelRey said:


> Before I begin my answer, I just want it known that I believe transgender people deserve the _exact same rights _as is afforded to everyone else in society. I am disgusted with the fact transphobia even exists.
> 
> However, in terms of transgender issues and identity in a relationship, this is a very hypocritical statement on your part. Someone who lies about who they are to their partner clearly don't care about their partner's feelings either.
> 
> ...


I'm frustrated that I have to explain that you know, it's not exactly dishonest to avoid disclosing to people who you don't feel safe with that information. You date in order to see if you're compatible. I agree that it's dishonest to do anything sexual with someone unless you're sure that they would be cool with the transness, but acting like a trans person should out themselves on the first date reeks of societal hypocrisy when people don't reveal their sexual history or penis size on the first date. Both are factors of compatibility.

And I said I didn't care whether or not she cared about my feelings in that same post... :dry:

Not really hypocrisy if we both have a precedent of not caring about each other's feelings.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Torai said:


> I'm frustrated that I have to explain that you know, it's not exactly dishonest to avoid disclosing to people who you don't feel safe with that information. I agree that it's dishonest to do anything sexual with someone unless you're sure that they would be cool with the transness, but acting like a trans person should out themselves on the first date reeks of societal hypocrisy when people don't reveal their sexual history or penis size on the first date. Both are factors of compatibility.
> 
> And I said I didn't care whether or not she cared about my feelings. I just clarified.


In all honesty, it depends on how far this relationship has progressed.

In your OP, it says relationship, so I can assume the dating stages have been passed.
In a relationship, if you get with someone who you weren't sure is transphobic, isn't that the fault of the transgender person for leaving it so long before they found out?

If we could clarify the stage of the relationship we are talking about here, then we can progress.

Because in your previous post, you also said that most people find out they're trans during the relationship.

But now you're talking about the initial stages of dating.

Please clarify.

edit: If any words I have used to describe transgendered people are considered offensive to transgendered people, then I apologise. And if there is a preferred noun they would like to be called, please call me out on it so I can be told and be made aware of it. Thanks.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

DaphneDelRey said:


> In all honesty, it depends on how far this relationship has progressed.
> 
> In your OP, it says relationship, so I can assume the dating stages have been passed.
> In a relationship, if you get with someone who you weren't sure is transphobic, isn't that the fault of the transgender person for leaving it so long before they found out?
> ...


A trans person shouldn't have to out themselves to get out of a lavender marriage/relationship (i.e. A marriage where orientations or identities are incompatible). Shit happens, a lot are late-in-life and they may have had sex while presenting as a cis man, and there's not a lot they can do about it. Not everyone is the classic "knew since they were 2" kind.

It's a very sensitive piece of information that can leave them vulnerable to lots of discrimination.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Torai said:


> A trans person shouldn't have to out themselves to get out of a lavender marriage/relationship (i.e. A marriage where orientations or identities are incompatible). Shit happens, a lot are late-in-life and they may have had sex while presenting as a cis man, and there's not a lot they can do about it.
> 
> It's a very sensitive piece of information that can leave them vulnerable to lots of discrimination.


Okay, now we need to make another clarification. Are they outing themselves to leave the relationship, or are they outing themselves in order to embrace their true identity?

The twists and turns in this argument are starting to show, because the situations keep changing, and I just want to confirm.

Please clarify which situation we are talking about here. If they want to leave, or if they want to embrace their true identity with the (hopeful) support of their current partner who has no idea of their true gender.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

DaphneDelRey said:


> Okay, now we need to make another clarification. Are they outing themselves to leave the relationship, or are they outing themselves in order to embrace their true identity?
> 
> The twists and turns in this argument are starting to show, because the situations keep changing, and I just want to confirm.
> 
> Please clarify which situation we are talking about here. If they want to leave, or if they want to embrace their true identity with the (hopeful) support of their current partner who has no idea of their true gender.


Leave. If you've known someone for 5 or so years and are married to them, you probably know whether or not they'd take the news horribly. Plus, being in a relationship with someone who you'd have to stay in the closet with and who wouldn't use your preferred pronouns would probably suck.

To clarify, I'm saying the marriage was pre-transition, and the person shouldn't have to reveal that transition, and they shouldn't be castigated for leaving without telling. Once there's a complete decision on the transition, then they should definitely do their best to leave if it's compatible, but it's a very tricky situation. I was concerned because a lot of people in the earlier thread were being very adamant about "honesty", when honesty isn't a simple analysis of situations which involve gender expression.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Torai said:


> Leave. If you've known someone for 5 or so years and are married to them, you probably know whether or not they'd take the news horribly. Plus, being in a relationship with someone who you'd have to stay in the closet with and who wouldn't use your preferred pronouns would probably suck.
> 
> *To clarify, I'm saying the marriage was pre-transition, and the person shouldn't have to reveal that transition, and they shouldn't be castigated for leaving. I was concerned because a lot of people in the earlier thread were being very adamant about "honesty", when honesty isn't a simple analysis of the situation*.


Ah, in that case I was wrong about the facts of the situation.

If the transgendered person is seeking _solely _to leave the relationship in order to embrace their identity, _and if and only if, _they are concerned that their current partner would react negatively/harshly/or in any way transphobic - then they are NOT required to tell their current partner why they want to leave.


* *














However, I am of the firm opinion that if they believe their partner _would_ accept their transition, _and_ the fact that they want to leave: then they at least owe their current partner the dignity of telling them the truth. Because it could be that their partner might find out from someone else and be hurt by this news in the future; it would appear that you didn't trust them enough to tell them about this, and they might infer it's because you think they are transphobic when that is not the case.

I hope that clears it up now.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

OrangeAppled said:


> Those are not comparable to someone being transsexual; it's apples and oranges. Those issues do not deal directly with sexual preferences and sexual morality


Ohhh so people don't have the right to know that behind your charming exterior, there is actually hiding a wife beater from day one and you ARE allowed to know from day one, that transsexuals looked for medical intervention and healed of a birth defect and are now a healthy functional member of society? Uhm where is the logics in that?!

I fear you might have to go back to drafting table and work on your logics 

Look the only problem that society has related to dating a stealth post-op transsexual, is because most people haven't played with the stream of thoughts that you sometimes see in movies that use transsexuals as a punchline joke. In many comedies with a romantic sub-plot you have a character (often the stupid funny one) that ends up spending a drunk night with a beautiful post-op transsexual and only finds out about it in bed or on the next morning. After which this character starts wondering if they're gay, and in most movies this thought: "Am I gay?" is never resolved, it's left open, as a running joke in the movie. Now the answer on that question is actually very very easy and it's "No, you're not gay", because they had sex with someone who was in all the ways of word 'woman', a real woman.

Now of course you can tell me: "What is a woman?" or in your case you'll probably say: "Transsexuals women are not women". Ok lets go and look at some definitions shall we?



> Woman: an adult human female.





> Female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.


OMG did we just read that? That means that by this definition infertile woman aren't woman?!!! How cruel?!!! Of course you can change your stance and say that infertile woman are woman, because they denote to the sex that can bear offsprings, but are unable to do so because of medical reasons. If you'd say that, than great, you've already made your opinion a bit softer. 

Of course you might follow this definition:



> a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and retaining a beardless face; a girl or woman.


Soooooooooooo NORMALLY having a vagina, uterus and ovaries?! So that means that in LESS NORMAL situations they might have penises?! And then suddenly we realize that there is something called Intersexed (like several of you already said above) where there are people who have XX-genes, but have a male exterior and people with XY-genes, but have a female exterior. OMG things just got way more complicated. So again a definition that doesn't work.

Hmmmmm so which definition should we use then? Since definitions based on physical traits seem to contradict themselves all the time and seem to have exception rules for each of them when taking to the real physical World. Maybe we need to go look at non-physical experiences of being a woman, maybe we should look at the artificially constructed definition of the Female gender? 



> Gender: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex





> Feminine: refers to qualities and behavior deemed especially appropriate to or ideally associated with women and girls. In American and Western European culture, these have traditionally included such features as charm, gentleness, and patience: to dance with feminine grace; a feminine sensitivity to moods. feminine is sometimes used of physical features too: small, feminine hands


So if we look at the definition of gender, we realize that Gender is a behavior pattern that we stereotypically associate with a certain sex. So if individual with male chromosomes, behaves within the behavior patterns associated with female in the culture where they live, then they are seen as part of the female gender.

So now if we mix all these definitions with all their flaws, we come to the realization that a post-op transsexual is sexually an XY-female, who because of medical reasons is infertile, that acts and behaves by the female gender cultural norms of their culture, defining them as part of the female gender. So in short Sex: Female Gender: Female. If this individual copulates with a male, it makes the copulation a straight copulation, because Female + Male (copulation) = Straight (copulation)

Of course this kind of thoughts can not be forced on people, and partners that transsexual people are dating should be capable and given the space to think about this. I mean, the transsexual person has struggled with this most of their lives, and they had their whole life to figure this out, and to think about it, and to learn and realize how this all works. So when this kind of information is disclosed a transsexual person shouldn't immediately expect a date to accept this, because they need to do some thinking first, they first need to realize that this doesn't make their feelings any different, that it doesn't make them gay and that it doesn't make them sick or something. So space and love and friendship most be given, without pushing it on them.

Now why shouldn't a transsexual person disclose this information before the first date? 2 extra big reasons are these.

1. At this point in time and space, people make a big deal about transsexualism and lots of people make jokes about it (like said before, often transsexuals are a punchline joke in comedies), so when people tell you that they're transsexual, they stop being everything else. They stop being a masters in mathematics, they stop being an altruist, they stop being funny, they stop being an animal friend, etc etc, and their whole identity in the eyes of the person they had to disclose this information to becomes transsexualism. They suddenly become a one dimensioned thing in the eyes of the person who hears this before the first date, and that's horrible, because they will never see those other complex, beautiful, smart, amazing parts of this persons identity. It doesn't matter if you're INFP, INFJ, ENFP, ENFJ, etc etc, they all turn into T.R.A.N.S. This is one of the many reasons why this information should only be given at a much later stage of the dating process, because after several dates and getting to know each other they've started to see each other as individuals, as people with many amazing and beautiful layers. And then when this information is disclosed, then people can look past that demon called 'trans', because they already came to the realization that this person is much more then just that one stupid detail. And then people can start doing the thinking: "Does this make me gay?" and often the realization is: "No, I'm not gay, and this is still same fascinating girl I met a few weeks/months ago"

2. If a transsexual would disclose this information from the start, than most people will not learn to see those deeper layers, with the effect that the only people that will want to try and date the transsexual, are creepy tranny chasers, who see transsexuals as an exotic treasure, that they want to find, and conquer and use. This is an instant road to an abusive relationship. Transsexual people, like any other living person, want people to love them for WHO they are, not WHAT they are.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

@Torai



> I'm frustrated that I have to explain that you know, it's *not exactly* dishonest to avoid disclosing to people who you don't feel safe with that information.*


Not exactly !!


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

I think that a lot of conflict may have been averted, had this thread been entitled, "TRUST in a relationship is a PRIVILEGE not a right".

Who's with me?


* *


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Chesire Tower said:


> I think that a lot of conflict may have been averted, had this thread been entitled, "TRUST in a relationship is a PRIVILEGE not a right".
> 
> Who's with me?
> 
> ...


*post reported*

reason: Implying my feelings aren't the most important thing here.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

DaphneDelRey said:


> *post reported*
> 
> reason: Implying my feelings aren't the most important thing here.



* *


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@OrangeAppled

I'd just like to clarify how I might approach relationships. Some of the issues you mentioned as potential deal breakers may not be deal breakers for me. I tend to look at the totality of people I date, how they treat me, and how I see them treat other people. So, a difference in political or religious beliefs is not an issue unless they try to make me adopt their beliefs or those beliefs are extremist or lead a person to act in offensive ways to some group of people. I don't find smoking very attractive and don't seek out smokers to date. I could be worried about a smoker developing some long-term health risks from smoking, and I wouldn't want him to smoke in front of me a lot since it does make me cough a lot. Ultimately if I had a good relationship with a smoker and the smoker respected that I would prefer he doesn't smoke in front of me, I wouldn't dump someone for smoking.

People have the right to apply whatever moral standards they wish and dump people for reasons that I can't understand. Nobody has a right to treat someone like crap for failing to meet their moral standards unless the moral standard is something like "don't abuse animals."



OrangeAppled said:


> The point there is to not be so selfish as to expect someone to adapt to YOUR desires, especially when it's not a matter of identity or fundamental needs.


I think it's selfish of the other person to expect their partner to change their clothing just because it makes them feel weird or uncomfortable. People in a relationship can still be expected to have some autonomy and especially have autonomy when it doesn't immediately concern the partner. Aspects of personal style (tattoos, piercings, clothing, hair cut and color, cosmetics, accessories) are personal expressions. If a person doesn't like his/her partner's personal expressions, they can leave, but they don't need to act as if the other person is selfish for having a life not centered entirely around what they want.



> There is nothing else really comparable to this, save being a family member or something like that (ie. you know you are family, but the other person does not). Even then, it may bother someone less if the family member is still the preferred sex by birth.


I can't understand this mentality myself. Someone being a close relative is a lot more potentially horrifying and disgusting to me than someone being transgender.

Other people have explained that they consider reasonable disclosure to occur before a sex act and before a relationship moves beyond a casual dating stage. I don't see the point of repeating that viewpoint. 



> A first date for some may include a kiss, holding hands, a lingering hug, light incidental touches as flirtation, flirty tones & looks, suggestive banter, etc, things that you may not do with a platonic friend.


Here's an analogy. If a lesbian or bisexual woman mildly flirted with me, I wouldn't feel super offended. I would explain that I'm straight and expect her to stop flirting with me and not escalate the interaction. If she tried to kiss me or engage in physical contact after I told her no, she would be violating my boundaries. I would be as pissed off at a woman in this scenario as much as I would be at a man who crossed _stated_ boundaries. You can't expect someone to respect boundaries if you never state them in the first place. If a person hates the thought of a transgender person kissing them and considers it a boundary violation, they better be clear about that fact with anyone with whom they flirt. Some transgender people can pass quite well, and you may see any number of transgender people without ever knowing that they are transgender. A kiss or mild flirtation is not equivalent to having sex with someone, so it doesn't make sense to equate them.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Torai said:


> There are plenty of private things that a partner doesn't have to know about.
> 
> Do you have the right to know where your partner is, at all times? Do you have the right to know your partner's passwords to every piece of social media? If your partner goes to a therapist, do you have the right to know what goes on in that session?
> 
> If your partner was raped during your relationship, do you have a right to know that? Does a partner have the right to know your entire sexual history? Does a partner have the right to know whether your parents were abusive? If you find out secondhand about any of these, would you consider them a horrible liar?


Depends on the level of relationship, but once we are serious enough to be engaged/married or living together, then the answer is "yes" to all of the above.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Chesire Tower said:


> I think that a lot of conflict may have been averted, had this thread been entitled, "TRUST in a relationship is a PRIVILEGE not a right".
> 
> Who's with me?


That's reasonably accurate. There does seem to be some confusion between "trust" and "honesty" in this thread. 

The only caveat that I would include is that without trust, you don't have a relationship. IOW, the depth of the relationship is determined by the level of trust that exists between the individuals in the relationship. 

True intimacy is having the ability to be uncomfortably close...the point when both of you can gaze into the abyss of the deepest part of another person and accept them for who they are, brokenness and all. That takes trust and honesty in huge heaping doses. And it is very hard to achieve.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Torai said:


> Interesting what happens when you flip the moral power structure, though.
> 
> Society's general scenario is one where cisgender people are almost always in the right.
> 
> ...


I see where you're coming from in that respect and I can understand and sympathize with the position, I'm definitely not one to balk at "slightly oppressive power structures" in favor of the traditionally socially oppressed. The one thing I'll say though is that when it comes to interpersonal and romantic relationships I generally think political rules and principles don't apply so much. I understand the value of the idea as a thought experiment though.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

DaphneDelRey said:


> edit: If any words I have used to describe transgendered people are considered offensive to transgendered people, then I apologise. And if there is a preferred noun they would like to be called, please call me out on it so I can be told and be made aware of it. Thanks.


I'll give you a couple ones I noticed (I didn't want to point them out because it would come off as nitpicky, and I understand you're not being malicious):

Real gender is the one they identify with. "Gender assigned at birth" is more appropriate for what you're getting at. (It was unclear with that post. I don't know if you were talking about pre- or post- transition.)

Transgender is the proper term, not transgendered. Essentially, it's something you've been for a long time, not something that just happened to you.

And while you used transsexual correctly as far as I know, a lot of people consider them congruent. Transgender is if you don't identify as the gender you were born as (agender, bigender, etc... fall into the trans umbrella), and transsexual is if you're planning to transition to a different sex. (Transgender has a lot of androgynous people, and while there are some androgynous transsexual people, it's more rare.)

However, this is more my belief based on those I've interacted with. A lot of transgender people hate the umbrella because of the fear that some cis person in drag will have a bigger voice than people with truly incongruent genders (and the fact that trans and drag are often mistaken for each other), because some people include stuff like "studs" and "drag kings/queens" in the umbrella. I personally don't include those kinds of people in that umbrella because I don't believe someone who identifies as the gender they were assigned at birth and simply goes against gender roles is trans. I think it has to do with how you feel, how you want to live, what you would like to be addressed as, rather than how against the grain you're being. 

This is a good resource:

http://www.glaad.org/sites/default/files/allys-guide-to-terminology_1.pdf

Another thing that's important and not there. If you do this, and a lot of cis people tend to do that, please avoid using the terms "real men" and "real women". While it's not really fully transphobic unless you exclude trans people from it, gender performativity is a very real phenomenon in the community, and a lot of people feel the need to compete to fit this standard of real man/real woman.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

@_Torai_, thanks for letting me know. I genuinely am ignorant about transgender issues. So I wouldn't want to start offending anyone by accident.

Is it rude to say "transgender issues"? :laughing: I genuinely feel like it is.
I don't know what to say because I mean both transgender and transsexual. Maybe just "trans" is appropriate?


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

DaphneDelRey said:


> @_Torai_, thanks for letting me know. I genuinely am ignorant about transgender issues. So I wouldn't want to start offending anyone by accident.
> 
> Is it rude to say "transgender issues"? :laughing: I genuinely feel like it is.
> I don't know what to say because I mean both transgender and transsexual. Maybe just "trans" is appropriate?


Some fringe people might be offended, but it's about the same level as saying "gay issues" or "LGBT issues". Most people within the community use that term.

Trans is what I say because I'm lazy. If you mean both, trans works best.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

DaphneDelRey said:


> @_Torai_, thanks for letting me know. I genuinely am ignorant about transgender issues. So I wouldn't want to start offending anyone by accident.
> 
> Is it rude to say "transgender issues"? :laughing: I genuinely feel like it is.
> I don't know what to say because I mean both transgender and transsexual. Maybe just "trans" is appropriate?


Trans is fine, I mean look at my posts, I'm a lazy person and I've been saying things like "T" and "Trans" all the time, of course I say "T" because I feel dirty every time I say the full name, and when I do write it in full (as I did many times up there) it's because I don't want to create confusion, even though at a deep level I don't agree with the choice of words 

In general these are the terms.

Transgender: Umbrella term that contains all the gender variant people

Transvestite: A person that dresses as the opposite sex during certain social events for fun or in private for sexual pleasure. Widely misunderstood because of public general knowledge and idea of the pleasure seeking transvestite, while social transvestites exist just as much.

Drag Queen: A form of transvestite that is a stage performance. Meant to be an over the top portrayal of super feminine traits. 

Queer: Individuals that mix gender in any way that they experience it. Some might mix male and female traits, while others might be a female today and a male tomorrow, totally based on how they feel on each individual day. They often have a very high degree of personal expression, which makes them quite artistic (with their body as their canvas)

Transgenderist (in porn culture also known as shemale, a term you should never use unless you enjoy shit storms xDDD): These are people who take hormones, and identify and live as their chosen gender, but feel no need to have surgery to alter their sex. These people are highly stigmatized since they are like transsexual people, but since they don't have the final surgery, many countries won't allow them to change their name or their sex on their passport, creating many problems during employment, travels, official business, etc etc.

Transsexual: A person that undergoes a complete social and hormonal transition from one gender to another gender, being finalized by sex reassignment surgery. Most countries in the World allow these individuals to change their name and birth documents.

Androgynous: People who do not identify with any gender. Most will thrive on their own good looks, others in rare situations will get hormonal blockers in order for them to stay in their gender neutral form.

:kitteh:


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Torai said:


> Trans is what I say because I'm lazy.


high five for us lazy people hehehhehe


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Shahada said:


> I see where you're coming from in that respect and I can understand and sympathize with the position, I'm definitely not one to balk at "slightly oppressive power structures" in favor of the traditionally socially oppressed. The one thing I'll say though is that when it comes to interpersonal and romantic relationships I generally think political rules and principles don't apply so much. I understand the value of the idea as a thought experiment though.


I think they apply more.

"The personal is the political", so to speak. Relationships are a cornerstone of society, and interrelationship dynamics are important. A white guy dating a black woman can still be racist. A lot of misogynists have relationships with women. I mean, we can joke about the nice guy Redditor who never gets laid, but not all misogynists are unattractive people with crippling social anxiety. And a cis person's identity is often considered more valid than a trans person's identity. A lot of people try to date trans people with the intention of hiding that relationship from their friends and family. That's why I think people should work much harder to examine their privilege within relationships, not less. Things like domestic violence are a facet of oppression included in interpersonal relationships, and trans women tend to be disproportionately affected by it, as well.

Another example is there's a street cred thing among the gay community called a "gold star gay". That essentially means that you don't and have never had sex or a relationship with people who aren't the same gender. Now, this wouldn't really be so much of a problem if there weren't a lot of transphobia. A guy who has sex with trans men often loses his "gold star" status, because trans men aren't seen as real men by society.

Here's a comic that explains it well:

Orientation Police | The Amazing Adventures of Bill

But this thread has diverged due to misunderstandings. My original intention was more about "easy outs from a bad situation without being forced to disclose transition to someone who could be bigoted", so to speak, and the whole entitlement thing was more me saying, "Fuck it. Let them believe what they want to."

To be perfectly honest, I kind of want to avoid sexual relationships with anyone who isn't bi or pansexual. Like, maybe casual sex with a straight woman/gay man pre- any sort of transition. I'm in that questioning pre-transition window (Although I know I prefer feminine pronouns and being seen as a girl, I'm still assessing whether or not it's really worth it), still, and it would be nice to experience an orgasm with another person. Never had one with a partner, even though I technically had sex according to an all-inclusive definition. They would know my identity and why the situation couldn't continue past that. Literally everyone I have some semblance of a crush on knows, and the straight guy knows the most, the bi girl knows only an inkling, and the straight girl knows almost as much as the straight guy.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

AesSidhe said:


> Trans is fine, I mean look at my posts, I'm a lazy person and I've been saying things like "T" and "Trans" all the time, of course I say "T" because I feel dirty every time I say the full name, and when I do write it in full (as I did many times up there) it's because I don't want to create confusion, even though at a deep level I don't agree with the choice of words


"T" in the trans community stands for something else... :laughing:

T/E is short for testosterone/estrogen. But to be fair, that's not something people who aren't taking either need to know. It's kind of a way to keep it on the down-low when talking in public. Few people who aren't trans themselves know what terms like T/E, SRS/GRS, Spiro, blood test, part-time, and stealth mean in terms of transition. Some may know passing, but it's like speaking a whole other language and it's nice to have that when you're in public and want to speak among peers.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

AesSidhe said:


> Transgenderist (in porn culture also known as shemale, a term you should never use unless you enjoy shit storms xDDD): These are people who take hormones, and identify and live as their chosen gender, but feel no need to have surgery to alter their sex. These people are highly stigmatized since they are like transsexual people, but since they don't have the final surgery, many countries won't allow them to change their name or their sex on their passport, creating many problems during employment, travels, official business, etc etc.


I advise most people to not use that term when referring to someone else, since a lot of trans people, especially trans men, don't have genital surgery. Financial realities, satisfaction with projected results (whether real or perceived), and lack of genital dysphoria could all be part of this. The genital question kind of makes those who don't opt for GRS seem "not trans enough", so to speak, and it's that whole view that tends to lead people to believe that trans people are mentally ill.

But the genital question is not a fun question for a lot of transgender people, and it's very similar to saying to a cis woman, "What does your vagina look like?" Fine if you both are talking about having sex with each other, but in other situations, not so fine...


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

@Torai


> I'm frustrated that I have to explain that you know, it's not exactly dishonest to avoid disclosing to people who you *don't feel safe* with that information.*


Say, why would you even consider dating someone you don't feel safe with?


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Geoffrey Felis said:


> @Torai
> 
> 
> Say, why would you even consider dating someone you don't feel safe with?


They won't, even non-transgender people in general can spot a bigot from miles away (or during or just before the first date), which is a HUGE turn off for most people. So no, I'm sure they won't date someone like that


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

AesSidhe said:


> They won't, even non-transgender people in general can spot a bigot from miles away (or during or just before the first date), which is a HUGE turn off for most people. So no, I'm sure they won't date someone like that


The question was not addressed to you.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Torai said:


> I'm still assessing whether or not it's really worth it


I don't want to be cruel or elitist (and I'm only saying this in public to spread awareness) buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut ...



> In-order to label a person as a transsexual the following criteria need to be satisfied :
> 
> 1. The person must experience a sense of discomfort and inappropriateness about his/ her anatomic sex.
> 2. The person must have a desire to be rid of his/her own genitals and to live as a member of the opposite sex.
> ...





> Transsexualism is definitely not a mere whim on the part of the affected person. It seems to be the end result of a combination of abnormal neuroanatomy, superimposed on which are psychological, environmental & probably hormonal factors





> To summarise, it may be apt to say:
> 
> 1. That transsexualism has its foundation laid before the age of 3 years.
> 2. That the transsexual brain is probably slightly different in its neuroanatomy.
> ...





> No rational person would choose gender shift and surgery, so therefore it can't be a rational choice.





> The only choice a transsexual has, is between transition and suicide.





> This (Red: transsexualism) is so hard that no one would do this if they had any other option. My (RED:
> Danielle Kaufman, M.D.) only other option was to die. And yes, I was prepared to die. I had carefully detailed plans and all the necessary supplies. All I needed were 10 minutes before I went to bed and I wouldn't wake up the next day. I saw it less as suicide and more like euthanasia: I had a medical condition that bordered on unbearable at times.





> This is a choice like breathing is a choice. You can choose to not breathe, but not for long.


So after reading all of this, your "assessing whether or not it's really worth it", is a huge red flag you know ... 

For your own mental health and safety, I hope you figure this out, because I wouldn't want you to get stuck in limbo. :sad:


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

@Torai

I Am Transgendered! - Support Groups and Service Organizations

Transsexual, Transgendered, Crossdressers, Wives and Parents Support Group Online Meetings

Message board site
http://www.tgboards.com/forums/viewforum.php?sid=8f846c08a67f28240642ecb00feb34af


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Geoffrey Felis said:


> @Torai
> 
> 
> Say, why would you even consider dating someone you don't feel safe with?


Say hypothetically I pass and I meet a cute guy/gal/gender-variant person, we hit it off at a place of common interest, we both exchange numbers, and I go on a first date. The topic just didn't go there, and that's fine. Trans isn't all a trans woman is. A black woman doesn't have to talk about her blackness when first meeting a white guy. So, again, I didn't talk anything about trans or LGBT issues before the first date. I'm not gonna out myself then and there, but the conversation's going to at least breach the topic so I can see what their stance is. It's not technically polite to talk about politics on the first date, but it's kind of something that would be necessary for someone who's bi, pan, or trans.

But basically, if I feel that someone wouldn't be cool with it, I text them afterwards to say, "It isn't going to work out."

If I feel they would be, I give them an explanation and let them choose whether they want to pursue.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Geoffrey Felis said:


> The question was not addressed to you.


But I'll be damned if she isn't correct. :tongue:


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

AesSidhe said:


> I don't want to be cruel or elitist (and I'm only saying this in public to spread awareness) buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut ...
> 
> So after reading all of this, your "assessing whether or not it's really worth it", is a huge red flag you know ...
> 
> For your own mental health and safety, I hope you figure this out, because I wouldn't want you to get stuck in limbo. :sad:


Don't worry. Suicide's not in the cards any time soon. That phase of my life is done. (Just to clarify, it wasn't related to any of this.)

I don't consider myself a sob story. I'm not unhappy everyday. In fact, most people would say I'm really happy.

I never wanted to cut anything off, either. I'm fine with my penis, but definitely interested in a vagina. Reading trans women's satisfaction with their GRS makes me absolutely thrilled. Especially since I've heard it can lubricate itself a little and apparently it works like a cis woman's vagina without all the periods or pregnancy. Oh, and you have to dilate it periodically.

It just sucks sometimes looking in the mirror and seeing a jawline and man-body. In the back of my mind, I never pictured I would grow into that. There was kinda this wish that it would be different. I guess I'm kind of obsessed with the mirror more than I should be, though. I always have some sort of urge to look and see if I'm feminine enough today.

But there's this thing called labeling theory and self-fulfilling prophecy, and basically what it means in this situation is that if you apply a label to yourself, and keep using it, you tend to behave as that label. I don't want to do that, though, because I've heard how big the struggle is, and how hard it can be. I know that I'm definitely on that transgender spectrum (otherwise I would be like "I'm growing into a man, AWESOME! FUCK YEAH CHEST HAIR."), but I don't want to do something I regret or co-opt the struggle of transition.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Torai said:


> But there's this thing called labeling theory and self-fulfilling prophecy, and basically what it means in this situation is that if you apply a label to yourself, and keep using it, you tend to behave as that label. I don't want to do that, though, because I've heard how big the struggle is, and how hard it can be.


Just don't end up in this situation


----------



## TWN (Feb 16, 2012)

Torai said:


> This isn't a satirical position at all. I just decided to hijack Swordsman of Mana's title.
> 
> When I was going through the "http://personalitycafe.com/sex-rela...ut-your-s-o-liked-dress-women-s-clothing.html" thread, I had observed some of the responses, and saw issue with them.
> 
> ...



I think it starts with yourself.

I love strong, secure, men. I also prefer penises.

I had a friend say to me once that it shouldn't matter if a trans guy is honest about the work that hes had done, and that anyone worthy of him wouldnt care.

I disagree with this, while completely understanding the reason why people withhold crucial information.

I'm female, but my gender is atypical, and I have no problem with telling guys upfront "Im genderqueer, and nah, I dont have a penis, nor will I ever want one. It's strictly a gender thing: My sex doesnt bother me."

So when it comes to trans people, or cis men, I expect them to be honest. And if they're not? Screw them.

I'd be more impressed by a pre-op trans guy that told the truth, than a post-op trans guy that lied to me about being trans at all. It's disrespectful.

If I found out my guy wanted to wear womens clothing It would be a turn-off.

Not because I think it's emasculating to men, but because I think it's emasculating to everyone. I dont wear skirts for a reason. 

But to lie about something because you think the world is too homophobic or trans phobic...it's a slap in the face to gender-nonconforming people that are ALWAYS honest about our gender, and sex. 

Be honest upfront, and there wont be any surprises later on.

Stop being so goddanm insecure about yourself, and live your fucking life.

Confident people, or at least those of us that dont hide from the truth, will never have time for people that hide behind a fake persona. If you get dumped because you lied, you deserve it.


----------



## TWN (Feb 16, 2012)

Euclid said:


> Being honest is not the same thing as being candid.


Honest: "Im trans"

Candid: "I still have a dick"

It's the same thing, if you ask me.

The first will always lead to the second.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Eska said:


> He's not.
> 
> He's a feminine male/man.


Says you.

A lot of people say she's a woman.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Torai said:


> Says you.


*man: definition of man in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)*



> _man
> Pronunciation: /man /
> Definition of man in English:
> NOUN (plural men /mɛn/)
> ...


*woman: definition of woman in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)*



> _woman
> Pronunciation: /ˈwʊmən /
> Definition of woman in English:
> NOUN (plural women /ˈwɪmɪn/)
> ...


*Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*



> _A man is a male human._


*Woman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*



> A woman is a female human.


___

Let me guess, there's a "new definition"?


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Eska said:


> He's not.
> 
> He's a feminine male/man.


And this is what @drmiller100 was (most likely) indicating as bigotry

You're lucky the forum doesn't allow 'porn', because else I'd post pictures of a girl after surgery ... no way you'd call her a feminine male/man xDDD


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Eska said:


> *man: definition of man in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)*
> 
> _man
> Pronunciation: /man /
> ...


What is a male and what is a female?

Penises, vaginae, chromosomes, they all can't make someone a man.

How come you people throw around "real man" so readily only when forcing someone to be a man?

Why can't someone escape from "manhood" or "womanhood", yet it takes effort for a cis man to reach it?


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Eska said:


> *man: definition of man in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Let me quote a post of mine on page number 12



> Now of course you can tell me: "What is a woman?" or in your case you'll probably say: "Transsexuals women are not women". Ok lets go and look at some definitions shall we?
> 
> Woman: an adult human female.
> Female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.
> ...


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

AesSidhe said:


> And this is what @drmiller100 was (most likely) indicating as bigotry
> 
> You're lucky the forum doesn't allow 'porn', because else I'd post pictures of a girl after surgery ... no way you'd call her a feminine male/man xDDD


How is that bigotry?

Not agreeing with a fallacious statement simply because you're offended, is bigotry?



Torai said:


> What is a male and what is a female?
> 
> Penises, vaginae, chromosomes, they all can't make someone a man.
> 
> How come you people throw around "real man" so readily only when someone wants to be a man?


A "real man" is a figurative expression for a "masculine male", and can also be used in a traditional/chivalrous sense.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Eska said:


> Not agreeing with a fallacious statement simply because you're offended, is bigotry?


Offended by you? I'm not. If I was, I would have ended our conversation. The fact we're still talking means that I see hope in you DD


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

AesSidhe said:


> Offended by you? I'm not. If I was, I would have ended our conversation. The fact we're still talking means that I see hope in you DD


Ok.

I never claimed that you were offended by me personally, I was referring to you possibly being offended by the opposite view of your point.

Then again, how is that bigotry?


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

Eska said:


> *man: definition of man in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


20 words that once meant something very different | ideas.ted.com

Changes to Old English vocabulary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Words that have literally changed meaning through the years - Mirror Online

Hold onto your dictionary definitions but there's nothing rational about it.
To think that lexicon doesn't evolve over time is foolish, my bad, _nice_.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Hotes McGoats said:


> 20 words that once meant something very different | ideas.ted.com
> 
> Changes to Old English vocabulary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


Where are the words "man" and "woman"?

None of what you've linked me refers to these words.

The correct words are "masculine" and "feminine".

A 'transgender' is a masculine [sex] or a feminine [sex], he cannot choose to alter the definitions at his will, without being deemed as inaccurate.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Eska said:


> Ok


About the quote I made of a post of myself: It's easier to read on page 12, because I used several quotes, but on the quote of a quote they kind of got scrambled so yea xDD


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

Eska said:


> Where are the words "man" and "woman"?
> 
> None of what you've linked me refers to these words.
> 
> The correct words are "masculine" and "feminine".


Irrelevant.

My point is that words evolve and, while bigotry marches at a snail pace, the definitions of _man_ and _woman_ can easily be linked as "of the male/female gender" regardless of what they're packing inside dem jeans.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Hotes McGoats said:


> Irrelevant.
> 
> My point is that words evolve and, while bigotry marches at a snail pace, the definitions of _man_ and _woman_ can easily be linked as "of the male/female gender" regardless of what they're packing inside dem jeans.


And you think that doesn't need to pass through academics that have to study the case itself and approve of it?

You think I could wake up tomorrow and decide that "banana" means "A blue bus with more than twenty passengers in it.", and start using it as if it were in fact the accepted definition of that word?


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Eska said:


> A "real man" is a figurative expression for a "masculine male", and can also be used in a traditional/chivalrous sense.


Exactly. Cis men see it as a compliment. Trans women see it as an insult.

I mean, just from an operant conditioning perspective, a wise megalomaniac would cater humiliation and reward to someone's gender identity. Seeing trans women as women is just good leadership.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Torai said:


> Exactly. Cis men see it as a compliment. Trans women see it as an insult.
> 
> I mean, just from an operant conditioning perspective, a wise megalomaniac would cater humiliation and reward to someone's gender identity. Seeing trans women as women is just good leadership.


It's irrelevant what a trans woman sees as an insult or not, that doesn't somehow dismiss the accurate usage of the word.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Eska said:


> Then again, how is that bigotry?


Calling a (transsexual) woman/girl a feminine male/man is bigotry I fear

Definition:



> Bigotry is a state of mind where a person strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. Some examples include personal beliefs, race, religion, national origin, *gender*, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

AesSidhe said:


> Calling a (transsexual) woman/girl a feminine male/man is bigotry I fear
> 
> Definition:


"strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc."

Disagreement = unfairly disliking?


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

[No message]


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

Eska said:


> And you think that doesn't need to pass through academics that have to study the case itself and approve of it?


No. Semantics shmematics, especially since neurobiology is proving the possibility of transgender brains.



> You think I could wake up tomorrow and decide that "banana" means "A blue bus with more than twenty passengers in it.", and start using it as if it were in fact the accepted definition of that word?


That'd be your own choice and, while I'd still think that banana means the yellow fruit, I wouldn't shove a dictionary down your throat. But the example itself is nonsensical as transgenderism is a concrete reality backed up by evidence and numerous experiences, while every individual interpretation matters, in this case it goes far beyond individual delusional thinking.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Eska said:


> You think I could wake up tomorrow and decide that "banana" means "A blue bus with more than twenty passengers in it.", and start using it as if it were in fact the accepted definition of that word?


You actually could, and if enough people join you on this new trend, then at some point it'll become a mainstream usage of the word 

Of course, I think it'd be used more often if the bus wasn't blue, but yellow


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Arturo said:


> @_BlackDog_
> 
> It's something I would want to know also.
> 
> ...


I think biological sex is something I need to know right away. I understand why someone might omit this, which is why I am wondering if it is something that ought to be explicitly asked early on. I don't think directly lying about it is acceptable.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Torai said:


> I think it would be only proper to call you a mucus filled meat specimen made of jizz.
> 
> What? It's accurate.


It's quite figurative, but yes, that would be somehow accurate.



Hotes McGoats said:


> No. Semantics shmematics, especially since neurobiology is proving the possibility of transgender brains.
> 
> That'd be your own choice and, while I'd still think that banana means the yellow fruit, I wouldn't shove a dictionary down your throat. But the example itself is nonsensical as transgenderism is a concrete reality backed up by evidence and numerous experiences, while every individual interpretation matters, in this case it goes far beyond individual delusional thinking.


That still does not entitle an individual to inaccurately use a word without being deemed as inaccurate.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

Transsexual/transgender people cross-dress because in there heart they feel like the opposite sex. Yes, there is an appearance of deception but not necessarily unethical deception. Whether there is actual deception in bad faith during a social interaction is more complex, and the reason why were debating in this thread of course. Just using cross-dressing as one example.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Eska said:


> "strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc."
> 
> Disagreement = unfairly disliking?


There's no 'disagreement' here, because as Hotes McGoates just implied without going into details: there is actually scientific proof that there are medical and even genetic reasons, why transsexualism exists. So your 'disagreeing' doesn't matter, because it is scientific fact that transsexuals exist and that when autopsies are performed on for example transsexual brains, it is shown that their brains are female brains and not male brains (in the case of male to females), and this isn't only the case for those who were on hormones, no autopsies have even shown that male to female transsexuals who died before they started taking hormones had female brains.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

AesSidhe said:


> There's no 'disagreement' here, because as Hotes McGoates just implied without going into details: there is actually scientific proof that there are medical and even genetic reasons, why transsexualism exists. So your 'disagreeing' doesn't matter, because it is scientific fact that transsexuals exist and that when autopsies are performed on for example transsexual brains, it is shown that their brains are female brains and not male brains (in the case of male to females), and this isn't only the case for those who were on hormones, no autopsies have even shown that male to female transsexuals who died before they started taking hormones had female brains.


I fail to see how that even correlates with the accurate usage of the word.

Not once did I dismiss the existence of transsexuals or challenge the studies conducted on them.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> He's not.
> 
> He's a feminine male/man.


Your ignorance of the concept is disgusting.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> Your ignorance of the concept is disgusting.


Ok.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Eska said:


> Ok.


It's not OK. It's morally reprehensible.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> It's not OK. It's morally reprehensible.


Ok.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Eska said:


> I fail to see how that even correlates with the accurate usage of the word.
> 
> Not once did I dismiss the existence of transsexuals or challenge the studies conducted on them.


but yet you say



> Disagreement = unfairly disliking?


if you acknowledge the fact that transsexual people are a scientific fact, and that their brains are female brains (in the case of male to female) and that they feel and see themselves as woman, and undergo a HORRIBLE process, during which many of them lose their loved ones (luckily less so then in the past), in order to be normal members of society, than you agree with these findings?

But if you 'agree' with these findings, then why do you say you 'disagree'?

Or do you 'disagree' with the scientific findings? 

And if you 'agree' with the scientific findings, isn't you calling transsexuals feminine males/men = unfairly disliking?

And if you 'disagree' with the scientific findings, why don't you do some research on your own and write a paper about your findings? I'm sure that if you can prove that what all the other scientists say is wrong, you'll be famous ...


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

AesSidhe said:


> but yet you say
> 
> if you acknowledge the fact that transsexual people are a scientific fact, and that their brains are female brains (in the case of male to female) and that they feel and see themselves as woman, and undergo a HORRIBLE process, during which many of them lose their loved ones (luckily less so then in the past), in order to be normal members of society, than you agree with these findings?
> 
> ...


I don't think he's saying it's not a real phenomenon, where these people actually feel more like a man or a woman, but rather that some differences in brain structure don't necessarily trump anatomy when it comes to categorization of the sexes. 

It is actually a philosophical concept more than a scientific one, I would argue. Why, just because one shares some neurological structures with the opposite sex, does one feel as though they must have the anatomy of the opposite sex? Does it necessarily trump the traditional definition of biological sex? 

I think that is what he is getting at. I have a similar problem with the concept, but would not call it bigoted.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> I don't think he's saying it's not a real phenomenon, where these people actually feel more like a man or a woman, but rather that some differences in brain structure don't necessarily trump anatomy when it comes to categorization of the sexes.
> 
> It is actually a philosophical concept more than a scientific one, I would argue. Why, just because one shares some neurological structures with the opposite sex, does one feel as though they must have the anatomy of the opposite sex? Does it necessarily trump the traditional definition of biological sex?
> 
> I think that is what he is getting at. I have a similar problem with the concept, but would not call it bigoted.


Because (and this is where it gets weird) transsexual people (together with people who experience phantom pain) seem to proof that the brain has a mental map of the body and that it can identify the presence or the absence of body parts that should or shouldn't be there. That's why transsexual male to females feel such a big discomfort about their penis, because they experience it as some sort of parasite or a form of 'cancer'. While female to males will describe that (at times) they can feel their penis, even when they didn't have their surgery yet. This is why it is reasonable to believe that in matters of sex (and gender) the brain trumps the rest of the body, because the absence of the correct body actually leads to phantom pain, which is quite fascinating and creepy at the same time


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> I don't think he's saying it's not a real phenomenon, where these people actually feel more like a man or a woman, but rather that some differences in brain structure don't necessarily trump anatomy when it comes to categorization of the sexes.
> 
> It is actually a philosophical concept more than a scientific one, I would argue. Why, just because one shares some neurological structures with the opposite sex, does one feel as though they must have the anatomy of the opposite sex? Does it necessarily trump the traditional definition of biological sex?
> 
> I think that is what he is getting at. I have a similar problem with the concept, but would not call it bigoted.


In response to the underlined questions, I feel that what we call transgender people is a societal topic that should take their feelings on the matter into consideration. Someone who sees themselves as a different gender from the one they were assigned at birth probably feels that it's cruel to continuously call them by the gender that they were assigned at birth no matter what they try to do to appear as another gender. People don't undergo surgery to alter their sexual organs on some kind of whim. The consideration of respect for another person's feelings trumps what makes the most sense to you based on the physical organs with which a person was born.

When biologists study animals, the animals cannot get their feelings hurt by defining them as male or female according to the traditional definition of biological sex. People can get their feelings hurt if someone dehumanizes them by classifying them according to their sexual organs from birth against their express wishes. If you want to talk to people instead of just being a biologist, it's much kinder to accept a gender identity even if it doesn't match what is normally expected for someone who had certain reproductive organs from birth.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

BlackDog said:


> I think biological sex is something I need to know right away. I understand why someone might omit this, which is why I am wondering if it is something that ought to be explicitly asked early on. I don't think directly lying about it is acceptable.


It's interesting how important that tends to be for people. I was thinking about different cultures throughout history, and it seems like many have obvious ways to distinguish gender and also relationship status, and age. Like hair styles, clothing, tattoos etc.

So it sort of put gender in perspective to me, and what an important role it plays. Usually I just feel like...gender? Who cares? But I see now that it makes issues like this easier because people can be put cleanly into boxes without conversation.

Anyway--IDK. I would like to know biological sex as well as a lot of other stuff. But I still feel like if I was transsexual (I'm sorry if I'm using the wrong term) that I would have to worry about someone asking me on a date...some, say, dumb-ass...and how he telling him right off the bat, before I knew what kind of character he had, might give him a weapon that could hurt my reputation, my activities with my church, my employment opportunities, possibly subject me to violence or threats, and probably other stuff I didn't think of. 

So I don't think people should be expected to reveal that kind of thing unless they have trust in the person's character. As was said, if a person gets the sense that who they are talking to is intolerant, then they can choose to end the relationship or to avoid taking it further. If they get the sense that the person might be open and trustworthy, then they should discuss it.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

AesSidhe said:


> Because (and this is where it gets weird) transsexual people (together with people who experience phantom pain) seem to proof that the brain has a mental map of the body and that it can identify the presence or the absence of body parts that should or shouldn't be there. That's why transsexual male to females feel such a big discomfort about their penis, because they experience it as some sort of parasite or a form of 'cancer'. While female to males will describe that (at times) they can feel their penis, even when they didn't have their surgery yet. This is why it is reasonable to believe that in matters of sex (and gender) the brain trumps the rest of the body, because the absence of the correct body actually leads to phantom pain, which is quite fascinating and creepy at the same time


I have just not yet made sense of the matter. I have not reconciled the biological and philosophical implications of gender or gender identity. I also wonder about the notion of brain plasticity, and whether or not a perceived penis could be the result of the brain responding to the mindset and forging different neurological connections. It might turn out to be a bit of a 'chicken or the egg' situation, I don't know. 

Granted, my research on the matter has been somewhat rudimentary but I found some of the studies to be questionable and was not satisfied by the conclusions drawn in some cases.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

AesSidhe said:


> but yet you say
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Where did I claim that my disagreement was in relation to their existence?

The whole debate we were having was on the accurate usage of the words.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

TurtleQueen said:


> In response to the underlined questions, I feel that what we call transgender people is a societal topic that should take their feelings on the matter into consideration. Someone who sees themselves as a different gender from the one they were assigned at birth probably feels that it's cruel to continuously call them by the gender that they were assigned at birth no matter what they try to do to appear as another gender. People don't undergo surgery to alter their sexual organs on some kind of whim. The consideration of respect for another person's feelings trumps what makes the most sense to you based on the physical organs with which a person was born.
> 
> When biologists study animals, the animals cannot get their feelings hurt by defining them as male or female according to the traditional definition of biological sex. People can get their feelings hurt if someone dehumanizes them by classifying them according to their sexual organs from birth against their express wishes. If you want to talk to people instead of just being a biologist, it's much kinder to accept a gender identity even if it doesn't match what is normally expected for someone who had certain reproductive organs from birth.


My issue rises with whether gender can be meaningfully separated from biological sex. Putting aside neurological differences, lets just examine the concept of gender and sex. Gender is related to one's role in society, and presumably when one identifies with a particular gender it must be based on some criteria or characteristics. How do we determine which characteristics are male and which are female? We look at female humans and observe their behaviour/characteristics. These characteristics invariably are present in both sexes, but perhaps just more often and more strongly in the females. So a male who identifies with some particular behaviour is looking for other people who exhibit that behaviour as a group more frequently and identifying with the group, despite the fact that is not what defines the group. 

Instead of trying to categorize people based on such behavioural characteristics, would it not make more sense to accept that these characteristics occur in both males and females demonstrably? The characteristics do not define the biological sex. The characteristics are just more prevalent within groups of that biological sex. What the male is then saying is, I identify with some characteristics of that group, so I want to be a female. He is not a female, but he wants to be.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Eska said:


> Where did I claim that my disagreement was in relation to their existence?
> 
> The whole debate we were having was on the accurate usage of the words.


and my reply wasn't related to existence, but to the official scientific findings and there with connected correct usage of words.

If you acknowledge the findings about transsexuals, than you should also acknowledge the correct naming of transsexual male to females as: woman and to the correct naming of transsexual female to males as: men

Not doing so after acknowledging scientific findings, would be giving transsexuals an 'unfairly disliking', by systematically naming them something that hurts them beyond your knowledge

Do you understand?


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> Your ignorance of the concept is disgusting.


Lets keep the personal attacks to a minimum. Attack the post, not the person please.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> My issue rises with whether gender can be meaningfully separated from biological sex. Putting aside neurological differences, lets just examine the concept of gender and sex. Gender is related to one's role in society, and presumably when one identifies with a particular gender it must be based on some criteria or characteristics. How do we determine which characteristics are male and which are female? We look at female humans and observe their behaviour/characteristics. These characteristics invariably are present in both sexes, but perhaps just more often and more strongly in the females. So a male who identifies with some particular behaviour is looking for other people who exhibit that behaviour as a group more frequently and identifying with the group, despite the fact that is not what defines the group.
> 
> Instead of trying to categorize people based on such behavioural characteristics, would it not make more sense to accept that these characteristics occur in both males and females demonstrably? The characteristics do not define the biological sex. The characteristics are just more prevalent within groups of that biological sex. What the male is then saying is, I identify with some characteristics of that group, so I want to be a female. He is not a female, but he wants to be.


This is very correct, and this is also why statistically speaking there are more Male to Females than Female to Males. Why? Because woman are accepted to dress like men, and they'll be called Tomboys. For a very big group of the population (but of course a small part of the complete population) just dressing masculine is good enough for them to experience and express themselves. But the same thing isn't true for males, because there is no such thing as an accepted male that dresses as female, if this would be the case, than we would see the numbers of male to female transsexuals drop down to the same level of female to males.

So that tells us, that a certain percentage (and most likely the majority, but don't quote me on this, because transsexuals might get angry for me saying this) of 'transsexuals' aren't actually 'transsexuals', but they're just forced by society to transition, because there is no space for them in society as they really are. But at the same time this also tells us that the phenomena of transsexuals is a real thing, because even after the widespread acceptance of Tomboys, there are still females who transition to become males.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

AesSidhe said:


> and my reply wasn't related to existence, but to the official scientific findings and there with connected correct usage of words.
> 
> If you acknowledge the findings about transsexuals, than you should also acknowledge the correct naming of transsexual male to females as: woman and to the correct naming of transsexual female to males as: men
> 
> ...


It is irrelevant if it hurts them.

In previous debates, I've said that I would never use a pronoun to address the person, it's a win-win situation, the person is not displeased by what she believes is an inaccurate pronoun and I'm not displeased of being inaccurate.

The fact of the matter is that the usage you're referring to, is incompatible with the accurate usage of the words. (At least, based on the scientific/linguistic definitions.)



drmiller100 said:


> Lets keep the personal attacks to a minimum. Attack the post, not the person please.


It's not an attack to the person, although, it doesn't provide any substance other than "You're ignorant", without actually pointing out what I'm ignorant about.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Eska said:


> Where did I claim that my disagreement was in relation to their existence?
> 
> The whole debate we were having was on the accurate usage of the words.


so.... lets try this.

What makes someone male vs female? Is it the chromozomes they were born with? The genitalia? How about the soul.

Long ago I decided I was libertarian. What this means in the context of this discussion is people's individual rights trump what I think in almost every circumstance EXCEPT when it interferes with my life or someone else's. 

So, someone wants to say they are male, and have a vagina and 38DDDD's. Good on them! Someone says they want to be male and has a penis. GOOD ON THEM!

If I go on a date with a female, and she and I decide we are not a good match, there are a whole slew of things I'm not going to share with her like my kid's names, my kinks, the fact I have a dog, etc. 

If we decide to date, and maybe go to bed, there are some disclosures which I would expect. I had one lady tell me once both her daughters are dating black guys. I don't care. Apparently some people do.

Likewise, if a woman is transgender, and we were considing dating long term, I'd probably expect that to come up in a conversation fairly early. Some folks don't like it, some don't care.

From personal experience. There once was a lady I was sort of interested in. Brilliant, kind, nice, about my own age. We got to chatting, but she lives far away.......

Later I learned she was Trans. I asked her. I thought about whether if she was local I'd try to date her, and whether that mattered to me. To be honest at first it did make me squeemish, but then I thought about it longer, and thought about the PERSON. 

I'd date her.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Eska said:


> I
> It's not an attack to the person, although, it doesn't provide any substance other than "You're ignorant", without actually pointing out what I'm ignorant about.


Interesting thread. You have a stronger grasp of the definition of "ignorant" then she does also. 

Sometimes the intent of a comment is powerful. You were supposed to be devastated by her condemnation of you as a person because of your ignorance of this subject. 

instead you simply agreed you are not knowledgeable of this subject. 

Talking things out, and disagreeing is how I learn most effectively. I believe you are similar.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Eska said:


> It is irrelevant if it hurts them.
> 
> In previous debates, I've said that I would never use a pronoun to address the person, it's a win-win situation, the person is not displeased by what she believes is an inaccurate pronoun and I'm not displeased of being inaccurate.
> 
> ...


Again, Eska, go read my post on page number 12 

I'll do you a favor, I'll quote it again. 

I hope your next post will be about these correct and more complete definitions, because when you posted this quote: "Woman: an adult human female" you did not define what a female is. As you will notice in the definitions I posted, I did go in this more complicated business of defining and explaining this specific word of the definition. Which'll lead you to some interesting new knowledge 



> Now of course you can tell me: "What is a woman?" or in your case you'll probably say: "Transsexuals women are not women". Ok lets go and look at some definitions shall we?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> My issue rises with whether gender can be meaningfully separated from biological sex. Putting aside neurological differences, lets just examine the concept of gender and sex. Gender is related to one's role in society, and presumably when one identifies with a particular gender it must be based on some criteria or characteristics. How do we determine which characteristics are male and which are female? We look at female humans and observe their behaviour/characteristics. These characteristics invariably are present in both sexes, but perhaps just more often and more strongly in the females. So a male who identifies with some particular behaviour is looking for other people who exhibit that behaviour as a group more frequently and identifying with the group, despite the fact that is not what defines the group.
> 
> Instead of trying to categorize people based on such behavioural characteristics, would it not make more sense to accept that these characteristics occur in both males and females demonstrably? The characteristics do not define the biological sex. The characteristics are just more prevalent within groups of that biological sex. What the male is then saying is, I identify with some characteristics of that group, so I want to be a female. He is not a female, but he wants to be.


I'm not sure of what the distinction is, but plenty of cis people don't fit into expected gender roles for their biological sex. I suspect that a person who asks to be called by some pronoun that would be unusual for their biological sex or undergoes medical procedures to more accurately match their appearance with their gender identity feels a much greater amount of discomfort with their assigned gender at birth and in some cases their physical sex than cis people typically feel. As a cis woman, I wasn't sure why certain traits were classed as feminine or masculine, how many feminine things I personally related to in comparison to masculine things, and why it seemed as if it masculinity was considered superior to femininity in many cases. My concerns could basically summed up by thinking that society is often full of stereotypical B.S. when it comes to gender, and I dislike stereotypical B.S. Whatever uncertainties I felt never made me feel as if I wasn't a woman or wanted to go through surgery to make me look like a person who was assigned a male gender at birth even if I disliked some aspects of being a woman physically or societally.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Another thread warning; 

A next time and it will be yet another thread closed and I will give infractions. I've been lenient since some do not know the grey area in which sometimes this discussion can be led. 

So for future reference;

Please do not call a transgendered person by anything other than what they wish. 

Do not tell transgendered people what sex they are. I'm thinking they have been through enough to make these discoveries for themselves through therapy, soul searching, years of torment and teasing by everyone else in their RL. It is not appropriate to continue it with the anonymity online. 

Here are the rules for everyone to get acquainted with again. Please read or re-read. Pay heed to rule #12

http://personalitycafe.com/announcements/540-personality-cafe-forum-rules.html#post10989

If you are in doubt ask!


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

TurtleQueen said:


> I'm not sure of what the distinction is, but plenty of cis people don't fit into expected gender roles for their biological sex. I suspect that a person who asks to be called by some pronoun that would be unusual for their biological sex or undergoes medical procedures to more accurately match their appearance with their gender identity feels a much greater amount of discomfort with their assigned gender at birth and in some cases their physical sex than cis people typically feel. As a cis woman, I wasn't sure why certain traits were classed as feminine or masculine, how many feminine things I personally related to in comparison to masculine things, and why it seemed as if it masculinity was considered superior to femininity in many cases. My concerns could basically summed up by thinking that society is often full of stereotypical B.S. when it comes to gender, and I dislike stereotypical B.S. Whatever uncertainties I felt never made me feel as if I wasn't a woman or wanted to go through surgery to make me be a man even if I disliked aspects of being a woman physically or societally.


It's like the discussion on the INFP forum: "INFPs and traditional gender roles and expectations ?" where ENFPs started saying that protecting is a typical male role, which I easily deflected and turned around proving that most likely protecting is a female role. These are 2 simple ways to prove this.



> I feel kind of awkward about the idea that to protect is a male thing. It's just as much a Female thing. 'Motherly protection' is often something that is also applied to girls and woman who don't have children yet, but perform an all compassing protection and caring for their loved ones. This type of protection can be seen in all animals, and most animals will go as far as getting themselves killed before they let someone touch their 'kids'. (I don't know if you've ever been around a chicken who is breeding on eggs or has little chicks, but they will do EVERYTHING to protect their children: attack humans, attack dogs, attack cats, attack rabbits, anything that seems like a danger they'll attack to keep their children safe)
> 
> So no I'm sorry, I don't think protecting is a Male exclusive phenomena
> 
> In the animal kingdom protection is a female thing though. The only reason why males toke that role of us, is because to sustain big herds (like human civilization) females can reproduce the population with only a limited amount of males. So when Human civilization started getting the size it did during the Late Ancient times a philosophical stand was taken and promoted in certain societies that to fight was a male thing, but this is in no way a global phenomena. In South East Asia men and woman both served in the army on equal basis. In Celtic tribes woman were on the battlefield just as much as men. Many Native American tribes also had many female combatants, etc etc. So this actually all comes down to religion and the culture that that religion created.





> I want all of you who think 'protecting' is a male character trait to go to youtube and watch all the "What Would You Do?" Episodes, and count the amount of times that women help and the amount of times men help. You'll soon realize that women are the real protectors.


This is yet another reason for us to question the typical gender roles, and how they are generally misunderstood.

And I can't immediately find who posted this, but one of you was talking about the differences in Gender perception based on culture (or something similar to that). Which made me want to share this really interesting link, because it'll show you that Western society with only 2 Genders seems to be an Abrahamic religion only thing, while other cultures and religions seem to have 3-4-5 genders 

Two Spirits | A Map of Gender-Diverse Cultures | Independent Lens | PBS


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> This might have been covered already, buuut... what if I explicitly ask a guy when we go on a date what genitals he was born with? Is it wrong if he lies?
> 
> I dunno, I kind of feel like its a bit of a big deal. Even if someone is post-op. A bit of cross dressing might weird me out a bit, but I would get over it. I am a bit of a tomboy myself, so arguably cross dressing (though I more wear mens style clothes than actual mens clothes, generally). I don't expect a guy to tell me that on the first date. If my date was born a woman, I want to know. Its just not something I would usually ask.


I knew a few pages have passed since this but I wanted to answer it anyway because I think you're missing something really important. The answer is that it depends. Since this guy is going on a date with you, chances are he already trusts you to some extent. Hesitantly, perhaps, but there's still some trust there. With that in mind, I think there are two acceptable responses: The first is to tell you the truth, and this is what I'd expect him to do if he trusted you and felt that you had a legitimate reason for asking. The second is to refuse to answer. On a first date, this is almost certainly what I'd do (as a cis male). Even if I trusted this person initially, requesting such sensitive information so early on would make me suspicious of them, and unless they could explain to me why they felt that they had a right to know, I would refuse to answer and likely never see them again. And I'm not even trans. 

But there are situations where lying is perfectly acceptable. If he thinks that anything but a lie is going to put him in danger, then he should definitely lie to you. He doesn't have to think you're going to kill him or anything like that, even a suspicion that you might scold him is enough. This might not (and probably doesn't) apply to you, but it _absolutely_ applies to trans people in general and you can't expect them to read every situation perfectly. Of course, there's no reason to feel threatened by someone lying in this situation because they're not likely to continue the relationship anyway, but I mention it to show that there are no hard, fast rules when it comes to this stuff. 

Now, if something like this happened much later in a relationship, then it's a lot harder to answer. Honestly, I think you might both be in the wrong to an extent. I can absolutely understand feelings of discomfort surrounding being in a relationship with someone who used to be a woman, but if the revelation was essentially just symbolic (as in, you already knew that he was infertile), then I'm absolutely going to judge you if you break up with him for it. But there are also situations where I'd be harsher towards him as well. If he refused to be understanding of the fact that you were uncomfortable with it then that's absolutely a failure on his part. I might also judge him if he had consistently denied it at a time when my perception was that he could have trusted you. 

Anyway, I guess my point is just that your question really isn't an easy one to answer. Context is important.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

drmiller100 said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what I'm expected to reply to.

You believe that it does not matter if a person uses fallacies to make a point? 

I'm not sure what you're suggesting.

Is this basically a "Why do you care? It doesn't affect your life." type of response?



drmiller100 said:


> Interesting thread. You have a stronger grasp of the definition of "ignorant" then she does also.
> 
> Sometimes the intent of a comment is powerful. You were supposed to be devastated by her condemnation of you as a person because of your ignorance of this subject.
> 
> ...


It's not a new subject to me, although, I still might be ignorant about some key points, it's a possibility, but I doubt it.

I've debated the issue long enough to explore it reasonably, in 3 separate threads, and from these discussions, I've concluded my position.

*http://personalitycafe.com/debate-forum/316114-non-binary-genders-against.html*
*http://personalitycafe.com/debate-forum/417890-calling-man-man-woman-woman-etc.html*
*http://personalitycafe.com/debate-forum/414154-more-gender-stuff.html*



AesSidhe said:


> Again, Eska, go read my post on page number 12
> 
> I'll do you a favor, I'll quote it again.
> 
> I hope your next post will be about these correct and more complete definitions, because when you posted this quote: "Woman: an adult human female" you did not define what a female is. As you will notice in the definitions I posted, I did go in this more complicated business of defining and explaining this specific word of the definition. Which'll lead you to some interesting new knowledge


You're implying that sex and gender are interchangeable, that psychological traits(?) influences a physiological criteria, or you're confusing intersex with transgender.

You're also supporting my point by utilizing the feminine/masculine concepts in that way.


> So if individual with male chromosomes, behaves within the behavior patterns associated with female in the culture where they live, then they are seen as part of the female gender.


They're not seen as "part of the female gender", their behavior corresponds with the stereotypical behavior associated with females, which makes him feminine, but he's not "part of the female gender". (I'm not exactly sure how you're using the word "gender" here.)



bethdeth said:


> [...]
> 
> So for future reference;
> 
> ...


I suppose you're referring to pronouns only.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Mee2 said:


> I knew a few pages have passed since this but I wanted to answer it anyway because I think you're missing something really important. The answer is that it depends. Since this guy is going on a date with you, chances are he already trusts you to some extent. Hesitantly, perhaps, but there's still some trust there. With that in mind, I think there are two acceptable responses: The first is to tell you the truth, and this is what I'd expect him to do if he trusted you and felt that you had a legitimate reason for asking. The second is to refuse to answer. On a first date, this is almost certainly what I'd do (as a cis male). Even if I trusted this person initially, requesting such sensitive information so early on would make me suspicious of them, and unless they could explain to me why they felt that they had a right to know, I would refuse to answer and likely never see them again. And I'm not even trans.
> 
> But there are situations where lying is perfectly acceptable. If he thinks that anything but a lie is going to put him in danger, then he should definitely lie to you. He doesn't have to think you're going to kill him or anything like that, even a suspicion that you might scold him is enough. This might not (and probably doesn't) apply to you, but it _absolutely_ applies to trans people in general and you can't expect them to read every situation perfectly. Of course, there's no reason to feel threatened by someone lying in this situation because they're not likely to continue the relationship anyway, but I mention it to show that there are no hard, fast rules when it comes to this stuff.
> 
> ...


I just don't understand what one is supposed to do then. I conceded that it is not reasonable to expect anybody to bring it up voluntarily upon meeting someone (hi, I used to be a woman!) and that by not mentioning it they aren't really lying to you, so it can't really be said they can be faulted if you find out some other way. But if the fact that someone used to be another sex is somehow relevant or important to you personally, maybe it's wise to ask knowing that the person can't be reasonably expected to volunteer the information. 

I honestly don't know what the acceptable course of action is, if you aren't comfortable dating someone who used to be a different sex. I guess the implication is that everybody has to be okay with it, and have no right to even know. I mean, this is all hypothetical, but I know there are people who exist who probably just aren't comfortable with it. Is that not allowed? I don't even know.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Eska said:


> I'
> I suppose you're referring to pronouns only.


No. @bethdeth is saying you will refer to a person by whatever label THEY desire if you wish to continue posting on this subject.

If a person is born male, with male chromosomes, male genitalia, and decides to "become" female, and that person wishes to be KNOWN AS female, then you will refer to that person as female, a woman, and "she."

Is this clear enough for you?

For the record, I would encourage you to edit your post and clean up the improper pronoun usage. Or delete your comments.

They are offensive to me.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

drmiller100 said:


> No. @bethdeth is saying you will refer to a person by whatever label THEY desire if you wish to continue posting on this subject.
> 
> If a person is born male, with male chromosomes, male genitalia, and decides to "become" female, and that person wishes to be KNOWN AS female, then you will refer to that person as female, a woman, and "she."
> 
> ...


I see.

I won't comply to that wish, I'll simply use the person's username.

Could you quote the posts where I've used improper pronouns?

I don't recall speaking to any transgendered person in this thread, or at least, any who made it clear that I was referring to them improperly.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@Mee2

I agreed with most of your post, but I did want to discuss one part of it.



Mee2 said:


> But there are situations where lying is perfectly acceptable. If he thinks that anything but a lie is going to put him in danger, then he should definitely lie to you. He doesn't have to think you're going to kill him or anything like that, even a suspicion that you might scold him is enough.


I don't think that lying is generally a good thing. If one person in a relationship feels that they need to lie about some aspect of their gender identity, they should attempt to exit the relationship as quickly as possible. I could see a case in which a transgender person might lie if they were asked about details of their assigned sex at birth very early in a dating scenario. It could be hard for a transgender person to say "none of your business" and not have someone potentially cause more problems by assuming that a refusal to answer the question indicates a trans identity. With that correct assumption, the transgender person could face severe consequences. A transgender person forced to keep themselves safe to lie should try to make up an excuse to leave the relationship ASAP before it escalates any further. It could be hard to build trust after someone lied about something clearly important to the other person since it was mentioned early in an interaction, and a transgender person could face more of a safety concern by attempting to stay in a relationship after lying about the truth.

If a transgender person lies to a relationship partner in response to a direct question and tries to stay in the relationship after the lie has been told, that's inexcusable. No person has the right to tell a direct lie that could violate a person's autonomy and ability to choose their partner in that way.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Eska said:


> I suppose you're referring to pronouns only.


No. I'm not referring to pronouns alone. Saying that a man is a man is always a man regardless of sex change, psychological states, hormonal aspects, more terms that I can't remember, etc are mostly the topic of contention here. Courts have recognised gender neutral individuals, people who have undergone sex change, wish to undergo sex change so we will as well. So yes there is an implication there which states that sex is actually interchangeable although it seems to be a grey area. It does fall into the no-brainer of denying an individual their sense of self if they are already legally there (along with being just plain rude). We will take on face value that people are exactly who they say they are and ask questions rather than tell them who they are. 

This is the last I will speak of it as I don't wish to get drawn into this debate any further. Read #12 in the rules


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Eska said:


> You're implying that sex and gender are interchangeable, that psychological traits(?) influences a physiological criteria, or you're confusing intersex with transgender.
> 
> You're also supporting my point by utilizing the feminine/masculine concepts in that way.
> 
> They're not seen as "part of the female gender", their behavior corresponds with the stereotypical behavior associated with females, which makes him feminine, but he's not "part of the female gender". (I'm not exactly sure how you're using the word "gender" here.)


Again you only read that what you want to read.

I don't say that they are interchangeable. 

I clearly showed with definitions that to be of the female sex by one definition means that you need to be capable of producing offspring, after which I explained that if you followed this flawed definition, you'd say that infertile woman aren't woman. Unless of course you see the infertility as an exception rule on the definition, this way including infertile woman inside the definition. But based on what would you make the exception? That she has a womb or ovaries or ...? Some woman are born without a womb or ovaries or ... so including those details wouldn't specify anything, it'd only proof even more that that definition is unworkable.

The second definition I gave about the female sex, was that you needed to have XX-chromosomes, but XX-chromosomes don't automatically mean that someone is fertile, has a vagina, etc, because there are many intersexed people in the World who have XX-chromosomes but have a penis and look and present totally male. So I explained that this definition also didn't work.

So since the definitions of 'sex' are so complex because of all the exceptions that exist in the Real World, I decided to look at the definition of gender (a cultural construct of behavior patterns around certain sexes) and then more specifically the Female gender. And as you can read gender is a group you belong to based on the behavior you show in a certain culture. So an individual with the male sex, can belong to the female gender, based on their behavior (feminine and masculine are the words that you use to describe someones behavior and based on the majority of your behavior you will socially belong to a different gender. Of course, if the individual who's sex is male (for example) but who's behavior is mostly feminine, asks you to still name them he and him, than that request of asking you to call him, he or him, trumps his cultural behavior of belonging to the female gender). 

Here I'll make the last part between ( ) more clear by showing you my favorite Queer on youtube (I totally love JohnLuu <3) John Luu sees himself as a gay male, who loves make-up and normal (so not drag queen) female clothing, lately he has been going to school more and more as a girl (but not always, since he doesn't want to wake up an hour earlier to do the make-up, etc every day) at his school, his teachers address him as she, her and the plural: ladies, even when he goes to school with male clothing. But even knowing this, John Luu asks his youtube fans to call him: he, him and his. (but lately he cares less about the pronouns, so people saying: 'she' often don't get corrected anymore)

So John Luu shows you the full spectrum of confusion that I explained above. Sex: Male / Gender Presentation: Female / Gender Perception By Society: Female / Gender Self Identification: Male

(Now how does this differ with transsexuals? 

A post-op transsexual would be S: F / GP: F / GPBS (based on how feminine she looks, but in most cases): F / GSI: F
A pre-op but female presenting transsexual would be S: M / GP: F / GPBS (based on how feminine she looks, but in most cases): F / GSI: F)
A pre-op pre-female presenting transsexual but who is out of the closet would be S: M / GP: M / GPBS: M / GSI: F
A transsexual that is still in the closet S: M / GP: M / GPBS: M / GSI: M) 

EDIT PS: I replaced the video with a picture, because his videos ... have awkward names to post on a forum 
PS2: The terms Gender Presentation (GP), Gender Perception By Society (GPBS) and Gender Self Identification (GSI), are not terms that are used by the community, but are terms that I invented while writing this reply, in order to better explain complex individuals as John Luu, after which I used the terms to explain other gender variant individuals.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

bethdeth said:


> This is the last I will speak of it as I don't wish to get drawn into this debate any further. Read #12 in the rules


I disagree with your point of view and that it goes against rule #12.



AesSidhe said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are acknowledging the existence of intersex and genetic disorders.

How does that advance your point?

How does that regroup sex and 'gender'?



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


These pronouns refer to a person's sex, not his self-identified gender.



> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your point being?


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Eska said:


> You are acknowledging the existence intersex and genetic disorders.
> 
> How does that advance your point?
> 
> ...


Some studies suspect it might be genetic and if it's genetic, than you should be really happy that people are transitioning, because that means the 'bad' genes are removing themselves from the gene pool. So why not accept them during the next 3-4 generations and than be totally freed of these 'bad' genes? 

And of course there are intersexed people, they are the I in LGBTQQI (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Questioning, Queer, Intersexed) and within the trans community, it's an almost elitist thing to do, to try and prove that you're intersexed, because it's a way that one transsexual can tell another transsexual, that they're more a girl/man than them, which often leads to huge cat fights xDDD (and yes hair WILL fly in all directions xDDD)

How that advances my point? Very simple, it proves that Sex isn't the fixed thing you think it is. It's a much more complex and broader thing, that can be influenced by sooooooooo many external (and internal) factors

What do you mean with 'regroup' in this context? 

Pronouns never refer to a sex, but to the gender an individual identifies with 

My point being: that you can look, act and be perceived totally female and be gorgeous at it, and still ask the world to call you "Him"


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

AesSidhe said:


> Some studies suspect it might be genetic and if it's genetic, than you should be really happy that people are transitioning, because that means the 'bad' genes are removing themselves from the gene pool. So why not accept them during the next 3-4 generations and than be totally freed of these 'bad' genes?
> 
> And of course there are intersexed people, they are the I in LGBTQQI (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Questioning, Queer, Intersexed) and within the trans community, it's an almost elitist thing to do, to try and prove that you're intersexed, because it's a way that one transsexual can tell another transsexual, that they're more a girl/man than them, which often leads to huge cat fights xDDD (and yes hair WILL fly in all directions xDDD)


Ok.



> How that advances my point? Very simple, it proves that Sex isn't the fixed thing you think it is. It's a much more complex and broader thing, that can be influenced by sooooooooo many external (and internal) factors


Sex was classified and categorized with three possibilities; male/female, and intersex, which is a 'mix' of both characteristics.

The concept of gender social constructs is not needed to determine a person's sex.



> What do you mean with 'regroup' in this context?


You're confusing sex and gender.



> Pronouns never refer to a sex, but to the gender an individual identifies with


Why are animals referred to as "he" and "she", despite not having evidence that they conform to any form of 'social construct' based on stereotypical male/female behavior, like humans.

I've never referred to "he" or "she' anything else but a person's sex, I wouldn't surprised if most concurred.

What if I choose to be a "she" two minutes after I was a "he", what if at the moment you refer to me as a particular 'gender', I suddenly feel like I identify as the opposite gender? 



> My point being: that you can look, act and be perceived totally female and be gorgeous at it, and still ask the world to call you "Him"


Ok.

____

The point being;

A person's sex is in no way influenced by what she feels.

Supposedly, 'gender' refers to what you feel you are.

Sex is what you are.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Eska said:


> Ok.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not confusing sex and gender xDDDD



> The concept of gender social constructs is not needed to determine a person's sex.


But in most cases you will only see Gender, while Sex is something you'll only see if someone is naked 

Let me oversimplify this: Sex is between your legs and gender is in your head 

And the thing between your legs can change with surgery 

The only way the thing in your head can change, is if you get brain damage in certain specific gender centers in the brain 

About the animal thing, weeeeeeeeeeeeeeel in most language in the correct usage of language, animals should be referred to as 'it', without attaching a sex to it, but most people (me included) will not say 'it' because we identify animals as having an identity like our own, so we people who decided to see animals as individuals have started giving them a gender pronoun based on their sex (and not gender) in order to humanize them more 

Also, most people before knowing the sex of a specific animal might call a cat 'she' and a dog 'he', because we have cultural stereotypes of identifying cats with woman, and dogs with men, while we all know that dogs and cats can be male or female 



> I've never referred to "he" or "she' anything else but a person's sex, I wouldn't surprised if most concurred.


Who knows, maybe one of them was a very beautiful transsexual of who you didn't even notice they were transsexual. Or are you saying that you have seen every person you know naked? Because before you saw someone naked, you actually can't be sure what sex someone has D

If you'd ask of me to start calling you 'she' then I would do so gladly, but also be prepared for me asking questions, because I'm always interested in hearing people their life story and if I can or if they'd like I'd support them


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

@Eska do you check the contents of the underwear of all the people you cross paths with?

If you met a woman like her, her or her, without knowing that they weren't biologically born as one, you wouldn't have any trouble referring to them as females and assuming that their gender and sex matched so why would discovering that their chromosomes didn't originally match up be such a rule changer for you? Why are you so hung up on dictionary semantics when it's legal to transition and change your gender and name on your certificates and id and science hasn't reached a definite stance either in favor or against?

Even if you're devoid of any kind of empathy, do you need to climb mountains and kick racing cars in order to find a "rational" explanation to your bigotry? The hilarious thing about an hyperfocus on "logic", "rationality" and finding all the 50 shades of gray in everything is that it highlights even more how stubborn, unfounded and emotional those hang ups are. It ceases being intellectual curiosity or a moral debate and it turns into a tantrum that you want others to validate "I MUST FIND A WAY TO BE RIGHT, NO MATTER HOW FARFETCHED AND INEFFICIENT" and does that really constitute a win? LolNo.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Unsurprisingly, there are a lot of people here who don't understand trans* ness or how to refer to trans people. 

There comes a point in every relationship - a window, if you will - where disclosing onesself as transgender is appropriate. That window is after the transgender individual feels comfortable that the other person has a good idea about who they are, and before sexual activity. If during that time the two people aren't getting to know each other and finding out where they stand on issues, then its a wonder to me who either party thinks they're getting into a relationship with.

Trans issues are not black and white. Society does not allow for transition to be an easy or comfortable process. One thing that would be benificial relationally is if the person receiving the news didn't think that that particular moment was about them. Its not about you, its about the transgender person sharing the most personal thing about them with you. Ask questions, listen, appreciate the disclosure. Think about how it impacts you after you understand exactly how it impacts them.


----------



## CaptSwan (Mar 31, 2013)

I'd ask for absolute honesty on the matter; and, that'd involve sitting down and discuss this whole matter. It wouldn't be that big a deal for me; but, one of the few things I ask in a relationship is honesty between the couple.


----------



## Blickwinkel (May 15, 2012)

Torai said:


> This isn't a satirical position at all. I just decided to hijack Swordsman of Mana's title.
> 
> When I was going through the "http://personalitycafe.com/sex-rela...ut-your-s-o-liked-dress-women-s-clothing.html" thread, I had observed some of the responses, and saw issue with them.
> 
> ...


Let me throw out a hypothetical situation. Let's say you find this person that you believe to be biologically female. You find them really attractive, really like them, and you think things could get serious. This person is still biologically a male though, or they were a male. You don't find out about this until the night before you two decide to have sex. How would you react? 

I agree that a trans person shouldn't be "obligated" to tell those they're not close to about themselves, but when you're in a relationship? It should be brought up pretty soon. You cannot hide something that big and not expect consequences. It's likely to be far worse than if they'd just been forthcoming about it early on in the relationship.


----------



## Kazoo The Kid (May 26, 2013)

The problem I see with most post in this thread: Just because we date does not mean you are entitled to my most private and intimidate thoughts. I'm not your fucking property and I'm still allowed to have a god damn secret.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

[No message]


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

[No message]


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Eska said:


> I am your master and God, and I'm not human, I'm also an ice-cream canine arachnid with 28 legs, @drmiller100.
> 
> Are you in agreement with the description above?
> 
> Do you disagree that I am a 28 legged non-human ice-cream canine arachnid divinity that also happens to be your master?


What an excellent example of a logical fallacy. Thank you.


Regarding the rest of that post, you are incorrect.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

jeb said:


> What an excellent example of a logical fallacy. Thank you.
> 
> 
> Regarding the rest of that post, you are incorrect.


What is the fallacy being committed?

What is incorrect about the rest of my post?


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

Kazoo said:


> The problem I see with most post in this thread: Just because we date does not mean you are entitled to my most private and intimidate thoughts. I'm not your fucking property and I'm still allowed to have a god damn secret.


So the person you are dating does not have right to know if you have a penis or vagina? Don't they have a right to make an informed decision on who they get in a relationship with?


----------



## Kazoo The Kid (May 26, 2013)

[No message]


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Jeff Felis said:


> So the person you are dating does not have right to know if you have a penis or vagina? Don't they have a right to make an informed decision on who they get in a relationship with?


What about all the available surgeries that are available to trans people to alter their physical appearance and function? It's not really as simple as you're implying it is.


----------



## Kazoo The Kid (May 26, 2013)

jeb said:


> What about all the available surgeries that are available to trans people to alter their physical appearance and function? It's not really as simple as you're implying it is.


also this.

If you meet a women with a vagina and break up with her because "she use to be a man". You are a bigot. Pretty much end of story.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Kazoo said:


> also this.
> 
> If you meet a women with a vagina and break up with her because "she use to be a man". You are a bigot. Pretty much end of story.


Or because you have a preference and possibly want to have children?


----------



## Kazoo The Kid (May 26, 2013)

Eska said:


> Or because you have a preference and possibly want to have children?


If you want to have children thats a justifiable reason. I personally would still say you are kinda a jerk. Anyone that breaks up with anybody for something they cannot control in MY OPINION is not a kind person, but I'm not going to debate that.

And what does "preference" mean. She has a vagina. She is a female. What is the "preference" here?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Kazoo said:


> If you want to have children thats a justifiable reason. I personally would still say you are kinda a jerk. Anyone that breaks up with anybody for something they cannot control in MY OPINION is not a kind person, but I'm not going to debate that.
> 
> And what does "preference" mean. She has a vagina. She is a female. What is the "preference" here?


Meaning that the person's body is not appealing (may unveil masculine/feminine traits that are unappealing to the individual) or the thought itself is a "turn off".

Someone's appeal is also "something they cannot control", in a sense.


----------



## Kazoo The Kid (May 26, 2013)

Eska said:


> Meaning that the person's body is not appealing (may unveil masculine/feminine traits) or the thought itself is a "turn off".


I reject people for being unattractive all the time. lol. That's just life.

The "turn off" thing is stil bigoty to me but I'm also like extemely left wing. Better to ask a trans person about that. Everyone you had sex with use to be a child. Is that a turn off? I mean, I use to have a boy who i talked to who I think used to be reallly ugly, but he's cute now so don't care.

The way a person was in the past really should not be a turn off for now.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Kazoo said:


> I reject people for being unattractive all the time. lol. That's just life.
> 
> The "turn off" thing is stil bigoty to me but I'm also like extemely left wing. Better to ask a trans person about that. Everyone you had sex with use to be a child. Is that a turn off? I mean, I use to have a boy who i talked to who I think used to be reallly ugly, but he's cute now so don't care.
> 
> The way a person was in the past really should not be a turn off for now.


I suppose that's relative to every individual, although, I find it odd that you'd consider it "bigotry" simply because the person is not appealing anymore. I'm not suggesting that the person rejects her or condemns her, I'm saying that the person would simply lose her romantic/sexual attraction towards her. 

Would you date someone who's been a murder in the past? Would that be a turn off? Some could find it to be a turn on. It depends on the individual's perspective.

Certain aspects of an individual reflect on their personality as well, in a sense that some people could say; "If that person hid her sex from me, could I trust her enough to engage in a relationship with her? Could she possibly be unstable? Would she [...]".

There are multiple factors to take into count.


----------



## Kazoo The Kid (May 26, 2013)

Eska said:


> I suppose that's relative to every individual, although, I find it odd that you'd consider it "bigotry" simply because the person is not appealing anymore. I'm not suggesting that the person rejects her or condemns her, I'm saying that the person would simply lose her romantic/sexual attraction towards her.
> 
> Would you date someone who's been a murder in the past? Would that be a turn off? Some could find it to be a turn on. It depends on the individual's perspective.
> 
> ...


Bigotry..is also an individual prospective....I don't know you say that word as if its some immuntiy. Some prospectives are cruel and wrong.

". i hate black people well its my individual prospective!!!!! I can't be punished!!!!". 

If you think someone used be unattractive because they use to be a different sex and thats the ONLY reason why. You are a bigot. Could she be unstable? Could she be unstable? I don't fucking know. This is an imaginary construct. Break up with somebody because their unstable. Break up with them because they annoy you. I do not care. Just don't break up with them because they use to be a different gender.

I really feel like you are just looking for excuses to discredit the idea of dating a trans person.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@Eska

A person who committed a murder did something that indicates a lot about their character and their stability. A murderer is much more likely to have a bad character or unstable personality than a transgender person. The analogy you drew is incredibly flawed, and it has nothing to do with an "individual perspective" since murder is obviously and objectively more wrong than being transgender.

Before you compare a group of people to criminals, take a step back and consider what you are doing. If you wanted to make an analogy to something that could turn something off, it would have been much more reasonable if you had compared being transgender to something that is not in and of itself considered morally wrong by the vast majority of people who aren't sociopathic.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Kazoo said:


> Bigotry..is also an individual prospective....I don't know you say that word as if its some immuntiy. Some prospectives are cruel and wrong.
> 
> ". i hate black people well its my individual prospective!!!!! I can't be punished!!!!".
> 
> ...


You seem to be focusing on the person's status of transgender, while disregarding any other factors that are correlated.

As I've said, it's the loss of attraction, not the condemnation of her transgender status.

I think one of us is misunderstanding the other, I fail to see how losing attraction after a person reveals her sex, is regarded as being a "bigot".

Bigot


> Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.


It's not as if I'm asking the transgender to kill herself because she's transgender, it's a loss of attraction towards her.

Doesn't that, ironically, make you a bigot? You are intolerant towards someone else's sexual/romantic attraction perspective.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

jeb said:


> The ligitamate discussion can only happen when the facts are known, which is why I suggested that you ask questions first.
> 
> Its seems like it, but it really it isn't. There are men born with two X chromosomes, people with XXY, XYY, etc.


Yes, there are genetic abnormalities. This results in abnormal genotype/phenotype relationships due to faulty chromosomes. This makes it a complicated issue. This is exactly what I said. There is no hard scientific basis without some kind of interpretation or evaluation.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

TurtleQueen said:


> When people discuss attraction, it is usually physical (what turns you on) and emotional (liking a person). Typically, it isn't philosophical or scientific, so I don't understand why it should be for transgender people.
> 
> If you define a man or woman by sexual organs, is a woman with uterus didelphys "extra female" because she has two uteri? How would you classify a person with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, who has male chromosomes but female sexual characteristics? Is a guy who lost a testicle from testicular cancer or some other problem somehow less of a man?


That is exactly my point. It is complciated. There are numerous scientific and philsophical factors.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

BlackDog said:


> I didn't even give you my opinion on that. I have been arguing that if somebody does not view a trans woman as a woman, but rather as a man (might be mixing these terms up, I have no idea) then their lack of sexual attraction to them is not bigotry. THAT is what I am arguing.


I think earlier cited that one can support trans without wanting to date them and it seems the point you make about why you wouldn't date one is about sex.
I think if one has the belief that a FtM is still a woman, they invalidate the point of supporting transgendered people because such a stance is one that opposes it.

I don't really want to join in on the group that's emerged in disagreement with you but thought it was a worthy point to bring up for you to consider as to whether you think it's a contradiction.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> Yes, there are genetic abnormalities. This results in abnormal genotype/phenotype relationships due to faulty chromosomes. This makes it a complicated issue. This is exactly what I said. There is no hard scientific basis without some kind of interpretation or evaluation.


So let's say you're having a good time getting to know someone and they turn out to have been born intersexed to whatever degree. They grew up into who they are and chose which gender suited them most and went with it. To you, would this put you in the same mindset regarding interpretation when you are presented a man or woman who was born as "both?"


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

I can't keep up with everyboy's quotes right now. It is New Years Eve and I need to go ingest some alcohol. Maybe tomorrow.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@BlackDog

I know a person with uterus didelphys. She doesn't appreciate being treated as some sideshow curiosity at a doctor's office, so she probably wouldn't appreciate being treated weirdly by some man she dates. I don't see why a guy could be less attracted to her since he wouldn't know that she had two uteri unless she mentioned it. She may have concerns about infertility, but adoption is a possibility if it turns out she couldn't have children. If a man rejected her after finding out about her uterus didelphys or treated her differently than he would have before he found out, he would be a petty jerk. If he redefined her gender in some way, it would be a messed up thing to do. Using biological characteristics you cannot even see and which therefore cannot impact your normal determination of attraction to treat a person differently in a romantic relationship could be considered invasive and dehumanizing.

Similarly, it could seem petty to reject a transsexual post-op person who looked indistinguishable from a cis person. It would be messed up to say that a person is not a man if it's solely due to chromosomes.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

I have an answer to the dilemma. Honesty in a relationship may be a privilege. But! The relationship in itself is a privilege. Problem solved! You don't like dishonesty you can disband the relationship. If someone else doesn't think you are worthy of honesty, they choose not to afford it to you. It's all about choice, the power of choice, hmmm...


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Torai said:


> This isn't a satirical position at all. I just decided to hijack Swordsman of Mana's title.
> 
> When I was going through the "http://personalitycafe.com/sex-rela...ut-your-s-o-liked-dress-women-s-clothing.html" thread, I had observed some of the responses, and saw issue with them.
> 
> ...


When I saw the title, I wasn't expecting to agree. However, after reading a bit more, I now see what you mean, and I believe that in situations like the one you have described, self-protective privacy is a very important right.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

Kazoo said:


> Yea yea ignore my point and attempt to discredit me. It does not make your point anymore correct and me any less correct.


You're beyond having a rational debate with. I will discuss this only with people who are not insulting.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

Kazoo said:


> This is such a strawman. Of course you have the right to know that, but if you expect trans people to immediately declare their genitalia when you say so then your a douche.
> 
> Trans people get _murdered _for this. They have the right to tell you whenever they want. After that you are certainly entitled to break up with them or whatever. But they risk their safety and lives. All you do is end up slightly uncomfortable.
> 
> I don't go around telling people my cock size when I first meet them. The same way if I was a trans man with a vagina I wouldnt go blurting about my vagina on the first date.


 This (The transgender deciding when to reveal themselves) is acceptable until the moment the transgender person considers dating another person. Then it becomes the crux of everything relationship related so it's seriously time to start being honest because any relationship built on lies, deception or omission is doomed. _Honesty and trust_.. The foundations of any successful relationship. 
You clearly have no idea how relationships work.. What you are suggesting is dishonesty, unilateral decision making and manipulation . Let me know how that works out for you throughout life.


----------



## Kazoo The Kid (May 26, 2013)

Arclight said:


> This (The transgender deciding when to reveal themselves) is acceptable until the moment the transgender person considers dating another person. Then it becomes the crux of everything relationship related so it's seriously time to start being honest because any relationship built on lies, deception or omission is doomed. _Honesty and trust_.. The foundations of any successful relationship.
> You clearly have no idea how relationships work.. What you are suggesting is dishonesty, unilateral decision making and manipulation . Let me know how that works out for you throughout life.


What.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@Jeff Felis

I'm sorry that you feel you can't talk to @Kazoo because he used the word douche, but I do think that he was trying to make a reasonable point in his response to you. I looked at his post, and he may have been using the word douche in a general sense and not to refer to you specifically. Sometimes, people do use the word you in an informal way to refer to a hypothetical person.

I think it's quite reasonable for a transgender person to not tell a person about their genitalia on a first date. On a first date, you really have no idea of who a person is or how they might react to you. A person might be probing about genitalia so strongly specifically because they have an irrational prejudice against transgender people and not because they are simply seeking information. A first date could be a long time away from when sex will occur, so it's creepy to bring up genitals so early. I would consider discussion of genitals weird even as a cis person.

The best response from a transgender person is to not inform a person of their genitals if the question makes them feel unsafe. They can just say, "That's none of your business since I just met you," and that wouldn't be a deceptive response. If a transgender person feels they must lie or deceive a person in that situation, they should immediately make up an excuse to break up with that person. A transgender person is only going to make themselves more unsafe if they continue a relationship after a deliberate lie or deception, and it's not okay to directly lie to someone about your genitalia since that denies their autonomy to make a decision about who they do or don't want to date.

ETA: @Arclight, my extension on @Kazoo's point applies to you as well.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Arclight said:


> This (The transgender deciding when to reveal themselves) is acceptable until the moment the transgender person considers dating another person. Then it becomes the crux of everything relationship related so it's seriously time to start being honest because any relationship built on lies, deception or omission is doomed. _Honesty and trust_.. The foundations of any successful relationship.
> You clearly have no idea how relationships work.. What you are suggesting is dishonesty, unilateral decision making and manipulation . Let me know how that works out for you throughout life.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

TurtleQueen said:


> @Jeff Felis
> 
> I'm sorry that you feel you can't talk to @Kazoo because he used the word douche, but I do think that he was trying to make a reasonable point in his response to you. I looked at his post, and he may have been using the word douche in a general sense an not to refer to you specifically. Sometimes, people do use the word you in an informal way to refer to a hypothetical person.
> 
> ...


Indeed, this would apply to a transgender individual who had _not_ had genital surgery.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

double post


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@jeb

A transgender person who has had gender reassignment surgery would be correct if they responded that they had genitals consistent with their physical presentation. @Jeff Felis's original question was about if a person had a right to know if the trans person had a penis or vagina when it would not be expected, and @Kazoo discussed the idea of a trans man with a vagina. I responded as if the transgender person had not had genital surgery since that was where the discussion was going.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

Lying is a demonstration of weakness.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

TurtleQueen said:


> @jeb
> 
> A transgender person who has had gender reassignment surgery would be correct if they responded that they had genitals consistent with their physical presentation. @Jeff Felis's original question was about if a person had a right to know if the trans person had a penis or vagina when it would not be expected, so I responded as if the transgender person had not had genital surgery.


Ah, makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. 

Kind of annoying though how this conversation has gone. Transgenderism isn't about sex/genitals, but every conversation about it seems to go there anyway.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Thuringwethil said:


> Lying is a demonstration of weakness.


This discussion isn't about lying.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

The topic certainly is.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

Thuringwethil said:


> The topic certainly is.


 Just people justifying lies.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Arclight said:


> Just people justifying lies.


...Have you read the thread?


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

jeb said:


> ...Have you read the thread?


Yes.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

Maybe 'obfuscation' is a better term.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Thuringwethil said:


> Maybe 'obfuscation' is a better term perhaps.


I've been saying that the more facts people have, the better, and that many people do not have full knowledge of trans topics and issues and therefore should ask questions before passing judgment or making statements. As someone who read the thread, I'm guessing you saw that, so I can assume you're using the term obfuscation to refer to the people on the other side of the debate.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

jeb said:


> This discussion isn't about lying.


It is about lying and deceiving. It's playing with people's hearts. You only tell someone until they fall in love with you. Then you tell someone you are not the sex they reasonably thought. The person told would feel deeply betrayed of course. There is more a chance of murder with this scenario.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

jeb said:


> ...Have you read the thread?


 Indeed I have. I didn't come to my conclusion that some people in this thread are justifying lies and manipulation by pulling it out of my ass.. I know this might be hard for you to wrap your head around.. But you do not own the monopoly on morality, intelligence and most certainly not on perception.. What that means is that conclusions other than your own will exist.
The question then becomes, can you handle it?
Seems to me you can't.. Seems to me you will not feel complete until everyone is just a clone of yourself. I have some bad news for you.. It aint ever gonna happen.. So what you need to do is stop preaching diversity, tolerance and compassion and go learn what those words actually mean first.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Jeff Felis said:


> It is about lying and deceiving. It's playing with people's hearts. You only tell someone until they fall in love with you. Then you tell someone you are not the sex they reasonably thought. This person of course would feel deeply betrayed. There is more a chance of murder with this scenario.


No, it's not about lying and deceiving. You are doing what I described earlier in making it all about the other person, when in fact it's the transgender person who is sharing their most personal details. You don't do that willy nilly with everyone you meet. Regardless of what the personal detail is. That would be pretty weird and creepy.


----------



## mhysa (Nov 27, 2014)

i agree that it's terrible to blame someone for not being totally open with you when it comes to things like gender identity. 

i've never been in a position where i had a secret that might put me in danger or make the people i love push me away or shut me out, and as i understand it, that's something trans individuals face all the time simply for being who they are. i have no idea what that's like, so i'm in absolutely no position whatsoever to judge such an individual for not being 100% honest right away. in my opinion, the best thing to do is to love your partner unconditionally and to hope that they will eventually feel comfortable enough with you to be completely honest, and if/when they get to that point, continue to reassure them and give them your unconditional love. that's the way i think it should be.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Arclight said:


> Indeed I have. I didn't come to my conclusion that some people in this thread are justifying lies and manipulation by pulling it out of my ass.. I know this might be hard for you to wrap your head around.. But you do not own the monopoly on morality, intelligence and most certainly not on perception.. What that means is that conclusions other than your own will exist.
> The question then becomes, can you handle it?
> Seems to me you can't.. Seems to me you will not feel complete until everyone is just a clone of yourself. I have some bad news for you.. It aint ever gonna happen.. So what you need to do is stop preaching diversity, tolerance and compassion and go learn what those words actually mean first.


You have the wrong idea here. I'll say it again for the third time... people need to seek facts before joining the debate, otherwise it's just people talking about things they don't know for the sake of it, because they have a couple details they think they don't need anymore. Well, sorry, but you do need more. It's not about making people convert to my point of view.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Skimmed the thread and seems some people have taken the perception that they would be forced into relationships with people they do not want.
I'm not sure if that's inherently suggested when one is critical of ones opinion of a demographic. 
Like there's people who won't date fat people or people of a particular race, that's they're right to do so but often some of the rationalizations for such an opinion are based in prejudiced outlooks, negative associations and I think it's fair game to be critical of such view points. If one is not okay with that criticism then they're perhaps playing into that paradox of being tolerant of the intolerant where I don't think every opinion always warrants respect for that opinion and none should be void of criticism.

This is how prejudice is often expressed, not in overt hatred but in rationalizations that can be quite questionable in how valid they are. You don't need to be hateful to be harmful and ignorance is more than enough to be the source of plenty of harm. 
For some people I think they're tolerant that trans people exist but aren't accepting, a bit like a parent who says they love their child but always makes backhanded comments about their child's sexuality because they disapprove of it. 
People generally aren't interested in only having the parts they like accepted other wise they feel they're only worthy of love or affection if they're perfect, people prefer to be accepted in their entirety. Anything less often amounts to the self perception of being wrong or bad in some way, of not being enough and it shames their entire existence. That some how they are worth less as human being on that basis and that is quite damaging in a passive way.

I don't think it's enough to not actively hurt someone, because a great harm is that collective rejection of a demographic, subtle but quite present. Laws can't make people hold tolerant opinions but challenging ideas so that for those who genuinely do wish to treat all people respectfully and as human beings can reconcile cognitive dissonance if they believe themselves for equality,egalitarianism and respect for human beings.

You don't have to date a trans person, but a lot of the rationalizations for not doing so seem quite prejudicial and I think all that is asked is that one really introspect about what bothers them so about transpeople as its implied there is something inherently wrong about transpeople.
But I think it'd be a hard case to make that you met someone you find attractive and were looking to pursue, you had no interest in biological things like fertility and they had the genitals and appearance that meets the criterion for your sexual wants and sexual appeal. But soon as they mention they were born the opposite sex you're turned off, mind suddenly changes that they're no longer attractive, to which one would have to ask why do they find trans people inherently unattractive on the basis of being tran when they meet all other standards of ones attraction.
I think that discomfort is from having ones beliefs in regards to sexuality, gender, biology challenged and having to explore how to explain that discomfort and justify it.
I think in that case you'd have to confront that one holds disfavourable attitudes towards transgendered people. Lean into that discomfort and you allow yourself the opportunity to grow and not only you will be better off for it.

As to the thread topic, I think those who would demand vulnerability from another would soon find themselves closed off from it since it's not something one can get through force. It must be given voluntarily and most often prompted by being deemed trustworthy with that information and likely to be accepting of it. So regardless of whether you think you deserve something or not, on the side of being practical, your best course of action isn't to apply too much pressure.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

jeb said:


> No, it's not about lying and deceiving. You are doing what I described earlier in making it all about the other person, when in fact it's the transgender person who is sharing their most personal details. You don't do that willy nilly with everyone you meet. Regardless of what the personal detail is. That would be pretty weird and creepy.


Not everyone, just the person you will go out on the first date with. Honesty and respect is not creepy. Honesty and respect for both parties not just you. If you get rejected, move on. And learn self-defense. It's not difficult or costly. Honesty above all else. Honesty is respect.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Jeff Felis said:


> Not everyone, just the person you will go out on the first date with. Honesty and respect is not creepy. Honesty and respect for both parties not just you. If you get rejected, move on. And learn self-defense. It's not difficult or costly. Honesty above all else. Honesty is respect.


It's not a first date type of discussion! :laughing:


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Great post, @Wellsy. Well said.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Let me try to make a syntheses of the middle road that all (most) of us have been trying to achieve in this whole conversation.

*Dating* and a* relationship* aren't the same thing

*Dating*: the technique used by people to get to know a possible future partner, which passes through stages of increasing trust

*Relationship*: the end point of dating, the point where 2 individuals decide to be in a loving relationship based on trust developed in the dating stage. Lies should be non-existent at this stage because else the lying individual in the relationship is cheating the relationship.

Information and trust should be given at the humanly acceptable and psychologically acceptable speed of the information and trust giver. If the giver feels they're not ready to disclose such information than they are not mandatory to give this information, but know that most likely this is information that'll prevent dating from turning into a relationship. Which means more dating will have to happen before enough trust has grown to make the step towards being in a relationship.

Forcing someone to disclose information of any sort before that person is ready to disclose this information will in most cases result in the end of the dating process, because you broke the trust of the other individual by going somewhere you weren't allowed to go yet (to compare this with something physical: "Imagine you just met a girl at the bar and she's wearing a short skirt, and her legs looks really smooth, and as you're flirting with her you put your hand on her legs, stroking them up and down. This, since you weren't at this stage of trust yet, is unacceptable and in most cases will be seen as sexual harassment. The same can be said about probing someone about information you're not allowed to have yet)

Now what if a transgender is involved?

If you've already been dating this individual for a while, it looks like there might be some sort of physical and mental attraction, because why else were you dating him/her? Now if this person comes out of the closet it is very normal for you to ask some time for yourself (if needed) because most people haven't been in such a situation and need to think about what this makes them, because most people haven't spend time thinking about this. So in no way should a transgender person expect an instant reply, because they should be self aware that they had most of their lives thinking about this.

Now what if you're not ok with this?

Good/Okish reasons to break-up:

1. You want to have children --> that's an 'okish' reason to break-up a relationship
2. You're concerned about what your family might think --> that's an 'okish' reason. When you're in a relationship you should support each other and partners shouldn't (actively) drive a relationship between family members apart (but if she kept it secret for this long, most likely she won't want your family to know about it, until she trusts them)
3. You're concerned about what your friends might think --> that's an 'okish' reason. When you're in a relationship you should support each other and partners shouldn't (actively) drive a relationship between friends apart (but if she kept it secret for this long, most likely she won't want your friends to know about it, until she (ever) trusts them)
4. You are not mentally capable of joining on the emotional roller coaster that transition might be for a pre-op transsexual --> this is a good reason, but if you're not mentally capable of supporting someone in such a situation you might need to reconsider if you should be in the dating scene, because maybe you might need some psychological help yourself, to make you a stronger and more mentally healthy person. (of course the pre-op who is mentally unstable also had no business dating, if he/she knew he/she could drag someone down in their mental roller coaster)

Bad reasons to break-up:

1. You don't feel attracted to them (anymore) --> than why were you dating them in the first place?
2: You feel gay --> If they are post-op than this is incorrect, if they are pre-op than this is a bad/okish reason (although it shows some lack of understanding on your side)
3: You feel gay because their chromosomes don't match that what you thought --> Do you send a blood sample of every person you're dating to the lab to make sure they have the chromosomes you like? (look: in the near future we'll be making designer babies, where we go to the hospital and choose all the genes we want for our babies, you'll be capable of choosing everything from skin, hair, eye, etc color, to the intelligence, interests they'll be more likely to lean to, and so much more. In this near future World what kind of genes and chromosomes your partner has will be even less important)

Now lets look at another subject of this topic.

Imagine you're not dating a person of who you don't know they're transgender, but you just meet a transgender who is straight up about them being transgender. 

On which accounts is it 'ok' to not be interested by this person?

1. They're not aesthetically pleasing --> A good reason, all of us judge our attraction based on a combination of aesthetics and personality (even when non-transgender people are involved) and many transgenders sadly enough aren't super models (but how many people you meet on the street actually are super models?) (or might have a sign here and there of the damage their previous sexual hormones did to them)
2. Their personality isn't compatible with yours --> A good reason, all of us judge our attraction based on a combination of aesthetics and personality. (even when non-transgender people are involved) Their personality though isn't a trans personality, but just a personality that isn't compatible with yours
3. They're too vocal about their transgender identity (because they told you from the get go) --> Them telling it from the first encounter might mean they're political active members of the community, and this might be something you're not interested in (To be honest, I wouldn't date someone who told me from the start, because that means that most likely their whole personality will be based around them being transgender, and that'd be waaaaaaaaaay to taxing for me, and it wouldn't make them the complex and complicated people with multiple layers that I like so much)
4. All the above reasons also apply

Now why should you respect that a transgender in most cases will disclose this information after trust has grown?

1. Risk of being harmed/killed
2. Risk of losing public recognition
3. Risk of losing their job or becoming incapable of getting a job
4. Transgenders just like anyone else want people to date them for WHO they are not WHAT they are

On top of this the whole topic of @koalaroo: "*Treating women like human beings, not things!*" is applicable to transgenders.

Now what is one of the easiest and most fundamental ways of treating transgenders as human and not as things? (except for everything you'll read in that topic I referred to) By naming them by the pronouns they identify with, even if their sex is still physically different from the pronoun they identify with. Not doing so is a complete negationism of them as people with an own identity and persona. An easy (but horrible) experiment can be done to proof how inhumanizing this is by simply stalking every single post theoretical poster X posts on this forum makes and every time people reply on their post with he or she, you'd forcibly correct that poster, telling them that poster X isn't a he or she at all, but really a she or he, and there is not a single way that poster X can proof that this isn't true, because these days everything can be forged. Soon poster X will realize that their gender identity on the forum is totally based on what the majority of the forum thinks they are, which might be the total opposite of what Poster X really is. This is why it's so fundamentally important to trust poster X their self identified gender, because just like the Myer Briggs personality test is based on a self identification of certain personality traits that can only be truly seen by the individual themselves, gender is also a self identified concept that can only be totally understood by the individual themselves. This is why on matters of the self, it is important to follow people their self identification and not tell them who they really are. (I mean we aren't telling people if they're really ESTJ, or INFP, or whatever, no we accept them being the type they are because we trust them that they know themselves best)

So an extremely short compilation:

-Relationships grow out of dating
-Dating develops trust
-During the dating stage secrets can be kept until a level of trust has grown to share these secrets
-Transgenders are members of their self perceived gender
-It is ok to dumb transsexual people for all the same reasons you would dumb non-transgender people
-It is okish to dumb transgender people if you fear it will disrupt your life with your family and friends
-It is not ok to dumb transgenders for being transgender (especially not if they're post-op)
-Transgenders are people not things

Please add anything I missed


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

AesSidhe said:


> Please add anything I missed


Breaking up with someone because of family and friends is kind of lame to me regardless of the reason. It's also not necessarily something the trans person wants shared with anyone.

The thing about surgery kind of implied that someone who hadn't had surgery was emotionally unstable. I would argue that mental instability would affect certain people regardless, and others not at all. 

Also, lots of use of the word transsexual, where it sound be transgender which is more of an umbrella term. 

Overall, good thinking to do a summary!


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

jeb said:


> Breaking up with someone because of family and friends is kind of lame to me regardless of the reason. It's also not necessarily something the trans person wants shared with anyone.
> 
> Also, lots of use of the word transsexual, where it sound be transgender which is more of an umbrella term.
> 
> Overall, good thinking to do a summary!


I'll edit transsexual into transgender. I added the family and the friends part as to make it more of a middle road, because else certain people in the topic might feel that it isn't a middle road but too pro-transgender


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

AesSidhe said:


> I'll edit transsexual into transgender. I added the family and the friends part as to make it more of a middle road, because else certain people in the topic might feel that it isn't a middle road but too pro-transgender


I don't see why a middle of the road summary is beneficial then if things are added not because it's the right thing but to have an equal number of points. 

I did like your point about people being too vocal. That's a big red flag in a lot of different areas.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

jeb said:


> I don't see why a middle of the road summary is beneficial then if things are added not because it's the right thing but to have an equal number of points.


because acceptance and understanding often grows in stages. If this middle road is acceptable to them, then after a while the middle road might advance even more towards pro-transsexual. 

EDIT: in the final form of acceptance there will be no more need for the term transsexual, and transsexuals won't need to come out of the closet anymore, they'll just be normal members of society. But of course this isn't a reality for our generation, but most likely something for within the next 100 years


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

PS: I can't resist this off-topic comment buuuuuuuuuuuuut OMG the Khaleesi ( @mhysa ) is sharing her love with us <3 <3 <3


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

jeb said:


> Not really, but you've attempted to defend your position.
> 
> Regardless, I don't think hostility is going to produce progress in this discussion. I get the impression that you're an intelligent person, but that doesn't mean that you can surmise what you want out of a topic like this based on very little. I am trying to figure out why anyone would hold such negative opinions on something before actually understanding it.


I've defended my position.

Why are you labeling my opinions as "negative" opinions?


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Eska said:


> Why are you labeling my opinion as "negative opinions"?


Because of their content and the way you're being combative.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

jeb said:


> Because of their content and the way you're being combative.


Why the use of the word "negative"? 

Would you label your opinion as "positive"?

My opinion is neutral, I'm neither in favor or against transgenders, I'm simply debating issues within the matter.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Eska said:


> Why the use of the word "negative"?
> 
> Would you label your opinion as "positive"?
> 
> My opinion is neutral, I'm neither in favor or against transgenders, I'm simply debating issues within the matter.


What are the issues that you see, then?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

jeb said:


> What are the issues that you see, then?


The incorrect usage of established biological/biologically-related terminologies.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Eska said:


> The incorrect usage of established biological terminologies.


Can you elaborate?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

jeb said:


> Can you elaborate?


Claiming that you are woman/female, when you are a man/male.
Claiming that you are man/male, when you are a woman/female.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Eska said:


> Claiming that you are woman/female, when you are a man/male.
> Claiming that you are man/male, when you are a woman/female.


Sex and gender are not the same thing. A transgender person isn't making some sort of fake claim, they're being honest about who they are. Transgender is something that is internal, an idea about who you are at the deepest level. As gender is a cultural construct, there isn't anything uncommon about a person knowing who they are.


Also, did you see my post yesterday about intersex individuals?


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

Kazoo said:


> I still won, tho.


wow !! You ignore my apology, and you make another sophomoric remark.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Eska said:


> Claiming that you are woman/female, when you are a man/male.
> Claiming that you are man/male, when you are a woman/female.


What is your opinion on the term, "real man"?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

jeb said:


> Sex and gender are not the same thing. A transgender person isn't making some sort of fake claim, they're being honest about who they are. Transgender is something that is internal, an idea about who you are at the deepest level. As gender is a cultural construct, there isn't anything uncommon about a person knowing who they are.
> 
> Also, did you see my post yesterday about intersex individuals?


Which is why there's the words "masculine" and "feminine".

"An idea about who you are.", sex doesn't depend on who you think you are.



Torai said:


> What is your opinion on the term, "real man"?


I've already answered your question.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Eska said:


> Which is why there's the words "masculine" and "feminine".
> 
> "An idea about who you are.", sex doesn't depend on who you think you are.
> 
> ...


So you did answer that you approved of it. I was just making sure.

You do realize that the term implies that maleness is something more than biology, right?

So, you cannot approve of the term while touting biology as a reason that trans people shouldn't be referred to by proper pronouns. The two positions are diametrically opposed.

You can technically argue that it doesn't really mean that someone loses their Y chromosome, but that would also support our argument, due to maleness being described as a construct, rather than an actual description of someone's sex.

You'd probably switch around and say that it's metaphorical and not meant to be taken literally. However, that would also support our position because you yourself are working on a hyper-literalist definition of biology to justify a term that is not used with that hyper-literalist mentality or focus.

In essence, you should have the same protest against the usage of "real man" as you do against pronouns, taking your position. However, you don't, disproving your neutrality on the situation.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Eska said:


> At a very young age, I figured out the benefits of being a female in-game and I've since then exploited these advantages by posing as one. (Usually in MMORPGs, where I would receive resources/support easily.)


Eska I read in a post that online in MMORPGs you are female and that you let other players experience you as female. In such a case your online gender is actually female, because you act and behave as one, and the World perceives you as one. Looks like you're more involved in this topic than we first thought DDD


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Torai said:


> So you did answer that you approved of it. I was just making sure.
> 
> You do realize that the term implies that maleness is something more than biology, right?
> 
> ...


That was the response. (Post #206)



Eska said:


> A "real man" is a figurative expression for a "masculine male", and can also be used in a traditional/chivalrous sense.


Where did I claim that I wasn't in disapproval of the term "real man"?




AesSidhe said:


> Eska I read in a post that online in MMORPGs you are female and that you let other players experience you as female. In such a case your online gender is actually female, because you act and behave as one, and the World perceives you as one. Looks like you're more involved in this topic than we first thought DDD


I exploit the stereotypical benefits associated with it.

I am not one, I am posing as one, I am lying.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Eska said:


> Which is why there's the words "masculine" and "feminine".
> 
> "An idea about who you are.", sex doesn't depend on who you think you are.


I agree, sex doesn't depend on who you think you are. Thats why we are talking about gender. Hence the term gender identity. Masculine and feminine don't have anything really to do with this. There are "masculine" and "feminine" men and "masculine" and "feminine" women. "masculine" and "feminine" gays and lesbiand and "masculine" and "feminine" straight people and "masculine" and "feminine" transgender people.

Transgender is what happens when sex and gender are in conflict.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

[No message]


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Eska said:


> I exploit the stereotypical benefits associated with it.
> 
> I am not one, I am posing as one, I am lying.


Drawing a parallel between transgender and exploiting an online game is not accurate, and if I thought you were more informed it might be offensive. Transgender is *about* someone being honest with themselves. Honest so that they can stop lying to themselves.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Eska said:


> As you've agreed, sex does not depend on who you "think you are".
> 
> Sex and gender do not conflict in the sense you`re making it out to be.
> 
> ...


I don't think you're following.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

jeb said:


> Drawing a parallel between transgender and exploiting an online game is not accurate, and if I thought you were more informed it might be offensive. Transgender is *about* someone being honest with themselves. Honest so that they can stop lying to themselves.


I wasn't drawing a parallel, I was answering your post.



jeb said:


> I don't think you're following.


Possibly.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Eska said:


> Where did I claim that I wasn't in disapproval of the term "real man"?


The question there was a test for you. I used specific language to generate a response. If you protested, you would likely have stated, since the language made an accusation of your stance on the original post.



> I exploit the stereotypical benefits associated with it.
> 
> I am not one, I am posing as one, I am lying.


You lost your ability to state that trans people had a moral obligation to state their assigned sex at birth, though. Because you don't in MMORPGs.

Tell me, why don't you state your sex to everyone you meet upon introduction?


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Eska said:


> I see.
> 
> I think my position throughout this thread, was reasonably argued versus the opposition.
> 
> ...


You are smarter than that. You are very logical, and think objectively with given assumptions.

Some of your assumptions are not shared by all, but you are somewhat willing to consider them. 

When all done, you understand the issues, and your mind and moral assumptions have been expanded just a touch. The exercise of discussing has helped others solidify their thoughts, including me.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> I've made a summary of his position. You don't have to like it. He continually ignores the evidence posited to him from various sources within the past 40-whatever pages in this thread in favor of his own views, which aren't backed in the science on transgender issues. I would call that willful ignorance.


That is a great answer to a different question, but I guess your post did demonstrate how to discuss posts and not people.

He is not the only person in this thread who is not a great listener.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> What makes us human persons?
> 
> Our genomes and their expressions, or our perceptions of reality?


I think that's the issue at hand for people, one of categorization and our framework seems sorely unadjusted to the differences in reality. It seems almost impossible to truly define what makes a man or a woman because of variation and implications of some of the assertions. Just recently I've seen the point to sex being a poor social construct as proven with how doctors try and force intersex children to be male or female, this binary outlook leading to mutilation of children out of a misguided belief that one has to be male or female in some physical "normal" sense.

I think saying that someones genitals determine them as a man or a woman can run along the same poor point as saying all girls have long hair. The problem being that we wouldn't say someone who lost their genitals or reproductive capacity to not be a male or female on that basis.
To the argument of chromosomes seems disingenuous because as cited earlier it's strange to cite the plans to something as proof of what something is even in spite when something deviates from that genetic plan.
For such reasoning I tend to think of the point that if I had some genetic blindness, so I was born blind but was able to alleviate my blindness through modern medicine, even though I might have the genetics that say I should be blind, the reality is that no sensible person would call me blind because I don't exhibit that.

So what is a man or a woman, I think transgender and transsexuals have pretty much put it down to, it's because it's your inherent identity. For some reason we feel that we are male and female, and what that maleness or femaleness actually entails is I'm unsure, I don't know if there really is a clear definition to be provided. 
My opinion is that currently our framework and conceptualization of gender and such is piss poor at the moment and only in regards to trans people and feminist theory have we even begun to break down somethings and create language for it, but I don't think we're necessarily close to having an abstract framework that properly articulates the diversity of reality. Unfortunately the reality, especially in regards to humanity isn't a clear cut category for us to fit into. 
What I think people need to consider is that we in some sense created these frameworks, yes genitals, chromosomes and all that exist objectively, but we called them male and female, we defined them as sex, these are things that have societal implications and are judgments by humans rather than objective fact. What is in question is whether our judgment is the best representation of the reality that comes through different gender expressions and biological differences.

At times I had wonder if gender existed just as a term to describe a collection of certain traits and is done so somewhat arbitrarily. Like why is what is masculine masculine or male, but i'm too lazy to properly explore that and think it's just come to be socially defined as such. 
My tip for people with this discussion i sot realize that the physical form you have doesn't actually tell you that you're a man or woman, this is something we have been taught but doesn't seem to actually fit. Because someone can deviate from the definitions of male or female and we will still define them as one of the other, plus theres the implications of those who have no gender identity, who are stuck in world in which no matter what they do they can't present themselves in a physical form that doesn't have gender perceptions enforced on them. 

More thoughts on the subject somewhat.
The Social Construction of Sex - Pacific Standard: The Science of Society
Sexing the Body - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Morpheus83 said:


> @jeb
> 
> Sometimes I think of the disingenuous and repetitive 'why' when some people already have their minds made up on a subject. Some kids also do that kind of thing to annoy adults :tongue:


:laughing:



Eska said:


> You're claiming I'm uninformed and you're claiming I'm not understanding what you're saying, without actually pointing out what I'm uninformed about or misunderstanding.
> 
> I find it to be a rather dishonest tactic after having gone through multiple pages of arguments, and when I presented you with a final counter-argument, you simply resorted to 'You don't understand.'/'You're not informed.'.
> 
> I suppose you can understand why I suspect you of using the "cop out" tactic.


What is this even? 

Yes, you're uninformed. I am encouraging you to ask questions, even basic ones. The things I've seen that you aren't understanding have already been pointed out (I'm guessing there is more). But, as you haven't been actually reading my posts I guess it's understandable that you wouldn't have seen. 



Eska said:


> It is rather strange that having an opinion backed up by arguments and asking questions, is considered as not wanting to be informed and willfully being ignorant.


You're not asking questions about transgender things. You're picking one small sentence or word from an entire post, regardless how relevant, ignoring everything else, and making an uneducated statement or question about it while completely ignoring the points that are being made. Also, just because you argue your opinion doesn't make you more informed by the act of arguing it.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

drmiller100 said:


> He is not the only person in this thread who is not a great listener.


People in general are not great listeners!


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@Eska

I'm not sure how to respond to you a lot of the time, and I think that other people in this thread may be having that issue. When somebody takes time to explain something in detail to you and you don't seem to have understood what they said, it can make them feel as if you aren't listening to them. I also think that you can also occasionally word things in a way that people find offensive. In this thread, for example, you referred to someone transgender by saying that their appearance was "deceiving" or "deceptive." Those words implied that transgender people were deliberately portraying themselves falsely to gain something, but transgender people (and their allies) don't see it that way. When I told you what I thought you were saying (based on your words) wasn't true, you told me that you weren't attempting to debate the honesty of transgender people. In that specific situation in which a person may not have the biological sex you think they would have based on their appearance, a better word might be "confusing."

I don't want to repeat myself on what I have said to you earlier about transgender people. I think looking at various statements on this thread and taking the time to really examine what people have said could help you understand why other users feel the way they do. If you're open-minded enough, it could even cause you to change your opinions on transgender people.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Torai said:


> Can you stop using transsexual as a noun? It's offensive, and much like using "female" as a noun. I don't care if you don't care about my feelings, but please respect the feelings of the trans people on the forum instead of just trying to spite my loudmouthed ass. There's way more than you think there are.


As soon as you stop using the terms “cis woman” or “cis gender” or “cis people”, which I find offensive. 

Flippancy aside, as long as its clear what we are talking about, then getting hung up on terminology is a waste of time. 

This is more hypocrisy though - you get to choose the identity of others, but they don’t get to define you? Interesting…. this is a theme in this thread, where tolerance, accommodation, sensitivity, etc, are asked to be given to trans people, crossdressers, et al, combined with an insistence that this does not have to be extended in reverse. This is for the benefit of the trans-cross-whatever people, yet at the expense of cis-blahblahblah-whatever people.



> Plus, that could be argued the other way, and since the person who doesn't want to kiss should be able to decide the interaction and most people don't want to kiss people who could possibly be disgusted by them…


Indeed, and doesn’t transparency prevent such things?



> And flirty tones? Who the hell is traumatized by using a flirtatious tone with a trans person?


This is hyperbole on your part…. While not traumatized, someone has been deceived into behavior they may not have engaged in had they known someone is transsexual. Example: people can also be upset to learn they flirted with someone who was married because that person was deceptive about their marital status. It is accepted that the married person would be in the wrong here, not that the other person is too “sensitive” or has some irrational phobia against adultery. 

Violence or ostracizing is not okay, but people get angry when they feel violated, and that can range from small trespasses to larger ones. It may not be trauma-inducing, but it’s still highly disrespectful.

To act as if it’s okay to disrespect someone just because you deem it minor or even they may deem it minor, doesn’t change that it is disrespect.



> But how about if you date someone to get a feel for whether they would be cool with trans issues and then break it off if they don't feel the same? People date people all the time like that. Some people try to get a feel for others' preferences on religion, issues of race, and bisexuality. You don't always spout those kinds of things on the first date.
> 
> I mean, why the fuck would a trans person wanna fuck someone who's disgusted by trans people anyway?



Then what issue does the OP have? What worry is there? Why the anger towards those who don’t want to date someone trans?

I suspect the real fear is coming from knowing that many kind, intelligent, principled, empathetic, tolerant, etc, people are not comfortable with being romantically involved with a trans-cross-duurrrr-whatever person. The reason for this feeling may vary from person to person, but it’s still the most prevalent feeling out there. The OP saw this in the other thread, which is the whole reason this one was started. 

This flies in the face of the black and white thinking which will paint “cis people” as being bigots, close-minded, ignorant, overly traditional, etc. If these people were such oppressive, evil “others” then there’d be no concern over accidentally dating them, because you'd easily spot and steer clear of them. But this view is mainly held so as to justify degrading their worldview as inferior to your own. 

Most cis-blahgeeyaya-voodoomoo-people have no concern over dating trans-mufasa-lasa-baconapple-people because it’s not even on their radar. If they have concern, then it’s not necessarily phobia. Phobia would paint them as an evil “other”, but concern actually shows they accept that they could like and find someone attractive who presents as their preferred sex, _but that doesn’t mean they would want to date them given all the facts_. The difference between this and other preferences has been stated over and over, in regards to why one is more of _an immediate moral issue_. Deception can quickly & easily lead to a serious violation against someone else.




AesSidhe said:


> As I've already described before, most of these woman see themselves as and are normal woman.


They may see themselves that way and others may also, but it is not a fact. The fact is, they had gender reassignment surgery. For some, this is morally and spiritually unacceptable in a romantic and sexual partner. It may be a profound violation for them. For others, it's merely distasteful and will render the person unattractive. You cannot know this without transparency on the matter.

It is blatantly disrespectful of the beliefs of others to deceive them in this manner. To think it is acceptable to deceive someone this way reveals a sense of entitlement that is frightening. 

It is an intolerance of people who have the right to feel very differently on the matter and who do not want a romantic or sexual relationship with someone who was not born their preferred sex.




> Did you ever think, that people alter themselves NOT for YOU, NOT for someone ELSE, but that they alter themselves in order to love themselves. They don't change themselves so they can easier fool you. They don't change themselves because they want to have a straight boyfriend or lesbian girlfriend, NO, they change themselves in order to feel healthy, in order to look in the mirror and not feel sad. They're not doing this for you, they don't owe you an explanation, they only owe an explanation to themselves. (and the psychiatrist, because he/she is a part of transition). Believing that you owe an explanation of why someone wants to be a more healthy person, only shows that you're the unhealthy person, because you've started considering healthy, as something that should judged.
> 
> 
> So no, they don't lie to you, telling you that they are trans and are different of you, that is the real lie, because they're not different from you



Yes, I realize people can be very selfish, self-absorped, self-indulgent, privileged beyond belief (oh the luxury of an identity crisis over genitalia - what utter frivolousness!), shockingly entitled, profoundly shallow, etc. They can put their feelings and desires and needs above others if they want to. They can hold their definitions of health, of morality, of what is true and what is false as better than yours. They can push their agenda and not see how they are intolerant of others being different, just as they claim to be victims of intolerance. Here, I refer to the hypocrisy of some "trans people".

They have the right to make their own decisions, but they cannot force other people to see things as they do or to hold the same beliefs and standards. They do not have the right to trample the preferences and standards of other people by being deceptive about a choice that has profound moral/spiritual/personal implications for people when it comes to romance/sex.




AesSidhe said:


> Ohhh so people don't have the right to know that behind your charming exterior, there is actually hiding a wife beater from day one and you ARE allowed to know from day one, that transsexuals looked for medical intervention and healed of a birth defect and are now a healthy functional member of society? Uhm where is the logics in that?!





AesSidhe said:


> I fear you might have to go back to drafting table and work on your logics


Strawman….

I never said it was okay for someone to deceive others in anyway. That’s precisely what I am saying is wrong here.

Abusers hide who they are for their own benefit, to the detriment in others, are immoral. That IS an apt comparison here (although certainly offensive to trans-moogoohoo-people - and I’M the one called insensitive?), as in both cases, the deception is wrong. 

Where the comparison falters is that if one were to get romantically involved with an abuser, once their true character is made clear, any romantic/sexual behaviors prior to that may not be an issue for the person. That in itself may be no violation for them, although certainly the deception is (& the abuse itself is far worse a violation). However, it remains that mere romantic involvement with a trans-lalabookoo-person can be a violation for some. 




> Now of course you can tell me: "What is a woman?" or in your case you'll probably say: "Transsexuals women are not women". Ok lets go and look at some definitions shall we?


Your entire argument is based on strawmen…. 

There are many reasons people would not want to be romantically involved with someone who is transsexual. “Phobia” is often the one focused on as a way to degrade a different viewpoint, so as to claim to not need to exercise tolerance for that viewpoint. Perhaps I am wrong, but here, I see you assuming phobia is the reason.

Where gender reassignment surgery is involved, there is significant alteration of the genitals, which can conflict with some moral/spiritual beliefs or even just sheer physical preferences concerning the body. In short, for some, the body is a temple and this surgery amounts to mutilation that is profoundly disrespectful to their god(s). 
That’s just one possible worldview. There are many others which have nothing to do with phobias or bigotry. Here, you turn people with differing worldviews into the “evil others” while asking for tolerance & accommodation at the same time…please…

Besides, no definition of a “female” involves surgical alteration or clothing worn. Feeling a certain way, having a certain temperament, possessing certain interests or tastes, wearing certain garments - none of that makes you physically female. 

Of course some people don’t fit neatly into definitions when it comes to their physical body, but ways of categorizing sex of humans involves primary and secondary physical indicators as well as biological and chemical factors. It’s not simple at all - sex has many indicators, many which are pretty easily identified from birth, before the onset of puberty when most secondary indicators develop (which you refer to heavily, and which are the most easily “faked”). When all is said and done, the vast majority of people can be categorized as the male or female sex, whether or not they check every box. Someone truly in the center of the divide by nature is extremely unusual, and they would generally be regarded as being abnormally developed, ie, possessing defect, although that doesn’t mean they should be scorned socially. But that also doesn’t mean that people have to date them if they have personal oppositions to pairing with someone who is not a certain sex from birth.




> Hmmmmm so which definition should we use then?



What do you mean by “we”? Individuals choose the definitions that suit them, as evidenced by this thread where people use whatever phrases they like, whether or not it’s offensive to others.

Again, it’s the prerogative of the individual to decide whether or not someone qualifies in dating. Information concerning your physical sex from birth is highly relevant from the get-go, and not being upfront about it WILL be rightly seen as deceptive and disrespectful and even possibly a violation of other people.




> 1. At this point in time and space, people make a big deal about transsexualism and lots of people make jokes about it (like said before, often transsexuals are a punchline joke in comedies), so when people tell you that they're transsexual, they stop being everything else. They stop being a masters in mathematics, they stop being an altruist, they stop being funny, they stop being an animal friend, etc etc, and their whole identity in the eyes of the person they had to disclose this information to becomes transsexualism. They suddenly become a one dimensioned thing in the eyes of the person who hears this before the first date, and that's horrible, because they will never see those other complex, beautiful, smart, amazing parts of this persons identity. It doesn't matter if you're INFP, INFJ, ENFP, ENFJ, etc etc, they all turn into T.R.A.N.S. This is one of the many reasons why this information should only be given at a much later stage of the dating process, because after several dates and getting to know each other they've started to see each other as individuals, as people with many amazing and beautiful layers. And then when this information is disclosed, then people can look past that demon called 'trans', because they already came to the realization that this person is much more then just that one stupid detail. And then people can start doing the thinking: "Does this make me gay?" and often the realization is: "No, I'm not gay, and this is still same fascinating girl I met a few weeks/months ago”



The person has chosen to make their identity about their genitalia & physical sex, otherwise, they’d never be in that situation to begin with. If physical sex were just incidental to the person, then there is arguably no reason for reassignment surgeries. Oh, I know that won’t be popular. People want to have their cake and eat it too. If gender has no connection to physical sex, then why the need to change the sex & alter genitalia if it’s a gender issue? There is a big inconsistency there. However, people can be inconsistent if they want to, but they cannot force their views on others.

You have another strawman here….as you fail to grasp there can be many moral/spiritual/personal reasons someone may have for not wanting to be with someone trans-durr-moogoo-lalal-sexual, which is not phobia. 

Will a trans someone find themselves deeply invested into a relationship with someone who has such a contrasting worldview? Unlikely, but they may go on a date, and there may be romantic overtones, gestures, physical interactions, etc, that would offend their moral/spiritual/personal sensibilities. I refer back to the married person or relative analogies.

Most people don’t immediately meet and go on a date. No one is saying wear a sign on your neck. It’s not hard to find out where someone stands on issues in a few initial conversations which can be had in a context where you don’t risk violating someone else’s boundaries. 

The first phone conversation I had with an ex, he told me he was divorced. We had met once and exchanged numbers, that is all. People reveal sensitive things very early on if it’s considered a serious factor in dating. Sex at birth is a fundamental factor for most people.



> 2. If a transsexual would disclose this information from the start, than most people will not learn to see those deeper layers, with the effect that the only people that will want to try and date the transsexual, are creepy tranny chasers, who see transsexuals as an exotic treasure, that they want to find, and conquer and use. This is an instant road to an abusive relationship. Transsexual people, like any other living person, want people to love them for WHO they are, not WHAT they are.



No, because people can choose to not date them, but that doesn’t mean they cannot interact with them in other ways. Cis-blahbooglemoogleha-people can be friends, co-workers, etc, with trans-mishyfalalala-people. People do not have to sacrifice their morals, spirituality and personal preferences because of the desires, preferences, choices, conditions, etc, of others. 


The entitlement rears its head again…



> Nobody has a right to treat someone like crap for failing to meet their moral standards


It is treating someone like crap to deceive them and violate their morality/spirituality/personal feelings. It is disrespectful at the least. These people have a right to be upset when violated (upset does not equal violence).

It is not treating someone like crap to decline to date them because they had a gender reassignment, are living as the opposite of their birth sex, cross-dress, etc. 

Why can’t you guys see it goes both ways? You want understanding, compassion, sensitivity for a group of people, but don’t think they should have to give some of that too? REALLY?




TurtleQueen said:


> I think it's selfish of the other person to expect their partner to change their clothing just because it makes them feel weird or uncomfortable.


Please work on your reading comprehension. How would this situation arise if there was not considerable deception or unless someone decided to change dramatically after a relationship was underway? People DO cease to be attracted to a partner who changes appearance dramatically later on, whether shallow or not, but it often does not have the moral/spiritual components as this issue can have. To force that upon them can be forcing the to compromise their integrity.



> when it doesn't immediately concern the partner





> but they don't need to act as if the other person is selfish for having a life not centered entirely around what they want.


Such hyperbole here!

Oh this immediately concerns the partner… This is not about conforming to every wish and desire of your partner, but about hiding fundamental aspects of your identity that would influence whether that person would be with you to begin with. If it’s not part of your identity, and it deeply bothers your partner, then you have the choice to not do it or to leave. The other person is not the one introducing the huge change.


So as to be clear we are not talking past each other, I am referring to such things as:
- changing one’s gender, as an identity
- changing one’s sex, as a physical state
- crossdressing in public &/or private as a habit 




> I can't understand this mentality myself. Someone being a close relative is a lot more potentially horrifying and disgusting to me than someone being transgender.
> 
> Other people have explained that they consider reasonable disclosure to occur before a sex act and before a relationship moves beyond a casual dating stage. I don't see the point of repeating that viewpoint.


So you will dismiss the validity of a viewpoint simply because you don’t grasp it? You don’t see the hypocrisy there?

The OP did not express that viewpoint of disclosure so early on, and I am disagreeing with the OP and those who agree with the OP. The OP speaks of trust…a few dates does not build trust. Casual dating for many can include physical things that would make many uncomfortable if they knew all the facts.

As I noted above, I have not proposed someone advertise these facts with a sign strapped to their body. It is reasonable to reveal it BEFORE anything becomes romantic, however. The moment any romantic interest is indicated or a real possibility, then it can be worked into conversation in increments, gauging someone’s reactions as you go and how much more is smart to reveal. 




> Here's an analogy. If a lesbian or bisexual woman mildly flirted with me, I wouldn't feel super offended. I would explain that I'm straight and expect her to stop flirting with me and not escalate the interaction. If she tried to kiss me or engage in physical contact after I told her no, she would be violating my boundaries. I would be as pissed off at a woman in this scenario as much as I would be at a man who crossed stated boundaries. You can't expect someone to respect boundaries if you never state them in the first place. If a person hates the thought of a transgender person kissing them and considers it a boundary violation, they better be clear about that fact with anyone with whom they flirt. Some transgender people can pass quite well, and you may see any number of transgender people without ever knowing that they are transgender. A kiss or mild flirtation is not equivalent to having sex with someone, so it doesn't make sense to equate them.


I’m creating a phrase now: “trans-centric viewpoint”. This is myopic viewpoint where you frame everything in terms of your trans-whatever experience and expect others to also, despite it being extremely removed from the common human experience.

FYI, most people don’t think about trans people much at all, as they are a vast minority & the matter of possibility dating one unwittingly is very small. Burden of disclosure is on the trans-burrrmuruhaa-person. They are the ones who possess the information that is well-known to be very divisive. For the benefit of most, boundaries should be assumed unless otherwise stated. 

Your analogy fails because the situation with the lesbian is clear from the getgo. Deception is not an issue. Because you immediately have that information, you can set boundaries, politely decline, etc. It’s not so clear with someone whose appearance does not immediately tell the whole story and who is not upfront early on about it. The issue is of deception and possible violation because of it, and given the factors involved, it’s a unique one that has few good analogies. 

Another imperfect analogy is to liken it to feeling that someone should have to state as a boundary that they don’t want to be raped. Oh really? People don’t want that? Obviously! Given the current norms, the safe assumption for the trans person is that unless given strong evidence of the contrary, most people will not be open to them romantically. To act with the assumption that people may be okay with it, and with no strong evidence to back that, is to feel it may be okay to violate a very common boundary. *They may not like the reality of others’ feelings, but it’s mighty hypocritical to ask people to just not feel a certain way anymore. *

You also don’t get to tell people what they are okay with. You don’t get to tell them the significance of a kiss. You don’t get to decide what is consistent for their worldview. 

In short - Don't deceive people & don't violate or seriously risk violation of their moral/spiritual/personal sensibilities & physical boundaries. Before things become romantic & especially before there is anything physically sexual/romantic, find out how someone feels on such matters, and recognize you will likely have to initiate the topic as it may not be in their mind at all. Respect that other people feel differently from you & they have that right.

That's too much to ask? Really?


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

@OrangeAppled - It would be nice to see a critical argument where someone didn't make it all about everyone other than the trans person.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Wellsy said:


> I think that's the issue at hand for people, one of categorization and our framework seems sorely unadjusted to the differences in reality. It seems almost impossible to truly define what makes a man or a woman because of variation and implications of some of the assertions. ia



Why bother? What is the point to even worrying about it?

Why not just let each person determine what they want to be, and celebrate them in THEIR truth?


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

drmiller100 said:


> Some people call this trolling.


Perhaps. But it's not done with the intention of causing chaos, but rather getting an implied answer. It's asking a question without asking it, since asking would receive a dishonest answer. The matter of fact description of the definition did not portray or imply the strong disapproval based on biology that the pronouns did. In fact, it came off as a defense would. Therefore, it is impossible to consider him neutral.

But to be blunt, Eska's actions could also be seen as trolling. Showing a neutral façade when his true feelings on the matter are negative, and then looking down on those who are offended for being "too emotional".


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

OrangeAppled said:


> As soon as you stop using the terms “cis woman” or “cis gender” or “cis people”, which I find offensive.
> 
> Flippancy aside, as long as its clear what we are talking about, then getting hung up on terminology is a waste of time.
> 
> ...


Do you think TERF is a slur, too? Cis is one of the most innocuous words used to define someone. It means on the same side. It's like getting offended over someone with ADHD saying "neurotypical". However calling someone a transsexual as a noun is like using homosexual as a noun or gay as a noun. It treats them as an object, and that's why I asked you to stop. Not for me, but for others. Cis is used as an adjective. Stop society from using that, and most trans people are unable to describe their experience with any meaning since there's no word for those who don't share it. 

I would say you're misinterpreting and conflating points, but to be blunt, I don't think you really care and just wanted to get that whiny rant off your head because you hate trans people. And, no, I'm not assuming your identity, I'm making a hypothesis. One reasonably supported by the fact that you just shit on every trans-identified person in the forum and don't really even care. Hate me as an individual all you want, but when your beef goes to a group that is only trying to survive in a world that hates them simply for being who they are, that's when I have a problem with you.

You have made the same argument that dominant groups have made for centuries against most oppressed groups (except women because they're 50% of the population), by considering them unimportant due to their "minority status" and how much "effort" it would take society to accommodate them, when it honestly takes much more effort to spew your hateful bile. (cis-blahblah-whatever takes much longer to type than cisgender or cis, or even "cis")


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Eska said:


> I see.
> 
> I think my position throughout this thread, was reasonably argued versus the opposition.
> 
> ...


I'm going to try to be as kind as I can be, because I really feel sorry that you've been ganged up on by so many people. 

To start I'd like to say that yes, it was kind of a "cop out" tactic. In my opinion this topic has talked about many subjects that you most likely won't find somewhere else, or for which you would have to do hours of googling and then not even have the tip of the iceberg of the things that were discussed here, because certain issues are just not such a public knowledge (like tranny chasers, etc). So I think and I'm of the opinion that this topic is a very interesting place for people to learn about these issues and that telling someone to first get informed isn't in its place, because this topic might actually be one of the best places to get informed.

That said I also do understand that some people are slowly getting tired of the thread, because they feel like they have had to explain the same thing over and over again for about 40 pages, with some people seemingly not listening (what they would call willful ignorance).

That being said I do not believe that you're willfully trolling, I think you actually want to learn, why else would you have been in this topic for 40 pages? (and if you were trolling, then you did a good job at helping to shape this topic into the educative topic it is  ) And you know, I actually think you did learn and grow in this topic (maybe because moderators forced you to, but we should be positive and optimistic, and hope that you really grew and weren't forced to do so because of the danger of getting infracted)

You know what I actually think? I think that most people in here would actually back down and stop circling around you like a pack of rabid wolfs if you altered/modified/reconsidered one or two of your controversial opinions. These being:

1.Your idea that sex and gender are always interlinked and can't differ from each other in individuals
2.That transsexual people are dishonest

The positive thing is that if you realize what people have been saying for 40 pages about the difference of sex and gender, most like the second opinion will automatically change into something that most likely would be ok or acceptable for most people on here.  (Look at our discussion with Jeff: We didn't argue with him about the fact if transsexual people were dishonest, we were discussing about secrets being kept 'silent' (not lied about) until appropriate trust had grown for the secret to be revealed, and about the speed and the length of time that would have to pass before such secret is revealed. Also everyone in here seems to agree that in our current society such information most be disclosed before intercourse)

So if you want you could explain to us what you find difficult about the difference between the two terms: Sex and Gender


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

AesSidhe said:


> To start I'd like to say that yes, it was kind of a "cop out" tactic. In my opinion this topic has talked about many subjects that you most likely won't find somewhere else, or for which you would have to do hours of googling and then not even have the tip of the iceberg of the things that were discussed here, because certain issues are just not such a public knowledge (like tranny chasers, etc). So I think and I'm of the opinion that this topic is a very interesting place for people to learn about these issues and that telling someone to first get informed isn't in its place, because this topic might actually be one of the best places to get informed.


There are loads of knowledgeable people here to answer questions, including myself, and I said ask questions in every post that I said people need to be more informed. If you're having a discussion about something you don't know a whole lot about, you listen and make observations and connections and from there pose questions and reassess your thoughts or reaffirm what you assumed. Getting beyond the willful ignorance thing to a place where actual meaningful discussion can happen - yes, there has to be an exchange of knowledge.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

drmiller100 said:


> Why bother? What is the point to even worrying about it?
> 
> Why not just let each person determine what they want to be, and celebrate them in THEIR truth?


I wish that could be the case but humans have disposition for simplifcation and grouping, I wish we could live in a colorblind world but there is already a prevalent social construct of race and it has real world implicaitons because of the beliefs based around that grouping. The same applies to beliefs around transgender and the binary paradigm of sex/gender, there are real world implications around peoples beliefs on the subject and not all will actively harm but they very well may be indirect cause of harm.

Like this example.
This mother loved her child but refused to acknowledge that she had a daughter rather than a son and her daughter killed herself it seems, the daughter leaving a note in with some blame to the lack of care from the mother due to the mother's beliefs. Something as simple as refusing to acknowledge one's gender identity, especially in regards to transgender is something that invalidates their identity and I think is one factor that plays into the high rates trans suicides.
Identity is crucial to our function, it's our foundation and for transgender that identity is constantly challenged by the structure/culture of society and the people they interact with.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Wellsy said:


> I wish that could be the case but humans have disposition for simplifcation and grouping, I wish we could live in a colorblind world but there is already a prevalent social construct of race and it has real world implicaitons because of the beliefs based around that grouping. The same applies to beliefs around transgender and the binary paradigm of sex/gender, there are real world implications around peoples beliefs on the subject and not all will actively harm but they very well may be indirect cause of harm.
> 
> Like this example.
> This mother loved her child but refused to acknowledge that she had a daughter rather than a son and her daughter killed herself it seems, the daughter leaving a note in with some blame to the lack of care from the mother due to the mother's beliefs. Something as simple as refusing to acknowledge one's gender identity, especially in regards to transgender is something that invalidates their identity and I think is one factor that plays into the high rates trans suicides.
> Identity is crucial to our function, it's our foundation and for transgender that identity is constantly challenged by the structure/culture of society and the people they interact with.


Now this post of mine might be seen as a real straw man (and yes OrangeAppled I will come for you later. PS: I have big respect for your long post with the many quotes, because most likely it toke hours to write, so I think that's amazing)

Reading about the suicide of that teen made me cry, really cry, I'm so deeply touched by it, I just can't believe that these things are still happening, that people in this thread can spit venom that drives these teens (and even adults) into doing suicide. How can you talk about what is morally and spiritually correct, if you're technically guilty in being complicit in suicide. YES, transsexual people and their allies have MORAL superiority over others, because they're saving lives, they're trying to keep people alive, they're giving people a chance to live, while those on the complete other side of the fence, are guilty and complicit in pushing people to doing suicide.

I just can't, I CAN'T ... MY GOD?!


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Torai said:


> Do you think TERF is a slur, too? Cis is one of the most innocuous words used to define someone. It means on the same side. It's like getting offended over someone with ADHD saying "neurotypical". However calling someone a transsexual as a noun is like using homosexual as a noun or gay as a noun. It treats them as an object, and that's why I asked you to stop. Not for me, but for others. Cis is used as an adjective. Stop society from using that, and most trans people are unable to describe their experience with any meaning since there's no word for those who don't share it.
> 
> I would say you're misinterpreting and conflating points, but to be blunt, I don't think you really care and just wanted to get that whiny rant off your head because you hate trans people. And, no, I'm not assuming your identity, I'm making a hypothesis. One reasonably supported by the fact that you just shit on every trans-identified person in the forum and don't really even care. Hate me as an individual all you want, but when your beef goes to a group that is only tryimg to survive in a world that hates them simply for being who they are, that's when I have a problem with you.
> 
> You have made the same argument that dominant groups have made for centuries against most oppressed groups (except women because they're 50% of the population), by considering them unimportant due to their "minority status" and how much "effort" it would take society to accommodate them, when it honestly takes much more effort to spew your hateful bile. (cis-blahblah-whatever takes much longer to type than cisgender or cis, or even "cis")


Isn't TERF a slur? They don't call themselves that. 

I think she made some excellent points. Being that there are any number of reasons someone might not agree with or be comfortable with dating someone who has had sex/gender reassignment surgery. It isn't up to anybody to obscure facts that may be relevant to another person's decision. Doesn't mean one has to tell everybody right off the bat, but it can be argued that lying to a person about it is extremely disrespectful. It isn't really anybody's place to decide for somebody else what is acceptable/worth mentioning/meaningful. I don't think mutual respect can really exist without honesty.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

AesSidhe said:


> Now this post of mine might be seen as a real straw man (and yes OrangeAppled I will come for you later. PS: I have big respect for your long post with the many quotes, because most likely it toke hours to write, so I think that's amazing)


I admire your patience.



> Reading about the suicide of that teen made me cry, really cry, I'm so deeply touched by it, I just can't believe that these things are still happening, that people in this thread can spit venom that drives these teens (and even adults) into doing suicide. How can you talk about what is morally and spiritually correct, if you're technically guilty in being complicit in suicide. YES, transsexual people and their allies have MORAL superiority over others, because they're saving lives, they're trying to keep people alive, they're giving people a chance to live, while those on the complete other side of the fence, are guilty and complicit in pushing people to doing suicide.
> 
> I just can't, I CAN'T ... MY GOD?!


This isn't even an isolated incident. She is a statistic of trans (as well as other LGBTQ suicides), and she knew that. That's exactly why she wrote the letter; because it's important to make the world a better place for _all_ of its inhabitants, trans people as well as cis people.

No amount of being "correct" is worth the price of a human life. If we can't understand that sort of value, then we've made a grave error in our analysis.

It's much better to be the one person in a trans person's life that makes them feel valued than part of the dozens that don't. I don't care if I'm wrong. I care that I lose sight of what's important.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> Isn't TERF a slur? They don't call themselves that.
> 
> I think she made some excellent points. Being that there are any number of reasons someone might not agree with or be comfortable with dating someone who has had sex/gender reassignment surgery. It isn't up to anybody to obscure facts that may be relevant to another person's decision. Doesn't mean one has to tell everybody right off the bat, but it can be argued that lying to a person about it is extremely disrespectful. It isn't really anybody's place to decide for somebody else what is acceptable/worth mentioning/meaningful. I don't think mutual respect can really exist without honesty.


I've come across hundreds of trans people, and never one who was deceiving people for casual sex or in a relationship. 

Lying from anyone regardless of gender shouldn't be tolerated. Its more likely for a guy to lie about how well endowed he is than a trans person to lie to someone they're in a relationship with about being trans. It doesn't make much sense for them to do so or generalize that it is something trans people do.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Torai said:


> This isn't even an isolated incident. She is a statistic of trans (as well as other LGBTQ suicides), and she knew that. That's exactly why she wrote the letter; because it's important to make the world a better place for _all_ of its inhabitants, trans people as well as cis people..


Do you really think I don't know that?! Don't you know the amount of candles that burn EVERY year on trans remembrance day?!

If I could speak my full emotional and crying opinion right now, I would get infracted for it, because this is murder, and certain posts in here are attempted murder.

I will shut up now, because I'm broken at the moment :sad:

I'm going to take a shower, take a walk in the jungle and cry some more :sad:


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

BlackDog said:


> Isn't TERF a slur? They don't call themselves that.
> 
> I think she made some excellent points. Being that there are any number of reasons someone might not agree with or be comfortable with dating someone who has had sex/gender reassignment surgery. It isn't up to anybody to obscure facts that may be relevant to another person's decision. Doesn't mean one has to tell everybody right off the bat, but it can be argued that lying to a person about it is extremely disrespectful. It isn't really anybody's place to decide for somebody else what is acceptable/worth mentioning/meaningful. I don't think mutual respect can really exist without honesty.


Trans-exclusionary radical feminist. This is the literal meaning. TERFs exclude trans women as women. That's literally all TERF means. It does not imply anything that isn't true.

Why should I care if she makes valid points, when most of the points had been addressed within the thread multiple times and are nothing new? What she said was quite bigoted, and showed that she does not have the respect for trans people enough to even have this conversation.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

jeb said:


> I've come across hundreds of trans people, and never one who was deceiving people for casual sex or in a relationship.
> 
> Lying from anyone regardless of gender shouldn't be tolerated. Its more likely for a guy to lie about how well endowed he is than a trans person to lie to someone they're in a relationship with about being trans. It doesn't make much sense for them to do so or generalize that it is something trans people do.


I didn't think anybody was arguing that trans people do that more than anybody else. It is always wrong to lie to people. It has been asserted in this thread though that a trans person is under no obligation to tell their partner that they are trans and that anybody who isn't comfortable with it is a bigot (or has bigoted beliefs and is transphobic). The argument has been that they may not want to advertise the fact that they are trans because of the threat of potential violence. Which I get, but I do think that the person's sex at birth may very well be an issue for some people, so a trans person should not deliberately obscure this fact from a romantic partner.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

AesSidhe said:


> Do you really think I don't know that?! Don't you know the amount of candles that burn EVERY year on trans remembrance day?!
> 
> If I could speak my full emotional and crying opinion right now, I would get infracted for it, because this is murder, and certain posts in here are attempted murder.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry. I don't mean to patronize with these kinds of posts. A lot of people in this thread don't know about those kinds of depressing statistics, and it was more aimed at them, rather than you.

I tend to write some posts without a specific audience in mind.

And take a mental health day if you need to. It can be hard at times, and I won't judge.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Torai said:


> Trans-exclusionary radical feminist. This is the literal meaning. TERFs exclude trans women as women. That's literally all TERF means. It does not imply anything that isn't true.
> 
> Why should I care if she makes valid points, when most of the points had been addressed within the thread multiple times and are nothing new? What she said was quite bigoted, and showed that she does not have the respect for trans people enough to even have this conversation.


I know what it means, but members of the ideology/movement ask to not be called that, and consider it a slur. 

I saw nothing bigoted in her post, and thought she went to a great deal of time and effort to address people's points.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> I didn't think anybody was arguing that trans people do that more than anybody else. It is always wrong to lie to people. It has been asserted in this thread though that a trans person is under no obligation to tell their partner that they are trans and that anybody who isn't comfortable with it is a bigot (or has bigoted beliefs and is transphobic). The argument has been that they may not want to advertise the fact that they are trans because of the threat of potential violence. Which I get, but I do think that the person's sex at birth may very well be an issue for some people, so a trans person should not deliberately obscure this fact from a romantic partner.


Wow, who made that argument? If you're talking about @Kazoo, I didn't take what he said that way, but I can see how you did. Perhaps I misinterpreted what he was saying. If so, I do not agree that its something that should be kept from people. But I still maintain that people are making this too much about the other person without any consideration for the trans person. Threat of violence is important to consider, but its also important to consider the fact that the trans person wants you to get to know them for who they are. Its much less confusing for people to be told after they have a decent idea of who someone is as a person. The trans person can say to themselves "yes, this person looks at me and understands my gender, I feel comfortable and will tell them" as opposed to springing it on someone at an awkwardly early time and then having them get confused about what pronouns to do and ultimately them leaving because they don't understand how to see you. So like I said in my first post here, there's a window to tell people - which it seems we're in agreement about!


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> It has been asserted in this thread though that a trans person is under no obligation to tell their *partner* that they are trans and that anybody who isn't comfortable with it is a bigot.


That's quite possessive of you. Since when is someone you're 'dating' also your partner? Someone is your partner once you're in a relationship, if you're still in the dating stage than that person isn't your 'partner'. Some people in the World actually date multiple people at the same time, and in no way is this cheating, because you're just getting to know people and testing and seeing how compatible you are with each other.

I think many of you need to take a step back from the sex-based mentality of current pop-culture in order to really see the difference between dating and relationship


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

TurtleQueen said:


> @[spoiler]Eska
> 
> I'm not sure how to respond to you a lot of the time, and I think that other people in this thread may be having that issue. When somebody takes time to explain something in detail to you and you don't seem to have understood what they said, it can make them feel as if you aren't listening to them. I also think that you can also occasionally word things in a way that people find offensive. In this thread, for example, you referred to someone transgender by saying that their appearance was "deceiving" or "deceptive." Those words implied that transgender people were deliberately portraying themselves falsely to gain something, but transgender people (and their allies) don't see it that way. When I told you what I thought you were saying (based on your words) wasn't true, you told me that you weren't attempting to debate the honesty of transgender people. In that specific situation in which a person may not have the biological sex you think they would have based on their appearance, a better word might be "confusing."
> 
> I don't want to repeat myself on what I have said to you earlier about transgender people. I think looking at various statements on this thread and taking the time to really examine what people have said could help you understand why other users feel the way they do. If you're open-minded enough, it could even cause you to change your opinions on transgender people.[/spoiler]


My words were accurate and I did not have any malicious intent to emotionally harm any individual I was debating with.

What you may have misinterpreted does not make your accusations truthful.

I refute any accusations suggesting that my words are chosen in order to harm, I chose words that are accurate and that I am familiar with. (English is not my first language, as suggested by @drmiller100, earlier in the thread where he informed me that in english dialect, these words had a negative connotation. Although, it remains irrelevant to the matter, if the message is understood.)



Torai said:


> Perhaps. But it's not done with the intention of causing chaos, but rather getting an implied answer. It's asking a question without asking it, since asking would receive a dishonest answer. *The matter of fact description of the definition did not portray or imply the strong disapproval based on biology that the pronouns did.* In fact, it came off as a defense would. Therefore, it is impossible to consider him neutral.
> 
> But to be blunt, Eska's actions could also be seen as trolling. Showing a neutral façade when his true feelings on the matter are negative, and then looking down on those who are offended for being "too emotional".


I believe this is a dishonest post.

You are claiming that I gave my opinion on the term "real man", when I've clearly told you that I did nothing more than explain it to you, I never claimed that I agreed or disagreed with it.



AesSidhe said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I did get an infraction, I've contested it and I'm in the process of clearing it.

I did not claim that transgenders were dishonest in a sense to offend them (nor do I recall using the word "dishonest"), I am using it as an accurate representation of the situation.

If someone claims he is something he is not, that is dishonesty, is it not? 

To answer your question;


Eska said:


> Sex:
> 
> a. The property or quality by which organisms are classified as female or male on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions.
> b. Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, of this classification.
> ...


To add,

*http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx*

_Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth. Gender identity refers to a person’s internal sense of being male, female or something else; gender expression refers to the way a person communicates gender identity to others through behavior, clothing, hairstyles, voice or body characteristics. “Trans” is sometimes used as shorthand for “transgender.” While transgender is generally a good term to use, not everyone whose appearance or behavior is gender-nonconforming will identify as a transgender person. The ways that transgender people are talked about in popular culture, academia and science are constantly changing, particularly as individuals’ awareness, knowledge and openness about transgender people and their experiences grow._

*What is the difference between sex and gender?*

_Sex is assigned at birth, refers to one’s biological status as either male or female, and is associated primarily with physical attributes such as chromosomes, hormone prevalence, and external and internal anatomy. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for boys and men or girls and women. These influence the ways that people act, interact, and feel about themselves. While aspects of biological sex are similar across different cultures, aspects of gender may differ.

Various conditions that lead to atypical development of physical sex characteristics are collectively referred to as intersex conditions. For information about people with intersex conditions (also known as disorders of sex development), see APA’s brochure Answers to Your Questions About Individuals With Intersex Conditions (PDF, 1MB)._
__

@jeb



Eska said:


> As you've agreed, sex does not depend on who you "think you are".
> 
> Sex and gender do not conflict in the sense you`re making it out to be.
> 
> ...


Your response.



jeb said:


> I don't think you're following.


From there on, the discussion has drifted to "Eska is uninformed/trolling/ignorant."

Again, I will ask you; in my concluding counter-argument, what is it that makes you believe I'm uninformed/trolling/ignorant? What is fallacious? What is inaccurate?

Taking 3 pages to rant about how uninformed I am (without actually pointing out any mistake I've made), is not a fruitful method to efficiently resolve the matter.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

BlackDog said:


> I know what it means, but members of the ideology/movement ask to not be called that, and consider it a slur.
> 
> I saw nothing bigoted in her post, and thought she went to a great deal of time and effort to address people's points.


Fine, I'll use "trans-critical".

But honestly, if trans-critical feminists don't have the respect to stop saying shit like transmufahahasexual and considering them entitled or having a "luxury of gender identity crisis", they shouldn't be surprised if they receive the same treatment in return.

I mean, if trans-critical feminists don't even respect trans people's gender identity and preferred language, they have no right to state that TERF is a slur because it hurts their feelings.

And you don't have to say you hate trans people to be bigoted. Simply ridiculing the struggle is enough.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Eska said:


> Again, I will ask, in my concluding counter-argument, what is it that makes you believe I'm uninformed/trolling/ignorant? What is fallacious? What is inaccurate?


 I already answered this. Please read my posts in this thread. And I didn't say you were trolling, I said you are uninformed.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

AesSidhe said:


> That's quite possessive of you. Since when is someone you're 'dating' also your partner? Someone is your partner once you're in a relationship, if you're still in the dating stage than that person isn't your 'partner'. Some people in the World actually date multiple people at the same time, and in no way is this cheating, because you're just getting to know people and testing and seeing how compatible you are with each other.
> 
> I think many of you need to take a step back from the sex-based mentality of current pop-culture in order to really see the difference between dating and relationship


I don't think I said the word dating in that post at all. When I said partner I was referring to somebody you are in a relationship with. This is just semantics. I don't personally make a distinction between dating and a relationship (considering dating to be a part of or a stage of a romantic relationship, and as such do not believe it is right to date multiple people at the same time) but if other people do, whatever. Swap out dating for relationship then.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

jeb said:


> I already answered this. Please read my posts in this thread. And I didn't say you were trolling, I said you are uninformed.


Point out the post.

Where do you actually pinpoint what I am uninformed about, instead of simply suggesting that I'm uninformed?



jeb said:


> I don't think you're following.





jeb said:


> More than likely. But it's your decision whether or not to listen and ask questions to be better informed, or stay behind the lens of whatever it is you think is the stereotypical societal norm response on this topic.





jeb said:


> I didn't ask you to state you sex. I don't really care, and I don't see why its relevant in this discussion.
> 
> And yes, I was saying it would be beneficial to get informed. Thats what most of my posts have said here. And not just you, everyone. Good to know you weren't actually reading what I've said and are trying to have a discussion.





jeb said:


> Tell me, what is the point of debating a with someone who doesn't know much about the topic? They need to be able to have educated opinions to be taken seriously and not make themselves look like an idiot for either supporting our defending a position they know nothing (or next to nothing) about.
> 
> It is not a cop out for me to ask you to inform yourself. I would love to discuss things on a serious level on this topic, but it's impossible to do that if A) you are uneducated in the topic, and B) you're either not reading or understanding what I'm saying.





jeb said:


> :laughing:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





jeb said:


> There are loads of knowledgeable people here to answer questions, including myself, and I said ask questions in every post that I said people need to be more informed. If you're having a discussion about something you don't know a whole lot about, you listen and make observations and connections and from there pose questions and reassess your thoughts or reaffirm what you assumed. Getting beyond the willful ignorance thing to a place where actual meaningful discussion can happen - yes, there has to be an exchange of knowledge.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

OrangeAppled said:


> I’m creating a phrase now: “trans-centric viewpoint”. This is myopic viewpoint where you frame everything in terms of your trans-whatever experience and expect others to also, despite it being extremely removed from the common human experience.


LOL, I'm a cis woman. It says a lot more about you than it does me that you think transgender people's lives are extremely removed from the common human experience and assume that I must be transgender because I attempted to see if a trans person's view of the topic could make sense to me by using an analogy to a different situation. You thought my analogy was dumb, but it doesn't mean I have a "trans-centric" viewpoint.



> As soon as you stop using the terms “cis woman” or “cis gender” or “cis people”, which I find offensive.
> 
> Flippancy aside, as long as its clear what we are talking about, then getting hung up on terminology is a waste of time.


I don't see the term "cis" as offensive since it is a way to designate people who aren't transgender without assuming that being transgender is so weird and that trans people must be "trans" while everyone else just gets to be "people" or "normal."

I don't think that violating a person's boundaries is a good thing, but people don't go around sharing information with someone that could be very personal or could provoke a violent, prejudicial reaction when they don't know them very well. I would also prefer to know someone as a friend for a while before I began to date them, but many person could meet someone cute and go on a date with them. It's not some kind of foreign mentality to have. Trans people aren't always the ones initiating these interactions. Sometimes, a cis person could come up to a trans person and engage them in a flirty way. Is the trans person not allowed to respond positively to casual flirtation even if it leads nowhere?



> I suspect the real fear is coming from knowing that many kind, intelligent, principled, empathetic, tolerant, etc, people are not comfortable with being romantically involved with a trans-cross-duurrrr-whatever person. The reason for this feeling may vary from person to person, but it’s still the most prevalent feeling out there. The OP saw this in the other thread, which is the whole reason this one was started.
> 
> This flies in the face of the black and white thinking which will paint “cis people” as being bigots, close-minded, ignorant, overly traditional, etc. If these people were such oppressive, evil “others” then there’d be no concern over accidentally dating them, because you'd easily spot and steer clear of them. But this view is mainly held so as to justify degrading their worldview as inferior to your own.
> 
> Most cis-blahgeeyaya-voodoomoo-people have no concern over dating trans-mufasa-lasa-baconapple-people because it’s not even on their radar. If they have concern, then it’s not necessarily phobia. Phobia would paint them as an evil “other”, but concern actually shows they accept that they could like and find someone attractive who presents as their preferred sex, _but that doesn’t mean they would want to date them given all the facts_. The difference between this and other preferences has been stated over and over, in regards to why one is more of _an immediate moral issue_. Deception can quickly & easily lead to a serious violation against someone else.


If you don't want to use the terms trans or cis, you don't need to deliberately make fun of them. A certain amount of acceptance of trans people would acknowledge that they exist and that you can't immediately tell who is or isn't trans. If you have some deep moral or spiritual opposition to dating a trans person, you have a responsibility to try to figure out if someone you find attractive is trans or cis. Putting the burden of bringing up this discussion entirely on trans people (as you did in your post by claiming that they're some super rare minority) is unfair. Also, I can think of other things that could be some moral/spiritual issue in terms of getting into a relationship with someone. I hope that you expect other people to disclose these things as immediately as you expect a person to disclose being transgender.



> Yes, I realize people can be very selfish, self-absorped, self-indulgent, privileged beyond belief (*oh the luxury of an identity crisis over genitalia - what utter frivolousness!*), shockingly entitled, profoundly shallow, etc.


Being trans is not some frivolous, first-world problem. The bolded statement is bigoted and disgusting because you're assuming that trans people are just brats having a silly problem.



> *The person has chosen to make their identity about their genitalia & physical sex, otherwise, they’d never be in that situation to begin with.* If physical sex were just incidental to the person, then there is arguably no reason for reassignment surgeries. Oh, I know that won’t be popular. People want to have their cake and eat it too. *If gender has no connection to physical sex, then why the need to change the sex & alter genitalia if it’s a gender issue?* There is a big inconsistency there. However, people can be inconsistent if they want to, but they cannot force their views on others.


Please don't say trans people chose to be trans. It's very transphobic. If you don't understand why a trans person might want to get a surgery, you could read a lot of the posts in this thread. From my understanding, it's usually to help them feel more physically comfortable and be more recognized with the gender that they have. It's a little weird to make a fuss about if trans people's decisions about genital surgery are perfectly consistent if you wouldn't investigate the opinions of people who had cosmetic surgery. It's also weird for people to have some opposition to transgender people "mutilating" their bodies if they have no problem with cosmetic surgery or elective circumcision (which even involves genitalia! OMG!).



> It is treating someone like crap to deceive them and violate their morality/spirituality/personal feelings. It is disrespectful at the least. These people have a right to be upset when violated (upset does not equal violence).


I would argue that the person who is upset should keep it to the issue of timing and avoid letting how "upset" they are make them attack the trans person verbally. By treating someone like crap I meant attacking the fact that they are trans or what they did in response to being trans (misgendering them, telling them they're wrong for mutilating their bodies) or spreading around the fact that they're a "deceptive" person or that they are trans. Spreading information that someone is trans could put them at great risk, so you shouldn't do it even if you are pissed off that you accidentally flirted with a trans person. I do think that people have the right to decline to date trans people even if their reasons don't make much sense to me personally. Similarly, you shouldn't tell a person that their religion is horrible even if you're rejecting them (after a bit of dating) because you don't agree with their religion.



> *Please work on your reading comprehension.* How would this situation arise if there was not considerable deception or unless someone decided to change dramatically after a relationship was underway? People DO cease to be attracted to a partner who changes appearance dramatically later on, whether shallow or not, but it often does not have the moral/spiritual components as this issue can have. To force that upon them can be forcing the to compromise their integrity.


The situation as presented in that other thread was about someone finding a man likes to wear women's clothes. It said nothing about how often he liked to do it, if he expected to do it in public or in front of the partner, or if he considered it a big part of his identity. If you want to immediately break up with a person who cross dresses without accounting for these factors, go ahead. I don't understand why a person would do that, but whatever. I suggest you read that thread and work on your "reading comprehension."



> *So you will dismiss the validity of a viewpoint simply because you don’t grasp it? You don’t see the hypocrisy there?*


I just said that I didn't understand what you were trying to say with that analogy. I consider incest disgusting for a lot of reasons, and I don't want to claim that incest should be considered as bad as transgender identities by following your analogy. A lot of trans people wouldn't agree with that viewpoint.

Your analogy to a married person also doesn't make sense to me. Married people don't immediately need to disclose their status as married people whenever they engage in a casual, friendly conversation with a person of the opposite sex. If the spouses have promised each other fidelity, they should not break that promise. The person hurt by a married person having sexual or romantic encounters outside of the relationship is primarily the married person's spouse and secondarily the person the married person chose for sex. Some married people have open marriages, and their spouse would be fine with them sleeping with another person or dating another person. I think that if someone is in an open or polyamorous relationship with another person, they should disclose it before the relationship becomes intimate (sexually or emotionally).



> *Your analogy fails because the situation with the lesbian is clear from the getgo.*


The point of my analogy was that some romantic interactions (not transgender) could make a person feel uncomfortable, but people should be clear about important boundaries. As a straight person, I don't think about lesbian or bi women being interested in me in the way that you said most cis people don't think about being romantically involved with trans people. I can be oblivious to knowing the exact boundary between friendliness and flirtation. If I respond positively to a lesbian or bi woman's attempt to flirt with me since I don't know what was going on and then she tried to kiss me, she wasn't "violating" my boundaries deliberately. If I didn't want a woman to try to kiss me, I could have been more aware of flirtation and been clearer about what I do and don't want.



> *Another imperfect analogy is to liken it to feeling that someone should have to state as a boundary that they don’t want to be raped.*


This is an analogy deliberately designed to equate not knowing if a trans person is trans on first meeting them with a criminal act. You're being disgustingly transphobic by even suggesting this comparison when all of the trans-friendly viewpoints on this thread have said that trans people should disclose it before sex happens. Way to set up a straw man!



> You also don’t get to tell people what they are okay with. You don’t get to tell them the significance of a kiss. You don’t get to decide what is consistent for their worldview.


Generally, people consider having sex with someone without knowing important information about them worse than kissing someone without knowing the same important information. If they feel violated by kissing someone without knowing something, maybe they could try to mention the topic before a kiss occurred!


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Torai said:


> Fine, I'll use "trans-critical".
> 
> But honestly, if "trans-critical" feminists don't have the respect to stop saying shit like transmufahahasexual and considering them entitled or having a "luxury of gender identity crisis", they shouldn't be surprised if they receive the same treatment in return.
> 
> I mean, if trans critical feminists don't even respect trans people's gender identity, they have no right to state that TERF is a slur because it hurts their feelings.


You can call them whatever you want, I don't actually care. You just asked if TERF was a slur and I happened to know for a fact that the members of the movement/ideology do consider it a slur, and there are numerous websites and blogs devoted to explaining why it is a slur and why people should stop. 

I think she was just being humorous, attempting to display in a comical fashion her frustration with being reprimanded for using inappropriate terminology. I also don't think - in most cases - that the person contesting the sexual classification of transgender people necessarily doesn't respect that the person _identifies_ as a different sex, but rather that sex/gender reassignment surgery doesn't actually make a biological man biologically female (and vice versa). In most cases, as I said. There are also some people who reject the idea that gender can be meaningfully separated from sex, and is nothing more than a set of characteristics or behaviour which are associated with a biological sex, and are _masculine_ and _feminine_ rather than _male _and _female_.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Eska said:


> I believe this is a dishonest post.
> 
> You are claiming that I gave my opinion on the term "real man", when I've clearly told you that I did nothing more than explain it to you, I never claimed that I agreed or disagreed with it.


No, you claimed that.



Eska said:


> Torai said:
> 
> 
> > What is your opinion on the term, "real man"?
> ...


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> I don't think I said the word dating in that post at all. When I said partner I was referring to somebody you are in a relationship with. This is just semantics. I don't personally make a distinction between dating and a relationship (considering dating to be a part of or a stage of a romantic relationship, and as such do not believe it is right to date multiple people at the same time) but if other people do, whatever. Swap out dating for relationship then.


(why I'm still around? I'm boiling water for my shower)

Exactly you didn't talk about dating and went immediately to terminology that is connected to being in a relationship, while the consensus of the pro-transgender people in this topic is that such information should be disclosed before dating turns into a relationship (of which one of the qualifications seems to be that a sexual layer is added to the picture). Which shows that the situation you gave is non-existent. This is another reason why many of you most likely will never end up in the situation that you might be dating a transsexual (for a long time), since transsexuals seem to have really 'romantic' (as in the cultural and artistic time frame) ideas about dating and relationships. So in many cases a transsexual will want to wait for sex until they feel really ready for it. And this isn't a trans thing: there are many people that don't want sex after the first or second date. There are even still people that want to wait until after they're married. This can be a deal breaker for sex-centered people, but it is an opinion that non the less needs to be respected.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Torai said:


> No, you claimed that.


And what was my answer?



> A "real man" is a figurative expression for a "masculine male", and can also be used in a traditional/chivalrous sense.


The mistake I've made is to not point out the usage of the word "opinion", but clearly, from the answer provided, it was obviously not an opinion.

I believe what you're doing is what people would refer to as a "strawman"?


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

BlackDog said:


> You can call them whatever you want, I don't actually care. You just asked if TERF was a slur and I happened to know for a fact that the members of the movement/ideology do consider it a slur, and there are numerous websites and blogs devoted to explaining why it is a slur and why people should stop.
> 
> I think she was just being humorous, attempting to display in a comical fashion her frustration with being reprimanded for using inappropriate terminology. I also don't think - in most cases - that the person contesting the sexual classification of transgender people necessarily doesn't respect that the person _identifies_ as a different sex, but rather that sex/gender reassignment surgery doesn't actually make a biological man biologically female (and vice versa). In most cases, as I said. There are also some people who reject the idea that gender can be meaningfully separated from sex, and is nothing more than a set of characteristics or behaviour which are associated with a biological sex, and are _masculine_ and _feminine_ rather than _male _and _female_.


The question was rhetorical. 

And why shouldn't she or anyone else be reprimanded? It's incredibly disrespectful. If it wasn't a trans person, using polite words would be no imposition on most people, but since it's a "small minority", somehow mustering correct terminology is "too PC".


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Eska said:


> I believe what you're doing is what people would refer to as a "strawman"?





> A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument.[1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.


In a few hours when I have more time and when I'm more emotionally stable I'll show and proof how the whole anti-transgender side of the fence is a strawman, trying to pretend the other side is a strawman xDDD

Edit: Nevermind @TurtleQueen already did it for me


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

AesSidhe said:


> (why I'm still around? I'm boiling water for my shower)
> 
> Exactly you didn't talk about dating and went immediately to terminology that is connected to being in a relationship, while the consensus of the pro-transgender people in this topic is that such information should be disclosed before dating turns into a relationship (of which one of the qualifications seems to be that a sexual layer is added to the picture). Which shows that the situation you gave is non-existent. This is another reason why many of you most likely will never end up in the situation that you might be dating a transsexual (for a long time), since transsexuals seem to have really 'romantic' (as in the cultural and artistic time frame) ideas about dating and relationships. So in many cases a transsexual will want to wait for sex until they feel really ready for it. And this isn't a trans thing: there are many people that don't want sex after the first or second date. There are even still people that want to wait until after they're married. This can be a deal breaker for sex-centered people, but it is an opinion that non the less needs to be respected.


All right. I will summarize my feelings on it specifically then. 

1) I agree it could be considered discriminatory to expect trans people _only_ to declare upon meeting a potential partner what their biological sex is (or birth sex, whatever you want to call it). 

2) Even though I think never alluding to it or offering up the information is probably bordering on lying by omission (if you dated for any extended period of time, I have a hard time seeing how this couldn't come up somehow, by talking about your childhood or anything like that, unless you deliberately excluded it for some purpose) I do appreciate that the trans person in many cases could not be intentionally obscuring the fact from the person. 

3) I accept that if dating a trans person is against your philosophy or an instant deal breaker for whatever reason, the responsibility ought to lie with you to ask new partners if they have had sex/gender reassignment surgery. This shifts the onus. 

4) When asked directly, the trans person shouldn't lie (unless they fear for their safety, in which case they perhaps should lie and then promptly end the relationship - they should not, however, lie and then proceed to date the person). 

I've been getting a lot of friction in this thread, so which of these is unreasonable?


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Torai said:


> Do you think TERF is a slur, too? Cis is one of the most innocuous words used to define someone. It means on the same side. It's like getting offended over someone with ADHD saying "neurotypical". However calling someone a transsexual as a noun is like using homosexual as a noun or gay as a noun. It treats them as an object, and that's why I asked you to stop. Not for me, but for others. Cis is used as an adjective. Stop society from using that, and most trans people are unable to describe their experience with any meaning since there's no word for those who don't share it.
> 
> I would say you're misinterpreting and conflating points, but to be blunt, I don't think you really care and just wanted to get that whiny rant off your head because you hate trans people. And, no, I'm not assuming your identity, I'm making a hypothesis. One reasonably supported by the fact that you just shit on every trans-identified person in the forum and don't really even care. Hate me as an individual all you want, but when your beef goes to a group that is only trying to survive in a world that hates them simply for being who they are, that's when I have a problem with you.
> 
> You have made the same argument that dominant groups have made for centuries against most oppressed groups (except women because they're 50% of the population), by considering them unimportant due to their "minority status" and how much "effort" it would take society to accommodate them, when it honestly takes much more effort to spew your hateful bile. (cis-blahblah-whatever takes much longer to type than cisgender or cis, or even "cis")


Oh here we go...the "evil other". Instead of using any rational argument to address any points I've made, you use ad hominem and attribute views and feelings to me which I do not possess. Making things black and white makes it easy. Anyone who disagrees with you has hate. How convenient. 

I have not made that "same" argument, and anyone who reads what I wrote and makes any honest effort to grasp it will see that, although asking intellectual honesty from this bunch is probably asking too much. 

You assert that it's okay for trans people to disrespect others & violate them because they don't want to pertinent information in a timely manner. The hate and selfishness and bigotry is not on my end. You make no effort to understand the experiences & feelings of others but are whining for that very thing for yourself. You hate these people for simply being who they are also. You think accommodation of your feelings should allow for trampling others' integrity? You think it should allow for violating others? I am asking for honesty and calling for respectful action towards others who feel differently from yourself - but I'm the hateful one who is spewing? 

If someone disagrees with you on your views, then you call them hateful & you refuse to respect their preferences to the point of interfering with them. So whoever disagrees with you is intolerable to you. Interesting.... who is the bigot?

My flippant use of cis & trans has nothing to do with brevity, but it is mocking the significance you place on such designations coupled with the hypocritical ease you apply them to others without regard for how they feel about it. Don't you get it - YOU don't get to define people however you want and then deny them the same towards you. 

The level of hypocrisy and entitlement continues to rise. 




jeb said:


> @_OrangeAppled_ - It would be nice to see a critical argument where someone didn't make it all about everyone other than the trans person.


It would be nice to see a critical argument where a trans person didn't make it all about themselves & those they identify with, as if they are the only people who matter, and one where where they did not cry hate at anyone who doesn't disagree with them or coddle their feelings. 

I normally have no interest in these topics, but this one caught my attention because of the bigotry and entitlement and selfishness, and nothing excuses that. I don't care what a struggle you have - you don't get to violate other people.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Eska said:


> And what was my answer?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm making the assumption that it didn't occur to you since you didn't have strong feelings one way or the other. You equated the definition with your opinion since your opinion is not strong and attached enough to the issue to merit addressing the question of the opinion.

And whenever I do address that it's not strong, you simply state that you have not asserted it instead of actually asserting anything. If it's a strawman, it's a damn accurate one from the evidence.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> All right. I will summarize my feelings on it specifically then.
> 
> 1) I agree it could be considered discriminatory to expect trans people _only_ to declare upon meeting a potential partner what their biological sex is (or birth sex, whatever you want to call it).
> 
> ...


Non 

Often they will talk about their youth, but in a gender neutral way so it doesn't get noticed


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

BlackDog said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In regards to the bolded I think it's safe to assume your a person who might hold such an opinion so I'd be curious as to how you define what is male and female.

Because I can't reconcile that I don't think there is meaningful distinction that can be made between a transwoman/MtF who had sex reassignment and cisgendered male. I don't see the current framework best representing reality and think it might be because we're attached to the abstract framework that humans created that draws arbitrary distinctions between what is male and female. One might say biology isn't arbitrary but I would say experience of intersex people is testamant to how sex has its application as a social construct, we cite chromosomes but there are people who live as men and women who don't actually have the expected chromosomes. 
If I found out I actually had XX chromosomes I don't think that would have me change my identity and make me say i'm female nor do I think anyone would start believing that I'm a female because of it, because if the chromosomes don't actually end up being expressed then what importance are they to what is male and female. 
This isn't a case against the existence of those chromosomes, their significance but rather criticism as the definition of male and female, if it really is the best definition. Because I don't think it's excusable to say that such people are exceptions to the rule as their very existence breaks the rule by having differing chromosomes from the expected phenotype, which suggest that the framework needs to better adapt to reality in it's definition. 

I think this synopsis elaborates on something that makes the distinction of sex questionable, especially since we don't actually define children's sex by their chromosomes because its expensive to check genetics rather we define it by their genitals. But if you were to lose your genitals I don't think you'd think that you're no longer a woman nor would anyone else.
Perhaps this is the issue with most definitions is that they can get quite quirky in trying to fit reality.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Torai said:


> I'm making the assumption that it didn't occur to you since you didn't have strong feelings one way or the other. You equated the definition with your opinion since your opinion is not strong and attached enough to the issue to merit addressing the question of the opinion.
> 
> And whenever I do address that it's not strong, you simply state that you have not asserted it instead of actually asserting anything. If it's a strawman, it's a damn accurate one from the evidence.


I've provided you with a definition, not my opinion.

Would you be interested in hearing my opinion?


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Eska said:


> I've provided you with a definition, not my opinion.


Since providing the opinion would be damning.

I mean, you could provide your opinion, but if you can't convince me that it has any strong conviction behind it, I can't say that you're neutral on transgender issues.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Wellsy said:


> In regards to the bolded I think it's safe to assume your a person who might hold such an opinion so I'd be curious as to how you define what is male and female.
> 
> Because I can't reconcile that I don't think there is meaningful distinction that can be made between a transwoman/MtF who had sex reassignment and cisgendered male. I don't see the current framework best representing reality and think it might be because we're attached to the abstract framework that humans created that draws arbitrary distinctions between what is male and female. One might say biology isn't arbitrary but I would say experience of intersex people is testamant to how sex has its application as a social construct, we cite chromosomes but there are people who live as men and women who don't actually have the expected chromosomes.
> If I found out I actually had XX chromosomes I don't think that would have me change my identity and make me say i'm female nor do I think anyone would start believing that I'm a female because of it, because if the chromosomes don't actually end up being expressed then what importance are they to what is male and female.
> ...


On top of that it's also very educative and fascinating to learn about the failed experiment of Dr. Money. This is a case study that most people will learn about at university during classes like Psychological Antropology, because this case proves that in the debate of Nature over Nurture, or Nurture over Nature, reality is actually Nature over Nurture. Please enjoy watching the documentary or if interested the articles you'll look up about it 

Dr. Money And The Boy With No Penis | Watch Documentary Online for Free


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

I see.

You're doubting my neutrality on transgender issues?

That is a reasonable doubt, although, how does this correlate with my actual points/arguments?

How does that somehow matter with the points I'm making?

Why does my opinion on the term "real man", influence the points I'm making? Why do you think it's correlated to the actual matter?

Are you trying to disprove my claim that I'm neutral on the matter? If so, I ask; Why does it matter with my arguments?


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Explain why the post above^ received an infraction for "trolling".

It is the second time I've been accused and sanctioned for something completely unrelated and that I did not commit.

I'd advise you to,

1. Read the quotes following up to the post.
2. Define and understand the meaning of "trolling".
3. Discuss the matter before accusing and applying a punishment, with the individuals involved.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

> LOL, I'm a cis woman. It says a lot more about you than it does me that you think transgender people's lives are extremely removed from the common human experience and assume that I must be transgender because I attempted to see if a trans person's view of the topic could make sense to me by using an analogy to a different situation. You thought my analogy was dumb, but it doesn't mean I have a "trans-centric" viewpoint.




You’ve twisted what I’ve said at every turn, created strawmen out of my points so as to miss the point, and made it personal. My preferences and yours are not the issue…this is about respecting other people’s preferences REGARDLESS of how you personally feel. But since this has been brought up - this is a non-issue for me in dating and nothing I am concerned over personally. I am very upfront about my world views which weed a lot of people out, with them discriminating against me and thinking I’m a weirdo. But I’m not interested in leading anyone on. I certainly believe many trans people are not interested in leading anyone on; well, then, act with integrity and be honest with others, recognizing that their boundaries may be very different with you if they had all the facts.


I did not say “transgender people's lives are extremely removed from the common human experience”. The experience of being transgender is not the common human experience. The average person is not transgender and their experience will not be framed as such. Asking them to frame it as such when going about their daily business is self-centered. I am not saying to not show any empathy or compassion, but it is not lacking in compassion or empathy to expect honesty. Sure, if the facts come out and the non-trans person is not interested, then it would be rude for them to gossip or degrade the trans person. Nowhere have I advocated being nasty to people. However, this is LESS likely to happen if they are RESPECTED. Give respect to get it.


The point about common human experience was this - the odds of most people unknowingly dating a trans person are so low that it’s ridiculous to ask non trans people to make this some standard first date chat. The burden rests with the trans person to initiate conversation on the matter. 





> but people don't go around sharing information with someone that could be very personal or could provoke a violent, prejudicial reaction when they don't know them very well.




This is illogical. To not share that info but to engage in romantic interactions with them is LESS likely to provoke violence or prejudicial reaction? To unintentionally deceive someone and violate them is LESS likely to provoke them? What?





> I would also prefer to know someone as a friend for a while before I began to date them, but many person could meet someone cute and go on a date with them. It's not some kind of foreign mentality to have. Trans people aren't always the ones initiating these interactions. Sometimes, a cis person could come up to a trans person and engage them in a flirty way. Is the trans person not allowed to respond positively to casual flirtation even if it leads nowhere?




I stated clearly I don’t think people need to wear a sign or introduce themselves with such info. It’s reasonable to bring it up early on, as a matter of respect for the other person. They don’t have to say “I was born male” or whatever. They can broach the topic in general and see how the person responds. I already noted that.


Why so much resistance to showing basic respect to other people who are non-trans?


I brought up “inconsistency” not being a reason you get to dismiss others’ feelings and violate them, but you missed that and turned it into something I was not saying at all, because it’s far more convenient for you to demonize me since I won’t coddle people. 


In short - the desired speed of a relationship is irrelevant. That will vary a lot from person to person, and not everyone is seeking a long-term relationship at all (some people are into hooking up and whatnot). There is no hard and fast rule and no one is setting one other than to be honest ASAP and respect that others may not want to be romantically involved with someone who is trans. 





> If you don't want to use the terms trans or cis, you don't need to deliberately make fun of them.




Oh no- I need to. The hypocrisy needs a calling out. 





> A certain amount of acceptance of trans people would acknowledge that they exist and that you can't immediately tell who is or isn't trans.




Oh guess what? I already said that!!!! And you even quoted it!!!! That’s why the burden lies with the trans person to be honest early on. If you could tell from appearances, then this would be a non-issue. 






> If you have some deep moral or spiritual opposition to dating a trans person, you have a responsibility to try to figure out if someone you find attractive is trans or cis. Putting the burden of bringing up this discussion entirely on trans people (as you did in your post by claiming that they're some super rare minority) is unfair. Also, I can think of other things that could be some moral/spiritual issue in terms of getting into a relationship with someone. I hope that you expect other people to disclose these things as immediately as you expect a person to disclose being transgender.




Because? You give no reason for this “should”. I gave reasons. You failed to address them.


The burden lies with the trans person, and I’ve seen no argument to justify the other way around. I’ve already explained that I don’t think people should be deceitful in other matters, and I’ve also explained how this is different from many other issues and why immediacy is more important.


Don’t hope anything for me, because this isn’t about me. I’m actually capable of grasping different viewpoints and arguing in behalf of other perspectives, recognizing that they have a right to those perspectives. 


While I would not date a trans person knowingly, I don’t believe I would personally feel violated or particularly upset if it happened and there was minor romantic behaviors. But my feelings are not the automatic standard for everyone else. I recognize that anger in others often comes from a sense of violation, so instead of conveniently labelling others as hateful or bigoted or phobic, I seek to grasp where their emotion actually comes from. If you willfully misunderstand people and demonize them, then you will never bridge any differences.





> Being trans is not some frivolous, first-world problem. The bolded statement is bigoted and disgusting because you're assuming that trans people are just brats having a silly problem.




It has nothing to do with basic, physical survival. It’s an existential problem not a survival one, and it’s a luxury to pursue solving it. If you are preoccupied with sheer survival, then you don’t have the luxury of such problems. 


It is not a bigoted estimation. I am not intolerant of such people, but I don’t assign a survival value to this, because it doesn’t exist as a survival problem. This does not interfere with them at all.


However, what the OP proposes interferes with others and becomes intolerant for it. The entitlement and hypocrisy there is what is disgusting. 





> Please don't say trans people chose to be trans




Words in my mouth. Where did I say this? I was talking about defining identity and consistency in the reasons for choosing an identity and taking certain actions. 


And you missed the point again. So quick to take offense to paint me as the “evil other” so that you fail to grasp what is even being said. 





> If you don't understand why a trans person might want to get a surgery, you could read a lot of the posts in this thread




I made no comment regarding this, so I have no idea why you are bringing it up. You are being very patronizing to me, assuming I have no knowledge of any of these matters. I don’t patronize you and tell you to get an education on religion and imply you are ignorant of spirituality. 


I was pointing out inconsistencies in the arguments made regarding trans people here, and saying those DON’T invalidate the trans persons’ decisions or feelings. So likewise, do NOT invalidate the feelings and decisions of non trans people just because they strike you as inconsistent. If you do, then you lose the right to be taken seriously with your inconsistencies. 


No one is perfectly consistent. 





> It's a little weird to make a fuss about if trans people's decisions about genital surgery are perfectly consistent if you wouldn't investigate the opinions of people who had cosmetic surgery. It's also weird for people to have some opposition to transgender people "mutilating" their bodies if they have no problem with cosmetic surgery or elective circumcision (which even involves genitalia! OMG!).




Red herring…what in the world are you going on about?
You completely misunderstood my point about consistency. 
If YOU require such consistency, then require it of trans people also. 





> I would argue that the person who is upset should keep it to the issue of timing and avoid letting how "upset" they are make them attack the trans person verbally. By treating someone like crap I meant attacking the fact that they are trans or what they did in response to being trans (misgendering them, telling them they're wrong for mutilating their bodies) or spreading around the fact that they're a "deceptive" person or that they are trans. Spreading information that someone is trans could put them at great risk, so you shouldn't do it even if you are pissed off that you accidentally flirted with a trans person. I do think that people have the right to decline to date trans people even if their reasons don't make much sense to me personally. Similarly, you shouldn't tell a person that their religion is horrible even if you're rejecting them (after a bit of dating) because you don't agree with their religion.




Here you reveal your possible prejudice. You imply that if someone were upset, that they would stoop to these things. Why? That reveals the underlying feeling coming from poster responding to me - that anyone who takes a different stance on this is “the evil other”. Their intent is to “expose” me, not to actually make an argument for not being honest, which they repeatedly fail to support. 


If someone were upset by this and tempted to such behavior, it would likely be WORSE the longer they’ve dated and the more disrespected they feel. 





> The situation as presented in that other thread was about someone finding a man likes to wear women's clothes. It said nothing about how often he liked to do it, if he expected to do it in public or in front of the partner, or if he considered it a big part of his identity.




I brought up those factors to explain why different reactions may occur - ie. is it an identity matter or a behavioral, and if the latter, how habitual? All of these factors change the situation and the validity of the reactions and requests. How many different ways can the same thing be said? The point is missed again…





> I consider incest disgusting for a lot of reasons, and I don't want to claim that incest should be considered as bad as transgender identities by following your analogy. A lot of trans people wouldn't agree with that viewpoint.




You miss the point again! This is not about what YOU consider bad. Please step outside of your own perspective for once. Some people may feel that romantic relations with a trans person is as “bad” as one with their relative. So your feelings towards incest is how they may feel about romance/sex with a trans person. Whether or not you or trans people agree with that is irrelevant - those people can feel that way if they want to and unintentional deception can lead to violating their feelings. 





> The person hurt by a married person having sex outside of the relationship is primarily the married person's spouse and then the person the married person chose for sex.




False. Many single people would find it immoral to be involved with someone married, regardless of the arrangement the married person has with their spouse. This can certainly hurt them morally and spiritually. It can hurt them socially too. 





> I can be oblivious to knowing the exact boundary between friendliness and flirtation. If I respond positively to a lesbian or bi woman's attempt to flirt with me since I don't know what was going on and then she tried to kiss me, she wasn't "violating" my boundaries deliberately. If I didn't want a woman to try to kiss me, I could have been more aware of flirtation and been clearer about what I do and don't want.




I disagree. If a person has no strong evidence you’d be open to those advances, then the burden lies on them to check in with you about those boundaries before initiating anything. If a person has any concern about violence, then they really should seek to clarify & respect others’ boundaries. They should assert their own for their own protection too - being a woman, trans or not, leaves you open to more unwanted advances, IMO, and certainly the trans woman may not be the one initiating. 
Of course there is not perfect clarity in flirtation - why do you think there is so much controversy on sexual consent lately?
Certainly they don’t have to clarify boundaries in a very public exchange, but initiating a kiss or encouraging things to go further is not very smart if you have no strong evidence it will be well-received. Obviously mild flirtations can occur and nothing further may happen - but if you want to move forward, there is your time to clarify things. 





> This is an analogy deliberately designed to equate not knowing if a trans person is trans on first meeting them with a criminal act.





> > Here you fail to grasp the perspective of others.
> > The comparison here is the sense of physical, spiritual, and moral violation. You have no empathy there, but insist upon it for trans people…hypocrisy again. Until you grasp this, then you will never understand why some people would get so upset in this situation, and if you never understand that, then you will never reach them with any argument of your own.
> >
> >
> > ...


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

First off, I stand by what I stated in my earlier post: I could be considered pansexual, if pansexual included wearing an obligatory strapon . . . (*waiting for a thread in SPAM to make fun of this* . . . )

That our of the way; here is my personal opinion on this subject:

People have no obligation to say or do anything PRIOR to getting into a romantic relationship that makes hem feel unnecessarily either emotionally or physically vulnerable - irrespective of gender identity.

It is not bigotry to not want to date a person due to - pick one - their biological gender, their sexual orientation, personal (which includes sexual) history, etc.

Displaying ignorance and especially any kind of flippancy or ridicule towards transgendered persons is not only unfair but also emotionally/physically dangerous to those people. You have the right not to want to date them for whatever reason but do not - simplify and mock the hell that is tragically, their torch to bear - not for being transgendered but for living in a society that sadly views and treats them like freaks because you are incapable of understanding what it would be like having a different gender identity than the one you believe yourself to be. 

Like sexual orientation, this is not a personal choice, fetish or lifestyle and people really need to get that through their thick skulls and avoid unnecessary cruelty in both their descriptions and attitude towards those individuals. Suicide and homicide (not to mention omnipresent societal discrimination) are all-too-real tragic and unfortunate realities - if not for many - then they likely know a fellow trans person who has been affected by either or both.


* *




I apologise in advance, if anything I wrote triggers anyone but I don't see any other way to open up people's eyes to a transgendered person's reality than that.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

More random thoughts as this thread has just become my exploration grounds on the issue XD

Currently we have a practice in which we say that you are your biology via your genitals, we don't actually test chromosomes or reproductive potential to say that you're male or female and being the exception doesn't seem to actually imply that you aren't male or female if you still exhibit a particular sense of phenotype.
I think if we hold biology as more important to define someone as a man or a woman then we basically say that gender identity doesn't exist, we say you're a woman because of a collection of biology which can be arbitrary to the lines which will determine you as man or woman as seen with intersex people. Example being, the difference between being male or female in some cases can be the length of ones ambiguous genitals and culturally where one might be defined as a female, in another is defined as a male.

But the existence of transgender shows that gender identity is biological in itself, people are born with some innate sense of being a guy or girl and so I think if there is to be any biological basis for determining whether someone is a man or woman, I think it is defined by the individuals gender identity. They get to decide that they are man or woman, so regardless of whether you have a particular set of genitals, chromosomes, physical characteristics, whether you are a man or a woman is defined by the biology of your mind seemingly. I think this isn't straight forward to those of us that think we identify as a man or woman on the basis of things like genitals another arbitrary collection of traits, but transgender proves the existence of gender idenity ie being a man or woman defined by the individual, they know what they are and find that their physical form doesn't best represent that ideal sense of self.
What we currently have is a prescriptive culture, that says your genitals determine whether your a boy or girl and this prescriptive culture seems to present harm because people are prescribing definitions that deny the existence of some people and this is difficult for us to adjust because our upbringing dictates certain frameworks of beliefs in regards to what is man or woman. To some I might not be a real man because of their definition of a real man being into sports perhaps, perhaps if I grew my hair out I'm not a real man, if I lose my genitals to some I might not be a real man, if there was some genetic mutation of my chromosomes during infancy to many I might not technically be a real man even though they can't check that. 

The line is where ever we want to draw it and it seems regardless of where you draw it, you inherently exclude the reality of a demographic no matter how small one believes it to be. 
Because gender identity seems to be defined by ourselves, even for those of us that are cisgendered, it would make sense that we don't follow the prescriptive framework to an extreme and rather be inclusive to all realities of identity in which people define themselves in this regard. Currently this seems to be the best framework I can think of, one that accepts the implications of what is proven by transgender people, some of which don't even fit within the binary paradigm, where some are gender neutral who within a society that views things in binary can't acknowledge the existence of because everything is defined as male or female.

I don't think this manner would somehow deny the reality of chromosomes, reproduction processes, sperms, ovaries and the sort, they exist objectively regardless of what anyone says but that these determine whether you are a man or a woman seems to eb as arbitrary as any other distinction or line we draw. So I don't see why we simply make a line that is best formatted to those that exist or at the very least create a new framework that is on equal footing with the current one or integrated with it or something, because it would seem the current paradigm for which society views what is man or woman is flawed. That reality does not care for our boxes and desire for ordering and categorization and it's really fucked up our ability to do so on this one, so there may be a manner in which to define these things but I can't see it without always excluding a group of people and I don't think it justifiable to say that because some are minority that their existence is somehow not as important as others.
I'm not sure how radical this sounds to some, but is a fresh thought and superficially to me it seems it would eradicate this issue in which we don't acknowledge gender identity but instead define people by their genitals into two categories. I think i'm yet to see a meaningful definition of male or female that isn't subject to error for various groups of people.

I think this is a problem for when we know so much, that lines become more entrenched in technicalities we are questionable as to where things should stop and are always subject to the whims of society. I tend to think if our perception of things is maladaptive, then it isn't reality that must conform, rather our perception of reality is failing us and such a pain or harm is sign of a need to adapt, to evolve, to grow as to better accommodate or resolve the pain/harm caused. 

To dating I don't really hold to much of an opinion as to whether people want to date transgender or transsexual people, but I do hold an opinion to how valid some outlooks are. That one can't be transphobic because they don't date someone, but someone's beliefs that rationalize why they don't date someone certainly can be. Expressed this earlier with regards to race, if someone holds the belief that would not date a black person because black people are *insert negative stereotype/misrepresentation*, I think it's valid to evaluate that belief for its prejudice regardless of the actions because it's the thought that is critiqued, not the behaviour. 

It also has me thinking back to things I've learnt in regards to monism, in which I consider things like if every neuron int eh human body was replaced by a synthetic one which operated the exact same, that a person would still be the same. That even with every piece replaced by technology that one could in some sense still be a human being, the same I think can apply to transsexuals, that recently saw a article in which 4 vaginas were grown in a lab an implanted in teens, if one is to define people by their genitals then such progress would have people having to conform that transsexual people will meet their definition by having natural genitals rather than synthetic ones. At some point the same may be applicable to those for male appendages.
As mentioned earlier, technology will remove these boundaries for these definitions and undermine all that people hold as immutable. Though I think for MtF surgeries are already so impressive that people can't tell the difference and if they can't tell the difference then who are they to say someone isn't a particular sex when their phenotype clearly expresses it and if they apply that somone isn't man or woman because they don't possess something then I wonder do they say that a woman without her genitals or breasts is no longer a woman. Some might but I think it'd be just as arbitrarily critical as saying a man is a woman for having long hair. 

Also for fun will add something interesting.

* *






> Use of _androphilia_ and _gynephilia_ was proposed and popularized by psychologist Ron Langevin in the 1980s.[SUP][130][/SUP] Psychologist Stephen T. Wegener writes, "Langevin makes several concrete suggestions regarding the language used to describe sexual anomalies. For example, he proposes the terms _gynephilic_ and _androphilic_ to indicate the type of partner preferred regardless of an individual's gender identity or dress. Those who are writing and researching in this area would do well to adopt his clear and concise vocabulary."[SUP][131]
> 
> [/SUP]Psychiatrist Anil Aggrawal explains why the terms are useful in a glossary:
> 
> Androphilia – The romantic and/or sexual attraction to adult males. The term, along with gynephilia, is needed to overcome immense difficulties in characterizing the sexual orientation of transmen and transwomen. For instance, it is difficult to decide whether a transman erotically attracted to males is a heterosexual female or a homosexual male; or a transwoman erotically attracted to females is a heterosexual male or a lesbian female. Any attempt to classify them may not only cause confusion but arouse offense among the affected subjects. In such cases, while defining sexual attraction, it is best to focus on the object of their attraction rather than on the sex or gender of the subject.[SUP][132][/SUP]





Hopefully this rambling is comprehensible as I don't edit.


----------



## Blickwinkel (May 15, 2012)

Torai said:


> That would probably explain why I liked her so much. Trans women tend not to be so insistent on gender roles since they've recieved the biggest brunt of the restrictions from them.
> 
> But how would I react? I would first thank her for telling me, because it must be hard to trust others with that kind of secret. I may then,if we are still talking about sex, ask her about her genitals and how she best likes to be touched. But I would ask that of a cis woman as well. I like my partner to communicate to me how they like to be fucked. It's one of my turn-ons and it's useful information.


I'm glad you're that open minded, but most people wouldn't be so understanding, at least where I'm from anyway. To be blunt, it'd probably get them hurt. My point is that they''re playing with fire by not telling their partner until late in a relationship about something this big, and yes most will see this as something big.

This also goes back to your topic title and first post. Honesty is not a privilege in a relationship, it is a right. I understand its screwed up that trans people are treated like that, but its also unfair for the person they're with to be left in the dark. Again, you're playing with fire by doing so. If it ever gets leaked that they were hiding this from their partner, I wouldn't see it ending well :\.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

This 1955 novel by science fiction writer, John Wyndham offers a brilliant, insightful albeit horrifying look at the way, people who fall out of society's norm are treated:

The Chrysalids - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Wyndham's* The Chrysalids *



> A few thousand years in the future, post-apocalypse rural Labrador has become a warmer and more hospitable place than it is at present. The inhabitants of Labrador have vague historical recollections of the "Old People", a technologically advanced civilisation which existed long ago and which they believe was destroyed when God sent "Tribulation" to the world to punish their forebears' sins. The society that has survived in Labrador is loosely reminiscent of the American frontier during the 18th century.
> 
> *The inhabitants practise a form of fundamentalist Christianity with post-apocalyptic prohibitions. They believe that to follow God's word and prevent another Tribulation, they need to preserve absolute normality among the surviving humans, plants and animals. Genetic invariance has been elevated to the highest religious principle, and humans with even minor mutations are considered "Blasphemies" and the handiwork of the Devil.
> Individuals not conforming to a strict physical norm are either killed or sterilised and banished to the Fringes, a lawless and untamed area still rife with animal and plant mutations. Arguments occur over the keeping of a tailless cat or the possession of over sized horses. These are deemed by the government to be legitimate breeds either pre-existing or achieved through conventional breeding. The government's position is considered both cynical and heretical by many of the orthodox frontier community.
> ...


*Major characters

*


> *David Strorm* is the narrator of the story. David is one of a small group of youngsters who can communicate with each other via telepathy. However, their community's theological prejudice against anyone who is abnormal means he and the others must keep their abilities carefully hidden. David and Rosalind's love for each other is kept secret from their parents because of a bitter feud between their families.
> 
> *Sophie Wender* is a young girl born with six toes on each foot. Sophie lives with her parents in an isolated cottage somewhere north west of Waknuk, her deviation from the "norm" keeping her from associating with other children.
> 
> ...


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> I've been getting a lot of friction in this thread, so which of these is unreasonable?


Its not unreasonable at all. At least I dont think so. I think the heat you're getting is because its coming off as you expect the trans person is not going to tell someone at a respectable time if at all. 

You also haven't responded tomy intersex post or my post from last night, and I'm very curious onyour thoughts. 



OrangeAppled said:


> It would be nice to see a critical argument where a trans person didn't make it all about themselves & those they identify with, as if they are the only people who matter, and one where where they did not cry hate at anyone who doesn't disagree with them or coddle their feelings.


At the moment when a trans person is telling you, yes, it is about them. If someone had some disease and told you, its not something they bring up on the first date. When they tell you and its not something you're too familiar with, how do you respond? Oh, I've heard of it, but don't know too much about it. What is it all about? How does it effect you? How long have you known? But if a trans person tells you then forget all that, its all about you even when you don't know much about it? Thats pretty rude. They're telling you because they care, about you, and want to share their most personal details. Its not a pity party or some emotional thing, its a piece of information that may or may not be something you're into once you learn about it - just like if someone told you they had a disease.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

BlackDog said:


> I saw nothing bigoted in her post, and thought she went to a great deal of time and effort to address people's points.


Saying trans people are privileged and entitled because they have the "luxury of an identity crisis over genitals" is pretty shitty. Combine that with the generally dismissive tone, sweeping generalizations about trans people and how mean they are and sarcastic mangling of the terminology and you can't really blame people for taking her that way.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

I own this thread. My dominion is all powerful, all seeing, and all knowing. You cannot escape the Iron Fist of Big Brother.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

*Music Break*


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

jeb said:


> So let's say you're having a good time getting to know someone and they turn out to have been born intersexed to whatever degree. They grew up into who they are and chose which gender suited them most and went with it. To you, would this put you in the same mindset regarding interpretation when you are presented a man or woman who was born as "both?"


Is this the post you meant? I never responded because I was being flooded with quotes and mentions and find it difficult to keep track on my cell phone. Iam afraid I am unclear what you mean by this anyway. If you care to elaborate I will try to answer.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> Is this the post you meant? I never responded because I was being flooded with quotes and mentions and find it difficult to keep track on my cell phone. Iam afraid I am unclear what you mean by this anyway. If you care to elaborate I will try to answer.


So, an intersex person can be a person who is born with different variations of chromosomes and genitalia (sometimes both). At some point in their life, they decide for themselves where they identify in terms of gender and proceed from there. I am curious how people perceive this as opposed to them being transgender, or if they think its the same thing. It would be a better question for Eska as they seem less informed about the differences between sex and gender, but you're easier to communicate with.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Shahada said:


> Saying trans people are privileged and entitled because they have the "luxury of an identity crisis over genitals" is pretty shitty. Combine that with the generally dismissive tone, sweeping generalizations about trans people and how mean they are and sarcastic mangling of the terminology and you can't really blame people for taking her that way.


I interpreted the terminology mangling as an attempt to humorously express her frustration with what she considered to be semantics. And the privilege bit meaning that trans people should not have the privilege of being exempt from yhe same standards of honesty that the rest of the world is held to, just on the basis of the uncertainty of their gender, sex, or identity. 

But, like I said, that is my interpretation. I can't speak for her. If she hates trans people or is otherwise unreasonably intolerant of them then I eill retract my statement.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> I interpreted the terminology mangling as an attempt to humorously express her frustration with what she considered to be semantics. And the privilege bit meaning that trans people should not have the privilege of being exempt from yhe same standards of honesty that the rest of the world is held to, just on the basis of the uncertainty of their gender, sex, or identity.
> 
> But, like I said, that is my interpretation. I can't speak for her. If she hates trans people or is otherwise unreasonably intolerant of them then I eill retract my statement.


Where was it argued that trans people expect some sort of privelage regarding anything?


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

jeb:13739354 said:


> Where was it argued that trans people expect some sort of privelage regarding anything?


Like I said, I could be wrong. Apparently nobody is arguing that a trans person shouldn't tell their partner that they are trans, but for whatever reason I argued against that notion for many pages without being corrected. So it seems possible that she may also have misunderstood. I haven't gone back to read the thread and see where I got this idea but I was under the strong impression that the consensus was that being trans shouldn't matter and the trans person may have good reason to hide the fact, thus releasing them from the responsibility of confessing it to their partner. 

Again, possibly this was not asserted. Although I swear Kazoo was at least toeing that line. 

I am working on the other response too btw.


----------



## 7rr7s (Jun 6, 2011)

BlackDog said:


> Like I said, I could be wrong. Apparently nobody is arguing that a trans person shouldn't tell their partner that they are trans, but for whatever reason I argued against that notion for many pages without being corrected. So it seems possible that she may also have misunderstood. I haven't gone back to read the thread and see where I got this idea but I was under the strong impression that the consensus was that being trans shouldn't matter and the trans person may have good reason to hide the fact, thus releasing them from the responsibility of confessing it to their partner.
> 
> Again, possibly this was not asserted. Although I swear Kazoo was at least toeing that line.
> 
> I am working on the other response too btw.


Wouldn't it be kind of obvious that they were trans though? Especially if you are dating them, you think you'd have figured it out by that point.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

BlackDog said:


> I interpreted the terminology mangling as an attempt to humorously express her frustration with what she considered to be semantics. And the privilege bit meaning that trans people should not have the privilege of being exempt from yhe same standards of honesty that the rest of the world is held to, just on the basis of the uncertainty of their gender, sex, or identity.


I don't mind the terminology thing as much in and of itself, its combined with the other things where it looks bad. You're free to your own interpretation of what was said, but since people like to characterize people on my side of the argument as being unreasonable and on a hair trigger for being offended, I feel the need to point out the exact quote:


> Yes, I realize people can be very selfish, self-absorped, self-indulgent, *privileged beyond belief (oh the luxury of an identity crisis over genitalia - what utter frivolousness!)*, shockingly entitled, profoundly shallow, etc. They can put their feelings and desires and needs above others if they want to. They can hold their definitions of health, of morality, of what is true and what is false as better than yours. They can push their agenda and not see how they are intolerant of others being different, just as they claim to be victims of intolerance. Here, I refer to the hypocrisy of some "trans people".


I see nothing tying these statements characterizing trans people and trans issues as privileged and frivolous to a lack of honesty, just a statement that trans people are frivolous by virtue of the fact that they are trans, and that being trans is essentially a privileged, frivolous problem to have. She clearly identifies being trans as "an identity crisis over genitalia," already a somewhat demeaning characterization, and then describes this as "utter frivolousness." I think your interpretation of this statement is overly generous and I maintain that its really shitty.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

jeb said:


> I already answered this. Please read my posts in this thread. And I didn't say you were trolling, I said you are uninformed.


he is trolling some IMO. He is certainly LEARNING. 

Some assumptions we are all making:
he is not as informed as "us"
when he becomes as informed as "us" he will share the same opinions as "us". 

He can become better informed to the point he knows more than "us" and have a different opinion than us.

However, he WILL obey rules here in sharing his opinion if they violate the rules.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

OrangeAppled said:


> O Don't you get it - YOU don't get to define people however you want and then deny them the same towards you.
> 
> The level of hypocrisy and entitlement continues to rise.
> .


One simple answer is NO ONE gets to put labels on others. If someone wants to judge someone else in their own head, more power to them. If they verbalize that judgement in a way it hurts someone that is wrong.

For them. For you. For me.

If we all start with acceptance, then we we don't have to sink to their level fi we do not choose to.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Shahada said:


> I don't mind the terminology thing as much in and of itself, its combined with the other things where it looks bad. You're free to your own interpretation of what was said, but since people like to characterize people on my side of the argument as being unreasonable and on a hair trigger for being offended, I feel the need to point out the exact quote:I see nothing tying these statements characterizing trans people and trans issues as privileged and frivolous to a lack of honesty, just a statement that trans people are frivolous by virtue of the fact that they are trans, and that being trans is essentially a privileged, frivolous problem to have. I think your interpretation of this statement is overly generous and I maintain that its really shitty.


That's not even the worst part of that quote.

The "definitions of health" implies trans people are insane and/or transition is not a valid or mentally healthy path.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Eska said:


> I've provided you with a definition, not my opinion.
> 
> Would you be interested in hearing my opinion?


I am.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> Like I said, I could be wrong. Apparently nobody is arguing that a trans person shouldn't tell their partner that they are trans, but for whatever reason I argued against that notion for many pages without being corrected. So it seems possible that she may also have misunderstood. I haven't gone back to read the thread and see where I got this idea but I was under the strong impression that the consensus was that being trans shouldn't matter and the trans person may have good reason to hide the fact, thus releasing them from the responsibility of confessing it to their partner.
> 
> Again, possibly this was not asserted. Although I swear Kazoo was at least toeing that line.
> 
> I am working on the other response too btw.


I think that was kazoo. Although he is supportive, his discussion style is not helpful for the cause as it antagonizes people into being defensive and not open minded. The vast vast majority of Trans people want to blend in and be normal and treated with general respect that everyone deserves as a high priority. Asking for special treatment would conflict with that basic core motive. When and how to tell someone is a frequent and serious discussion in transgender circles and is not taken lightly at all. 


KindOfBlue06 said:


> Wouldn't it be kind of obvious that they were trans though? Especially if you are dating them, you think you'd have figured it out by that point.


No, its not obvious at all in a lot of cases. 



drmiller100 said:


> he is trolling some IMO. He is certainly LEARNING.
> 
> Some assumptions we are all making:
> he is not as informed as "us"
> ...


I don't care either way whether people agree or disagree in the end, and am quite fine with agreeing to disagree on a number of controversial topics, but if we're going to discuss it then I only ask that it be an intelligent and informed discussion with the sharing and absorbing of information on both sides. I don't know what knowledge anyone else has here, only myself and what I can gleen by what people are saying.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Torai said:


> The "definitions of health" implies trans people are insane and/or transition is not a valid or mentally healthy path.


I didn't notice that but I agree, good catch. In general I thought the post was full of implicit and passive-aggressive anti-trans stuff like that so I was focusing more on the obvious examples.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

jeb:13739162 said:


> So, an intersex person can be a person who is born with different variations of chromosomes and genitalia (sometimes both). At some point in their life, they decide for themselves where they identify in terms of gender and proceed from there. I am curious how people perceive this as opposed to them being transgender, or if they think its the same thing. It would be a better question for Eska as they seem less informed about the differences between sex and gender, but you're easier to communicate with.


I personality don't think it is the same thing. I might even argue that intersex ought to be a legal third sex (as it is some places) as those born intersex do not fit cleanly into the sex of male or female. Sex is determined based on several factors, including gonads, chromosomes, and the type of gametes that the individual produces. Someone with Chappelle syndrome for example, is a phenotypic male with XX chromosomes. However, this is an abnormality caused by the gametes of the father, where the SRY gene wound up on the X chromosome by mistake. while it may be misleading to say XY means male, the SRY gene is not normally found on the X chromosome and is a very important (arguably most important, but thats another topic) indicator of male sex. So this person could be considered intersex, as part of Y chromosome is incorporated into the X chromosome. 

There are also XY females, but you get my point for now. 

Someone who is born as a clean cut XY male, both genotypically and phenotypically, is male. That is their sex. Cutting off their reproductive organs and injecting them with hormones may alter their appearance but it does not make them suddenly XX or female anymore than losing your testicles and penis in an accident does. 

I don't know if there is any diplomatic way to say this, but just speaking from a biology background I work with lab animals a lot. Say somebody removed the ovaries and uterine horns of a female rat and grafted a penis and scrotum onto it, then gave me the rat and asked me if it was male. If I were able to adequately examine the rat, I would say no. This is a female rat that has been surgically altered to appear male. . 

My point all along has been that sex is NOT a clean cut thing to determine (despite many attempts to imply my ignorance on the topic) and many people, in an attempt to argue me, have made my point for me. It is not JUST your genitals that determine your sex. It is a complex biological and philosophical issue. As has also been repeatedly pointed out, gender and sex are distinct from one another. So just identifying as a male does not make your sex male. Sex has its own determination. Sex is more objective, gender is inherently subjective. If your sex does not influence your gender, why is your gender allowed to influence your sex? If a man loses his genitals, nobody is going to call his sex female. Yet if he decides he identifies as female and purposely has his genitals removed, now his sex is female?

In my opinion, no. Sex and gender are either related or they aren't. Your genitals either define your sex or they don't. In the case of intersex individuals, they are just that. Intersex. They are a blending of the genetic material that results in an atypical phenotypical expression. No surgery should be done on an intersex infant. If they wish to identify their gender as female as they mature, they can identify as female gendered. This does not change the fact they are intersex. 

Does that make sense? This is my opinion. It is probably offensive to some people, but I have zero intent to be offensive and I really don't think it should be. People can identify with whatever they like, and I will even call them whatever they want to be called in public. But I do not think altering of the genitals changes your sex is any meaningful way.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

@BlackDog, thanks for the detailed reply. I agree, third gender is something that should appear more often in cultures. The Hijra in India are the current most well documented group I can think of at the moment. Luckily enough, I dont know of any situation where an informed transgender person has claimed to be biologically the sex that their gender is in conflict with, and I would also have a problem with that if someone did. 

The question is, when an intersex person augments their body and presents as male or female, they are not presenting as intersex. Should the same harshness be brought down on them as is brought down on transgender people?


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

jeb:13741858 said:


> @BlackDog, thanks for the detailed reply. I agree, third gender is something that should appear more often in cultures. The Hijra in India are the current most well documented group I can think of at the moment. Luckily enough, I dont know of any situation where an informed transgender person has claimed to be biologically the sex that their gender is in conflict with, and I would also have a problem with that if someone did.
> 
> The question is, when an intersex person augments their body and presents as male or female, they are not presenting as intersex. Should the same harshness be brought down on them as is brought down on transgender people?


I am attempting to maintain a clean distinction between gender and sex, so I will correct you just to say that I advocated a third sex, not a third gender. Sex as in what should go on your birth certificate. As it stands now in many places, the parents and doctors of an intersex infant must choose a sex. Now, sometimes this is fair as it is not always split right down the middle. In cases where it is particularly ambiguous, however, the parents are NOT choosing the sex, they are choosing what gender the child will be raised as. Allowing an intersex option for SEX would remove the role of parents in determining gender.

I am not claiming that a man who identifies as a woman says his sex is female, but am referring to those who undergo sex reassignment surgery. While I have no problem with people doing whatever makes them happy or comfortable, I disagree that the surgery alters the sex. It alters the body to appear to be the opposite sex. 

I also do not advocate harshness brought down on anybody, intersex, transexual, or otherwise. I have never one condoned any sort of hatred or intolerance towards transexuals. All I am arguing is that, 

a) Not everybody agrees that SRS legitimately alters the sex of an individual; and 

b) Since sex of ones partner is very important to some people (for personal, moral, or religious/spiritual reasons) the person has a right to know if their partner has undergone SRS. To obscure this fact removes autonomy from the other party and is disrespectful in a romantic relationship.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> I am attempting to maintain a clean distinction between gender and sex, so I will correct you just to say that I advocated a third sex, not a third gender. Sex as in what should go on your birth certificate. As it stands now in many places, the parents and doctors of an intersex infant must choose a sex. Now, sometimes this is fair as it is not always split right down the middle. In cases where it is particularly ambiguous, however, the parents are NOT choosing the sex, they are choosing what gender the child will be raised as. Allowing an intersex option for SEX would remove the role of parents in determining gender.
> 
> I am not claiming that a man who identifies as a woman says his sex is female, but am referring to those who undergo sex reassignment surgery. While I have no problem with people doing whatever makes them happy or comfortable, I disagree that the surgery alters the sex. It alters the body to appear to be the opposite sex.
> 
> ...


Indeed. So do you think that those people who hold the view that transgender people who present the gender they identify with who are scrutenized by some as being deceitful by not announcing it as they're shaking hands meeting someone would also hold that an intersex person who identified with one gender over another was being deceitful?


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

jeb:13742274 said:


> Indeed. So do you think that those people who hold the view that transgender people who present the gender they identify with who are scrutenized by some as being deceitful by not announcing it as they're shaking hands meeting someone would also hold that an intersex person who identified with one gender over another was being deceitful?


I think you'd have to ask those people. I am sure some do and some don't.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

BlackDog said:


> b) Since sex of ones partner is very important to some people (for personal, moral, or religious/spiritual reasons) the person has a right to know if their partner has undergone SRS. To obscure this fact removes autonomy from the other party and is disrespectful in a romantic relationship.


My view on this is based on SRS - like many serious surgical operations - has yet to get to the point where it would actually be possible to hide that anyway; so, I could be wrong about this but I assumed - not necessarily agree with - that the OP's argument was based on pre-below the neck - especially, full naked body genital interaction - because I honestly don't see how else it could even be possible - until the surgery becomes more sophisticated. 

DISCLAIMER: I do not personally know any trans people IRL; so I may be wrong about this. 

Anyway, for me, should science actually find away to really make a transgendered person physically INDISTINGHISHABLE from the biological gender they identify with and that would also include reproduction - in the case the partner either desired/was open to it - then, at that point in time; there IMO, would be no justifiable reason to do this, other than of course, the desire to experience true intimacy with the partner. IOW, the only reason it should matter at all is the current failure of science to 100% safely physically transform the trans individual to the gender they identify with. Of course, if gender roles should ever be abolished or rendered irrelevant, that would even be more ideal. Would there even be an issue at all, if society didn't force the social construct of gender down our throats in the first place?


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Chesire Tower said:


> My view on this is based on SRS - like many serious surgical operations - has yet to get to the point where it would actually be possible to hide that anyway; so, I could be wrong about this but I assumed - not necessarily agree with - that the OP's argument was based on pre-below the neck - especially, full naked body genital interaction - because I honestly don't see how else it could even be possible - until the surgery becomes more sophisticated.
> 
> DISCLAIMER: I do not personally know any trans people IRL; so I may be wrong about this.


To which surgery are you referring? I think a lot of people don't understand that there are multiple surgeries for both trans men and trans women, each with varying degrees of expected results and goals.

I agree, the surgeries have made a lot of progress in the last several decades, but there is still a lot of progress to be made.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

@Chesire Tower

I am not sure I am 100% clear on what you are saying. You mean, as of yet SRS is not advanced enough to make a post-op transexual indistinguishable from a non-transexual, so at this time the aversion is purely aesthetic and justifiable? But if the technology advances in order to make the person biologically indistinguishable, then aversion is no longer justifiable?

My thoughts on this are that, once again, sex is a complex concept. Aesthetic appeal is only one reason a person may not wish to be in a romantic relationship with a transexual. Christianity, for example, views homosexuality as a sin. Whether or not God considers SRS legit is going to always be open to interpretation. You can't force somebody to violate the tenets of their religion like that. Similarly, somebody with Rastafari beliefs may see such a procedure as extremely disrespectful to the body. These are all personal choices and perspectives that ought to be respected.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

jeb said:


> To which surgery are you referring? I think a lot of people don't understand that there are multiple surgeries for both trans men and trans women, each with varying degrees of expected results and goals.
> 
> I agree, the surgeries have made a lot of progress in the last several decades, but there is still a lot of progress to be made.


None in particular but from what I have learned about it is that the genital surgeries are the most problematic which may be one of the reasons that some opt not to do it; of course, financial issues could obviously be another and some may want to avoid the obvious risks that come with any major surgery. Again, as I stated in my disclaimer, I do not purport to be any kind of expert on this; so I can only hazard guesses based on what I have heard. If am wrong about any of this, please feel free to set me straight.



BlackDog said:


> @_Chesire Tower_
> 
> I am not sure I am 100% clear on what you are saying. You mean, as of yet SRS is not advanced enough to make a post-op transexual indistinguishable from a non-transexual, so at this time the aversion is purely aesthetic and justifiable? But if the technology advances in order to make the person biologically indistinguishable, then aversion is no longer justifiable?
> 
> ...


No it's a lot more than just aesthetics; there are also sexual functioning issues to contend with, including the effects of HRT, possible post-surgical problems and reproduction. Yes, that would be my stance - assuming this were actually possible. If the ONLY thing that would make a trans person indistinguishable from biological gendered person, is HISTORY; then why would it be anyone else's business but the trans person's? Obviously, it wouldn't make any sense for a trans individual to become seriously involved with anyone who would have differing views on this but yeah, if history were to be the only differentiating factor than - there could be no arguably adverse impact on the partner - so no, at that point; it would be at the sole discretion of the trans individual. However, keep in mind, that the current reality falls very far short of this; so we are only really disagreeing on hypotheticals at this point in time.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

@Chesire Tower

So what about moral or religious concerns? Are these invalid?


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Chesire Tower said:


> None in particular but from what I have learned about it is that the genital surgeries are the most problematic which may be one of the reasons that some opt not to do it; of course, financial issues could obviously be another and some may want to avoid the obvious risks that come with any major surgery. Again, as I stated in my disclaimer, I do not purport to be any kind of expert on this; so I can only hazard guesses based on what I have heard. If am wrong about any of this, please feel free to set me straight.
> 
> 
> 
> No it's a lot more than just aesthetics; there are also sexual functioning issues to contend with, including the effects of HRT, possible post-surgical problems and reproduction. Yes, that would be my stance - assuming this were actually possible. If the ONLY thing that would make a trans person indistinguishable from biological gendered person, is HISTORY; then why would it be anyone else's business but the trans person's? Obviously, it wouldn't make any sense for a trans individual to become seriously involved with anyone who would have differing views on this but yeah, if history were to be the only differentiating factor than - there could be no arguably adverse impact on the partner - so no, at that point; it would be at the sole discretion of the trans individual. However, keep in mind, that the current reality falls very far short of this; so we are only really disagreeing on hypotheticals at this point in time.


In terms of bottom surgery, I think that trans women have more options in terms of getting something that is "indistinguishable" than trans men. Just as people have varying degrees of success passing during early transition, I would assert that the same goes for post bottom surgical aesthetics.

In your second paragraph, what is it that you were referring to as impossible? I was confused there. And I don't see why anyone would want to be with someone who had opposing viewpoints on something as ideological as this. 

What hypotheticals were you referring to?


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> @Cheshire Tower
> 
> So what about moral or religious concerns? Are these invalid?


I think bringing religion into this discussion would be counter productive at this time.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

jeb said:


> I think bringing religion into this discussion would be counter productive at this time.


I disagree. She asserted that aesthetics and function are the only important factor. I disagree. I think no matter how well surgery is performed or if the person is indistinguishable, it is still important that your partner knows. Religion is just one other important factor off the top of my head.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

BlackDog said:


> @_Cheshire_ Tower
> 
> So what about moral or religious concerns? *Are* these invalid?


In the purely *hypothetical* context that I suggested; no *I* honestly do not view them as valid.




jeb said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was referring to as of right now - the possibility - of a trans person being and functioning in every way - IOW, being physically indistinguishable both in appearance, sexual function and reproductive abilities. My point was neither to invalidate or discount the transgendered person's present reality, but rather to make the point, that of those issues ceased to exist; then IMHO, there would be no logical necessity for self-disclosure on the part of the trans individual but I do believe in the long run; it would be in their interest to do so. Yes, I think that pretty much everyone agrees that it would make no sense whatsoever for a trans person to be in such a situation anyway so I guess, @BlackDog; it would cease to be an issue in any meaningful sense of the word, anyway.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> I disagree. She asserted that aesthetics and function are the only important factor. I disagree. I think no matter how well surgery is performed or if the person is indistinguishable, it is still important that your partner knows. Religion is just one other important factor off the top of my head.


Bringing the two topics that people get heated about and lots infractions on the site to one location is counter productive to this discussion, which is going really well at the moment. But yes, for some people I can see how it could be a factor.

I also disagree with their point that no one needs to know if you're "indistinguishable." Thats not what relationships are about to me. They're about giving yourself over to someone else and trusting them with everything. Regardless, sooner or later their partner is going to ask about the shot they give themselves every other week or the legal papers they have in their file cabinet. :laughing:


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

@jeb @Chesire Tower

Thanks for the polite discourse. I am going to bow out for now. I did not respond to every quote and mention made to me, but I do think I have made my point as unambiguously as I am capable of acheiving.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

jeb said:


> I also disagree with their point that no one needs to know if you're "indistinguishable." Thats not what relationships are about to me. They're about giving yourself over to someone else and trusting them with everything. Regardless, sooner or later *their partner is going to ask about the shot they give themselves every other week* or the legal papers they have in their file cabinet. :laughing:


That isn't what I meant - whether the partner SHOULD know or not; only that in the hypothetical situation I mentioned; their would be no OBLIGATION on the part of the trans individual to disclose this - not whether or not this would be desirable which I believe it would. In the hypothetical situation I described that would not be a factor. As for legal papers, I'm sure you have heard of miniature bank safe deposit boxes for safekeeping? LOL


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Chesire Tower said:


> That isn't what I meant - whether the partner SHOULD know or not; only that in the hypothetical situation I mentioned; their would be no OBLIGATION on the part of the trans individual to disclose this - not whether or not this would be desirable which I believe it would. In the hypothetical situation I described that would not be a factor. As for legal papers, I'm sure you have heard of miniature bank vaults for safekeeping? LOL


How would their shot not be a factor? That's like the only trans maintenance thing there is.

I don't know, I think we'll have to disagree about what people are obligated to disclose. I'd like to know whether someone is already married or has an std, but they're not required to tell people that, its just the right thing to do.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Chesire Tower said:


> I'm sure you have heard of miniature bank safe deposit boxes for safekeeping? LOL


Hah


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

jeb said:


> How would their shot not be a factor? That's like the only trans maintenance thing there is.


I was referring to a purely hypothetical context where trans people are entirely indistinguishable in every way - save history - from cis people. My point being, that if a person's history were the only differentiating factor; then how would that possibly make it anyone else's business but their's? Again, I was not referring to the current reality where obviously none of this applies. I was using this hopefully futuristic scenario to make a point: which is that if the trans individual's gender identity were to ever perfectly match their transformed physical sex - IOW, literally in every way, shape and form turn into the perfect replication of matching biological sex, there could no longer be any issue with disclosure; do you not agree?


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Chesire Tower said:


> I was referring to a purely hypothetical context where trans people are entirely indistinguishable in every way - save history - from cis people. My point being, that if a person's history were the only differentiating factor; then how would that possibly make it anyone else's business but their's? Again, I was not referring to the current reality where obviously none of this applies. I was using this hopefully futuristic scenario to make a point: which is that if the trans individual's gender identity were to ever perfectly match their transformed physical sex - IOW, literally in every way, shape and form turn into the perfect replication of matching biological sex, there could no longer be any issue with disclosure; do you not agree?


For people who have an issue with the idea of it in the first place, it probably would. For me, I don't think I'd require someone to jump through that many hoops. Its difficult enough to find a person you can truly mesh with and be content with on a personality or emotional level to not have an open mind about a lot of different atypical scenarios including them being transgender.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

OrangeAppled said:


> As soon as you stop using the terms “cis woman” or “cis gender” or “cis people”, which I find offensive.
> 
> Flippancy aside, as long as its clear what we are talking about, then getting hung up on terminology is a waste of time.
> 
> This is more hypocrisy though - you get to choose the identity of others, but they don’t get to define you? Interesting…. this is a theme in this thread, where tolerance, accommodation, sensitivity, etc, are asked to be given to trans people, crossdressers, et al, combined with an insistence that this does not have to be extended in reverse. This is for the benefit of the trans-cross-whatever people, yet at the expense of cis-blahblahblah-whatever people.


Since you seem to like religion and spirituality a lot:



> Luke 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.


I don't like the terms Cis and Trans myself, but the word Cis came into existence because of the selective abuse and de-humanization that non-transsexual people did to transsexual people. The very fact that you find 'cis' offending shows that you feel hurt by being labeled as something you don't identify with yourself. So as the bible up there has stated: "Do to others as you would have them do to you."

Change starts with you, the individual: be the change you want to see in the World, because you can only (actively) live your own life.



OrangeAppled said:


> Indeed, and doesn’t transparency prevent such things?


The very fact that he/she wants to kiss the other person shows that they're actually attracted to them on an intellectual, physical, sexual and most likely even spiritual way. And no there is no lie here, only something that hasn't been talked about yet  (and you know (this shouldn't be the case for the topic of transsexualism of course, because that should be revealed much earlier) I'm actually really happy if I don't know everything about a partner after several months, because imagine how boring a relationship would be if after a few months I wouldn't learn about amazing new stories and experiences my partner hasn't shared with me yet. I love deep and complex people who take an eternity to know everything about, people who lack this complexity and lack of layers are bland and boring for me, and I just totally get disinterested by such an uncomplex individuals rather fast)



OrangeAppled said:


> This is hyperbole on your part…. While not traumatized, someone has been deceived into behavior they may not have engaged in had they known someone is transsexual.


Many people are actually in very flirtatious relationships with their best friends and girl friends. That's what they call Bro-mans and girl crush, but that doesn't make them gay or lesbian. Some people flirt all the time, it's not because they want to be in your pants, but because they like playful and sensual relationships with their friends. My whole network of friends is like this and did we ever have sex with each other or had an orgy? No, never. Only one of them was a friend with benefits of mine 



OrangeAppled said:


> Example: people can also be upset to learn they flirted with someone who was married because that person was deceptive about their marital status. It is accepted that the married person would be in the wrong here, not that the other person is too “sensitive” or has some irrational phobia against adultery.


As a continuation: Flirting with a married person is not adultery, no you were just interacting with a person in a certain fashion of interaction. If there was no kissing or sexual activity than there was no 'cheating', there was no 'adultery', all you had, was a fun and playful interaction with another human being that brought your friendship relation closer to each other 

So if you were just flirting and the topic of being married never came up, than this married person wasn't being deceptive. She would be deceptive if you had started kissing or had sex with her. And in the case @TurtleQueen brought up of it being an open relationship than she has the same obligation as a transsexual would have to disclose this information before intercourse, because the other person has the right of knowing that they're acting within the boundaries of an open relationship 



OrangeAppled said:


> Violence or ostracizing is not okay, but people get angry when they feel violated, and that can range from small trespasses to larger ones. It may not be trauma-inducing, but it’s still highly disrespectful.


Maybe this should rather be seen as an argument pro-changing society into a less violent and dangerous place. So many people in the World have bottled up anger and aggression, resulting in all the dramas we see on TV so often. Opinions have been raised that things like meditation and yoga should become part of the educational system to free our society of this senseless violence. Yes, they might feel violated, but that feeling of violation leading to aggression in the end comes down to a bottled up anger and aggression that they haven't learned to deal with. And most people are this bucket of water, and every day events add more and more water to the bucket, until one day the bucket spills and people explode into this dangerous thing that can do horrible things. Now if we teach people how to remove some water once in a while and learn to deal with aggression and anger, suddenly people will learn to deal differently and more constructively with a situation that might violate them.




OrangeAppled said:


> To act as if it’s okay to disrespect someone just because you deem it minor or even they may deem it minor, doesn’t change that it is disrespect.


The interaction in most cases won't be meant to have been disrespectful (unless you're dealing with a troll, which most likely flirtatious people wouldn't be, unless they're pulling a prank on you), this is only the perception of the person that feels disrespected, because of mental obstacles this individual has. And yes we should have respect for people who have mental obstacles that have been constructed because of previous traumas they developed in life and we should support these people in finding help and getting themselves healed.

Again if we can change our society and teach people how to deal with these obstacles, anger, aggression, traumas, etc we can lead humanity into a new age of harmony and beauty, where we can all love each other, not hate. Like Charlie Chaplin said during his amazing speech in 'The Great Dictator'



> We don’t want to hate and despise one another. In this world there is room for everyone. And the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way.
> 
> Greed has poisoned men’s souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost....


And this is only a small part of his amazing speech. Do you see the similarities with this discussion? To understand transsexual people you most look at their suffering with your heart, your humanity, not with your knowledge or cleverness (but more about this later). And that is only one of the many comparisons the complete speech will draw with the whole discussion we've had here. I could quote him line by line and explain how it applies here, and that's kind of sad, especially because this speech was made in 1940 and the World still hasn't learned. 



OrangeAppled said:


> This flies in the face of the black and white thinking which will paint “cis people” as being bigots, close-minded, ignorant, overly traditional, etc. If these people were such oppressive, evil “others” then there’d be no concern over accidentally dating them, because you'd easily spot and steer clear of them. But this view is mainly held so as to justify degrading their worldview as inferior to your own.


You over generalize the situation here and add a reality that isn't even real, through which it loses its value, which totally annuls this opinion because it has no foot in reality. The very fact that people in here are trying to educate, is *prove* that you are not seen as an evil-other, because if you were, then you would have been ignored and seen as a non-human. This didn't happen, and you didn't get vilified, instead people are still having civil conversations with you 



OrangeAppled said:


> The difference between this and other preferences has been stated over and over, in regards to why one is more of an immediate moral issue.


Indeed it has been stated over and over again why transsexuals can't disclose this information from the get go, because it would lead to a situation where they would become the target of tranny chasers (who are extremely dangerous). On top of that if you're telling everyone with who you might go on a date with, than most likely your chances at getting a job are 0% (because people gossip all the time) (unless of course as a hooker, but lets not enforce old Jerry Springer stereotypes, although sometimes I feel like that's the marginality you want to drive transsexuals into) 

On top of that you're contradicting yourself (and it won't be the last time)



> but concern actually shows they accept that they could like and find someone attractive who presents as their preferred sex





> but that doesn’t mean they would want to date them given all the facts.


You write this in a way as if it's a logical follow-up on each other, while it isn't. What are the full facts? We have talked about the full facts many times and these differ of the type of transgender, and in the case of transsexuals it differs on their pre or post-op status. As I've written in my synopsis of this thread there are several reasons for which dumping a transsexual person is ok and several reasons that aren't ok, based on the consensus of the people in this thread. No where did I ever mention or anyone else in here that you are forced to enter a relationship with a transsexual person. Some of your reasons will be seen as okish, others as totally douche, but that doesn't mean that you don't have the right to be a douche. (although that might reflect on your global reputation. A good example of this is for example if you (a general you) were dating a non-transsexual girl and once the relationship was getting serious she tells you she's infertile, but you really wanted a family with her. This might lead to you dumping her, which many of your friends might experience as a douche move, because you always had the option to adopt children) 



> They may see themselves that way and others may also, but it is not a fact. The fact is, they had gender reassignment surgery. For some, this is morally and spiritually unacceptable in a romantic and sexual partner.


As of this point you're opening Pandora's box since you actively involve spirituality in the topic. Other people didn't reply on it yet, because they didn't want to drag religion into it. At this point this whole topic can turn into one big flame war, luckily as a Historian, theology was a big part of my education in order to understand medieval world views and I won't let this topic turn into a flame war because of people fighting each other in a crusade like way because of religion. Instead I will educate you.

When God created Adam, he created Adam in his own image, after which he toke a rib of Adam and made Eve with it. This means that Adam after having lost his rib isn't in Gods image anymore, because he isn't a complete and perfect being anymore. This is why later in the story the ritual of marriage is created and why so many people are now fighting for the exclusiveness of marriage being between a man and a woman, because you see the union of marriage is not just some physical thing, it's not some material worldly thing. No, it's a spiritual thing, it are the 2 parts of the complete (supreme) one that unite through marriage to recreate the complete being on Earth. Marriage is the way people connect with God, because through uniting the two sides of the coin, through uniting the two sexes, people suddenly come much closer to God, who is not male nor female, but both.

Now what is the situation (problem) transsexuals create in this situation? Well the situation they create is that they're actually male and female at the same time (in spiritual views), which brings them closer to God (this is interestingly often even confirmed by transsexuals talking about their increased spiritual experience ever since they accepted themselves and started transition), without needing marriage, and this is frightening for a lot of people, and this leads to a lot of protest and disbelieve. And of course fundamentalists will say that they're devil spawn, or servants of the anti-Christ, because their higher connection with these concepts makes them quasi alien to people who have to attempt to make a connection with God through marrying someone, which often doesn't even lead to the desired result of being capable of connecting to that higher source.

A very interesting book that in certain chapters talks about this is 'Joseph Campbell: The Power of Myth'

Now how can this problem be solved? There are 2 options, OR you see the transsexual as the gender and sex they 'portray' themselves as, this way making the union in the same way as you would with any other member of that sex/gender. Of course this often doesn't keep account of the heightened spiritual identity and space the transsexual is already occupying (for the record not all transsexuals go into this higher form of spiritual awareness, but there is a statistical majority which makes this an interesting topic). So while engaging in a relationship with a transsexual one can accept the transsexual their higher state of spiritual being and use this as a source and learning experience to try and experience this higher state of spiritual awareness themselves. Because you see, increased spiritual awareness often happens in a mystic way, where one suddenly gets a glimpse/insight into what 'God' really is. Since all religions around the World acknowledge that 'God' is a transcendent entity that exists beyond our limited Human language and perception of sex, gender, etc etc one of the many things you most do to truly connect with 'God' (without creating the fake supreme one, by uniting two into one, as is done during marriage) is letting go of your values and perception of sex and gender. This is why in most religions you will have a mystic clerical class in society that withdraws themselves from the physical world and lets go of all these material desires like sex, marriage, gender etc etc. because they are separations between them and 'God'. For this very reason (even if transsexuals in society will identify as a certain gender and many won't even understand why they have this heightened spiritual experience) transsexuals will start to feel much more interconnected with the universe as a whole (I'm not joking here, this an actual general experience of many transsexuals who are post-transition/post-op who feel good in their own skin xDD)

Even the bible talks about this xDD



> Matthew 19:12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others--and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."


Eunuchs here (forced or not), are in fact people who experience a very similar experience as transsexual people. And read what the bible says:



> "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven"


This is exactly the experience I've been talking about

So why shouldn't someone want to date them for spiritual reasons? I don't know, but I think this one of those arguments that is just an argument in order to be an argument, so actually a non-argument. But lets keep it in the middle and say that the person having a spiritual problem with this is rather very spiritually undeveloped. 

I'll give more information and return to the topic of transsexualism and spirituality while replying on other parts of your post, but I'll continue now by replying chronologically on your post.



> For others, it's merely distasteful and will render the person unattractive.


I've already discussed this in my synopsis, in which I state that there are several 'okish' reasons for you to dumb them, but most of them will be seen as douche (like in the case of the infertile girl). Amongst all the acceptable cases loss of attraction though isn't a good reason, because you not being attracted anymore would only be because of an artificially constructed mental image that doesn't stroke with the reality you have been experiencing for many dates. If you were interested until the day of the reveal, most likely you're still interested, you're just struggling with an intellectually false construction in your mind, and that's exactly why I've already many times stated that transsexuals shouldn't expect a reply right away, but rather give the other person time to think about it. It's than up to the other to see if they can get rid of the false intellectual construction that's blocking them, or if they can dissolve the false intellectual construction. Either way the transsexual shouldn't push or be judgmental of the final decision.



> It is blatantly disrespectful of the beliefs of others to deceive them in this manner. To think it is acceptable to deceive someone this way reveals a sense of entitlement that is frightening.


As I said earlier in this post, there is a difference between lying and not having talked about something yet, you instantly seeing something as deception or a lie, sadly enough shows a lack of understanding in Human interaction. Things aren't black and white, often they're yellow, with purple dots and green stripes.



> It is an intolerance of people who have the right to feel very differently on the matter and who do not want a romantic or sexual relationship with someone who was not born their preferred sex


I will not and can not reply on this because the sentence is confusing and might need to be rewritten a little bit. I'm not saying this to hurt or attack, I just really don't understand the sentence, because as it stands it might mean a multitude of things. So it's best for me not to reply on it, because it might lead our misunderstandings even further apart, which is the last thing we want  (or at least the last thing I want, because in the end I want harmony, peace and understanding)



> Yes, I realize people can be very selfish, self-absorped, self-indulgent, privileged beyond belief


One can only truly love another, if they first learned to love themselves. As said before: change (and love) start with yourself. If you would enter a relationship without first loving yourself, you will be a mental drain for your partner, which means that you had no right dating in the first place, because that's how abusive relationship (minor or major) start. So is this selfish, self-absorbed, self-indulgent, privileged, etc? In no way at all, because you doing this, will lead to you being a better partner, which actually makes you working on yourself, the most *social* thing you can do for your friends and future loved ones.



> oh the luxury of an identity crisis over genitalia - what utter frivolousness!


As promised we're going back to the spiritual topic. Did you know that one of the groups inside the lowest caste in the Hindu caste system is called Hijra and that these are self castrated (yes balls, shaft and scrotum) 'men' who play a spiritual role within society since the times of the Ramayana?



> In some versions of the Ramayana, when Lord Rama leaves Ayodhya for his 14-year exile, a crowd of his subjects follow him into the forest because of their devotion to him. Soon Rama notices this, and gathers them to tell them not to mourn, and that all the "men and women" of his kingdom should return to their places in Ayodhya. Lord Rama then leaves and has adventures for 14 years. When he returns to Ayodhya, he finds that the hijras, being neither men nor women, have not moved from the place where he gave his speech. Impressed with their devotion, Lord Rama grants hijras the boon to confer blessings on people during auspicious inaugural occasions like childbirth and weddings. This boon is the origin of badhai in which hijras sing, dance, and give blessings


Now why is this connected to your post? Because ...



> Hijra is a term used to refer to individuals in India, South Asia who are transsexual or transgender.
> 
> Hijras have a recorded history in the Indian subcontinent, from antiquity, as suggested by the Kama Sutra period, onwards. This history features a number of well-known roles within subcontinental cultures, part gender-liminal, part spiritual, and part survival.
> 
> ...


This shows that (and I could name other groups from all around the World in the same situation and with similar spiritual roles and powers) "luxury of an identity crisis over genitalia", is not a luxury at all, and especially not based on Western wealth, or social beneficial position or whatever, but that it is an inherent part of Human (and most likely but technically impossible to study: animal) existence. No one rationally chooses to go through all this pain, denial, loss and so much more rationally. It's not a choice they make, this is something they HAVE to do, it's choice between transition or suicide. And as earlier shown with an article of the 1st of January, another teen did suicide because of this so called "luxury of an identity crisis over genitalia" (even if you won't agree with anything I say, you will need to apologize for that statement of yours, if only to pay respect to someone that toke their own life because of opinions like your own)



> They can put their feelings and desires and needs above others if they want to


They do not put their desires above others, they do what they do so that their future interactions will be healthy interactions with others. As said before you should only date (or even truly interact with someone) if you're first mentally healthy yourself, because else you'll just be an emotional vampire that'll suck people dry from their energy.



> They can hold their definitions of health, of morality, of what is true and what is false as better than yours.


If they are self aware about the fact that transitioning might raise them to the mental health level that they can be amazing partners. Than 'yes' they know what is true and what is false better than you. But in most cases they won't know this until they actually transitioned. So yea this is an empty statement of yours just to have some filler space.



> They can push their agenda and not see how they are intolerant of others being different, just as they claim to be victims of intolerance. Here, I refer to the hypocrisy of some "trans people"


So wanting to be healthy members of society is intolerant towards other people? I think I might have to refer you to a psychiatrist (I'm not joking and insulting) because you've totally lost your connection with reality by this point, because you've started seeing mental health, relational health, interpersonal health, spiritual health, moral health, etc as 'intolerance' towards others. This shows that you have a general negative and unhealthy view of the World, where you do not wish happiness upon others, but rather the opposite. Seeing a psychiatrist might indeed be the best option for you. (and I'm saying this because I'm concerned for your personal (mental) health)



> They have the right to make their own decisions, but they cannot force other people to see things as they do or to hold the same beliefs and standards. They do not have the right to trample the preferences and standards of other people by being deceptive about a choice that has profound moral/spiritual/personal implications for people when it comes to romance/sex.


Has already been answered



> Strawman….
> 
> I never said it was okay for someone to deceive others in anyway. That’s precisely what I am saying is wrong here.


definition



> A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.


At that point of the discussion you were implying that transsexual people have a BIGGER 'moral' duty to do so then others. Because you saw other details less important than the detail of being transsexual. So this wasn't a straw man at all, instead you're pulling of a straw man while covering it up by saying I made a straw man. I'm sorry to say that I know this topic quite well, and that I have no need for straw mans, because they offer no beneficial addition to a thread that is meant to be educative.



> Abusers hide who they are for their own benefit, to the detriment in others, are immoral. That IS an apt comparison here (although certainly offensive to trans-moogoohoo-people - and I’M the one called insensitive?), as in both cases, the deception is wrong.


The extreme comparison was made because as said before, you were stressing the importance of disclosing the transsexual information, while seeing other information as less important. It is good that you turned around on this opinion, but the way how you're trying to make people believe that this was your opinion from the start is not working.



> Where the comparison falters is that if one were to get romantically involved with an abuser, once their true character is made clear, any romantic/sexual behaviors prior to that may not be an issue for the person. That in itself may be no violation for them, although certainly the deception is (& the abuse itself is far worse a violation). However, it remains that mere romantic involvement with a trans-lalabookoo-person can be a violation for some.


Your disqualification of the comparison also falters, because in many cases the person who was abused will redesign those past memories in the light of the abuse. Suddenly those hands that touched her so softly and warmly, suddenly turn into the strong controlling manipulative hands, that never really loved her, but rather wanted to control her. The whole group of memories of that relationship will be reconstructed in the light of that abuse.



> Your entire argument is based on strawmen….


This can not be a strawmen, because I was giving official definitions. A strawmen as shown before can only work if the audience is uninformed, while I was actually informing the audience with official definitions, this means that I was actually unconsciously destroying possible previous strawmen.



> There are many reasons people would not want to be romantically involved with someone who is transsexual. “Phobia” is often the one focused on as a way to degrade a different viewpoint, so as to claim to not need to exercise tolerance for that viewpoint. Perhaps I am wrong, but here, I see you assuming phobia is the reason.


I've never used the word 'phobia' in this topic, and only twice or trice used the word 'bigotry', and every time I used the word 'bigotry' it was to point out to others that they shouldn't use such words, or it was to point out why someone used the word and why I disagreed with it, or why they shouldn't have used it.

So no, I do not presume that the problem is 'phobia', what I think is that this World has become too impersonal, too disconnected and that many people have lost their power of empathy, because of they way we interact with people these days. I'm almost 100% sure that if you'd meet a transsexual person in real life and talked with them, most likely you wouldn't have thought or said many of the opinions you've said here, but those opinions were formed because of a lack of social interaction, because online we can't see someones posture, we can't see someones smile, we can't see if someone is getting in distress, we just can't see all that body language and that invisible hormonal interaction between people which give us so much unspoken information that helps us shape our relationships and opinions around people. It's like Charlie Chaplin says in 'The Great Dictator' (yes the first part I had already posted before, but I needed it to make more sense)



> Greed has poisoned men’s souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost....
> 
> The aeroplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in men - cries out for universal brotherhood - for the unity of us all. Even now my voice is reaching millions throughout the world - millions of despairing men, women, and little children - victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people.


So no I don't think that there is any fault on your or my side, I just think a lot of our miscommunication is happening, because we only have words that are open for interpretation. I don't think this whole thread would have happened if people would have been in the same room talking about it.



> Where gender reassignment surgery is involved, there is significant alteration of the genitals, which can conflict with some moral/spiritual beliefs or even just sheer physical preferences concerning the body. In short, for some, the body is a temple and this surgery amounts to mutilation that is profoundly disrespectful to their god(s).


I already addressed this before, and to follow your beautiful description of the body as a temple, in pure theological debate one might say that a transsexual body is an even higher form of temple

To bring the example of several other religions where transsexuals are accepted, I'll start with Iran.



> Before the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the issue of transsexualism in Iran had never been officially addressed by the government. Beginning in the mid-1980s, however, transsexual individuals were officially recognized by the government and allowed to undergo sex reassignment surgery. As of 2008, Iran carries out more sex change operations than any other nation in the world except for Thailand. The government provides up to half the cost for those needing financial assistance, and a sex change is recognized on the birth certificate
> 
> Khomeini's original fatwa has since been reconfirmed by the current leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, and is also supported by many other Iranian clerics. However, there is still a great deal of stigma attached to the idea of transsexualism and gender reassignment in ordinary Iranian society, and most transsexuals, after completing their transition, are advised to maintain discretion about their past. Once a transsexual individual has undergone sex reassignment, that person legally becomes the new sex. All legal documents, such as birth certificates and passports, are also changed accordingly.
> 
> Hojatoleslam Kariminia, a mid-level cleric who is in favor of transsexual rights, has stated that he wishes "to suggest that the right of transsexuals to change their gender is a human right" and that he is attempting to "introduce transsexuals to the people through my work and in fact remove the stigma or the insults that is attach to these people."


Now why do they accept transsexuals and does this have a cultural background?

*Why?* God (Allah) doesn't make mistakes, so if boys feel attracted to boys, than that is how God wanted it, yet the prophet Mohammed said that gay relationships were not ok, so that means that these boys aren't boys at all, but actually girls, that were given a special mission by Allah to learn and experience life in a certain way. The very fact God planned this for you should be seen as a gift and not as a punishment. (And yes, even FtMs are complete accepted)

*The negative side effect?* Gay men and lesbian women are (also) forced to transition

*Cultural background?* In the Middle East since the Middle Ages there has been a phenomena that they call 'Bacha bazi' in Afghanistan (a similar phenomena but with different names can be found all over the Muslim World) who are boys, who these days are often dressed up in feminine garments and are forced to dance for Warlords as entertainment, after which they are often sexually abused. Now during the Middle Ages this wasn't the case. During the Middle Ages beautiful feminine boys (who were not first born) would choose for this life (except for the sex which in many cases wasn't a part of this life in the Middle Ages) and they would join prestigious dancing schools to learn all the ritual dances and in order to keep their youthfulness they would get themselves castrated (sometimes only the stones, but others would choose for stones, pillar and scrotum). This was a life of grand adventures and lots of traveling, and often Sultans would pay them a lot of money to dance on birthdays, parties or the birth of a male child, because it was believed that the dance of these individuals would bring good luck.

And on the female to male side of the fence we actually have people who they call 'Bacha Posh' in Afghanistan: who are females raised as men in a family that doesn't have any boys.



> Bacha posh ("dressed up as a boy" in the Dari language) is a cultural practice in parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan in which some families without sons will pick a daughter to live and behave as a boy. This enables the child to behave more freely: attending school, escorting her sisters in public, and working. Bacha posh also allows the family to avoid the social stigma associated of not having any male children.


Or lets look at the tradition of the people I work with every single day (Isolated Mountain Tribes in Northern Thailand)



> The Acault are a third gender consisting of males assuming the dress and social role of women is known in Burmese slang as acault. Acaults often serve as spirit mediums in the indigenous animistic belief system. While some acault are gay, not all are.


And these kind of things aren't even solely connected to Asia and the Middle East, (I might continue for a very long time about this to be honest) just look at these examples of Africa

*Congo*



> In the centuries before European colonists arrived, the Bangala people's animist beliefs were carried by shamans would dress in women's clothing in order the gain the ability to solve crimes such as murder.


*
Uganda*



> Prior to colonization, the Ankole people in what is now Uganda elected a woman to dress as a man and thereby become an oracle to the god Mukasa.


*Kenya*



> Mashoga is a Swahili term that connotes a range of identities on the gender continuum. While loosely used to indicate gay men, a large proportion of mashoga are biological men who adopt the female gender early in life. They characteristically wear both men and women's clothing, but in a manner distinct to mashoga alone. They often assume female gender roles and serve a crucial role in wedding ceremonies.


*Madagascar*



> Among the Sakalavas little boys thought to have a feminine appearance were raised as girls. The Antandroy and Hova called their gender crossers sekrata who, like women, wore their hair long and in decorative knots, inserted silver coins in pierced ears, and wore many bracelets on their arms, wrists and ankles. They considered themselves "real" women, totally forgetting they were born males, and through long practice spoke with a woman's voice. Their society thought their efforts to be female natural and believed that they had supernatural protection which punished anyone who attempted to do them harm.


Or these cases from North America during the times of the Native Americans

*The Zuni-tribe*



> The two-spirit Zuni tradition is known as lhamana, in which a person lives as both genders simultaneously. They play a key role in society as mediators, priests, and artists, and perform both traditional women's work (pottery and crafts) as well as traditional men's work (hunting).


*The Mohave-tribe*



> The creation myth of the Mohave tribe speaks to a time when humans were not sexually or gender-differentiated. The recognize four genders: men, women, hwame (male-identified females) and alyha (female-identified males).


*The Lacota-tribe*



> Winkte is the Lakota word for two-spirit people. Like the Navajo nadleehi and dilbaa, the winkte are born male but assume many traditional women's roles, such as cooking and caring for children, as well as assuming key roles in rituals and serving as the keeper of the tribe's oral traditions.


Now you might think that these are *cough cough* isolated cases to non-European/Caucasian areas

*Russia*



> The Skoptsy were a Christian religious sect with extreme views on sex and gender. The community, discovered in 1771 in Western Russia, believed that Adam and Eve had had halves of the forbidden fruit grafted onto their bodies in the form of testicles and breasts. Therefore, they routinely castrated male children and amputated the breasts of women to return themselves the the state prior to original sin. Sex, vanity, beauty, and lust were considered the root of evil.


*Italy*



> Femminiello (roughly "little man-woman") refers to biological males who dress as women and assume female gender roles in Neopolitan society. Their station in society is (or was up through the 19th century) privileged, and the rituals (including marriage to one another) was based on Greek mythology related to Hermaphroditus and Teresias (who was transformed into a woman for seven years).


*Albania*



> First documented in the 1800s but traced back to the 1400s, Northern Albania's burrnesha ("sworn virgins") are biological women who a take a vow of chastity and wear male clothing in order to be viewed as men in the highly patriarchal society. The tradition exists to a smaller extent in Kosovo, Serbia, and Montenegro. The tradition is dying out: There are believe to be fewer than 50 sworn virgins left in the Balkans.


I think you're getting the picture right?



> That’s just one possible worldview. There are many others which have nothing to do with phobias or bigotry. Here, you turn people with differing worldviews into the “evil others” while asking for tolerance & accommodation at the same time…please…


I don't see you as an evil other, I want to educate you and hopefully bring you to a middle road where your opinion isn't dangerous and doesn't push people into suicide. This might be experienced as me seeing you as evil, but this isn't the case. If I really saw you as inherently evil than I would have given up talking to you, which I didn't. (I mean I've been writhing on this post for 5 hours already and I expect it to take another 3 or so xDDD)



> Besides, no definition of a “female” involves surgical alteration or clothing worn. Feeling a certain way, having a certain temperament, possessing certain interests or tastes, wearing certain garments - none of that makes you physically female.


What makes you physically female has already been explained by many people, starting with my definition post and my explanation about how all the definitions are flawed when tested in the real world with real test cases. This is why the paradigm shift @Wellsy is asking for is so important.



> when most secondary indicators develop (which you refer to heavily, and which are the most easily “faked”)


I only once referred to a secondary indicator in a joking post about cup sizes and wonder bras, that can be hardly classified as 'which you refer to heavily'. I'm sorry but that was a personal attack on me, with a statement that was completely false just in order to attempt to discredit me.



> When all is said and done, the vast majority of people can be categorized as the male or female sex, whether or not they check every box.


Correct, but since won't see everyone in the world naked or get their blood tested sex for the majority of our interactions with people doesn't matter. Also getting someone their blood to get it tested isn't something you would normally do, unless you're a red flag person, but in that case I'd say the person that is trying to date you (or be your friend) should run, and really quickly, because you taking blood of someone is quite creepy.



> although that doesn’t mean they should be scorned socially


Thank you for at least adding this opinion 



> But that also doesn’t mean that people have to date them if they have personal oppositions to pairing with someone who is not a certain sex from birth.


They have the total right to do that, as said before, most of the reasons are okish or bad, but if the break-up is done is a humane way that would make a huge difference 



> What do you mean by “we”? Individuals choose the definitions that suit them, as evidenced by this thread where people use whatever phrases they like, whether or not it’s offensive to others.


'We' is used rhetorically here

No the people on this thread use whatever pronoun and gender they want, this doesn't mean that there can't be an official definition, but as was shown there are several official definitions who are all flawed when taken into the Real World with case studies. This is why I opted for an attempt of fusing the 3 given definitions, to create a new and more complete definition 

And why is it offensive to others? Because you want to set up an exclusive elitist group in order to say that you're better than others?

Look you can 'rationally' and 'intellectually' fight for a certain argument all you want, but if it's totally disconnected from a Humane experience and reality, than that 'rational'/'intellectual' debate is worth nothing. I mean look at Nazi-Germany, many of their scientists 'proved' with 'science' that Aryans were the most superior race, and that Jews were an inferior race, that didn't have the right to live. 'Scientifically', 'rationally' and 'intellectually' at the time this was deemed to be correct, yet does this make it morally and humanly correct?

It's the same debate we're having right here, you might have 'rational' and 'intellectual' correctness on your side with the current paradigm of calling their 'sex' male or female, but this doesn't make it morally or humanly correct, because it dehumanizes and depersonalizes them as individuals with feelings that can be hurt and damaged and even be killed. That's why it's so important to consider the complete picture of science, rationality, humane and moral correctness, and if people are dying because of this kind of debate than we can scrap rational, humane and moral from the board, because if people are dying all these 3 layers are being wiped from the board.

We could also look at a totally different topic to show you how these matters have to be looked at from a moral and humane point of view. These days more and more people are getting artificial body parts. A few months ago for example someone was given a mechanical heart that doesn't have a heartbeat

Living without a pulse: Engineering a better artificial heart - CNN.com

Or people who have mechanical arms and/or legs (technology that is advancing rapidly these days)

SEE: UK man gets amazing new robotic arm - NY Daily News

Are they still Human? Are they still animals? Because partially they've become machines. And I say yes, they are very much Humans, because being Human is more about being a part of our rich amazing culture, and not about our genes. This way when an AI is build or androids are build and they are accepted as equals in our society they will be normal Humans. Now is this person with a mechanical heart and mechanical arms and legs still an animal?

Definition for animal



> a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.


and by this definition the mechanically enhanced individual is still an Animal.

Yet many people who have problems with transsexuals, might have similar problems with enhanced Humans, because they might have 'moral' or 'ethical' or 'spiritual' or intellectual' or 'rational' fears about being together with someone who is completely Human except for the fact that they have a mechanical heart that has no beat, which in their opinion would make these people non-Human, because having a 'heart' is a fundamental part of being 'Human' for these people.

You'll probably say the analogy is flawed, but this was meant to point out that other people are in similar situations where judgmental people with a lack of acceptance, understanding and narrow views might dehumanize other people with their inhumane/immoral views

It is like the review I wrote about the ending of the movie 'Transcendence'



> BIG SPOILER ALERT
> 
> About the ending of the movie Transcendence
> 
> ...


The concept of being Human is something that is constantly evolving and changing, but there is always a fundamental ethical and moral basis connected to it, and certain people actually lose their title of being 'Human' because of breaking those fundamental ethical/spiritual rules that make us Human. 

But let met return to the main topic



> Again, it’s the prerogative of the individual to decide whether or not someone qualifies in dating. Information concerning your physical sex from birth is highly relevant from the get-go, and not being upfront about it WILL be rightly seen as deceptive and disrespectful and even possibly a violation of other people.


Aren't you saying in a different post that people shouldn't walk around with a message around their neck telling people about this? Again you're being inconsistent and flipping your opinion around whenever it feels useful. Also I already addressed this earlier.



> The person has chosen to make their identity about their genitalia & physical sex, otherwise, they’d never be in that situation to begin with. If physical sex were just incidental to the person, then there is arguably no reason for reassignment surgeries


There is something as a mental map of the body, this results in something similar like phantom pain. This phantom pain vanishes once their body is alined with their mental body map. Go back several pages, because I've already talked about this.

On top of this: NO, they didn't make their life about their genitals, you instead ARE trying to make a transsexual all about their genitals. The very fact that you and others put such emphasis on forcing people to disclose this information proves that you are not interested in an individual or a personality, but that in the end the only thing you're interested in is their genitals. So to be honest that makes transsexual people 100% more interesting than you, because at least if I date them I know that they will want to know ME as ME, not because of what is in my pants.



> You have another strawman here….as you fail to grasp there can be many moral/spiritual/personal reasons someone may have for not wanting to be with someone trans-durr-moogoo-lalal-sexual, which is not phobia.


I've proven many times by now that transsexual people are way more complex, culturally important, part of Human history, important in spirituality and religion, etc etc. I fear that I'm not the one with the strawman, I fear you're just ... nevermind, if you really read this post and attempted to learn of it ...

And again people aren't forced to date them, after replying on this big post I realized how many times you repeated the same sentence over and over and over again, just altering it a little bit but every time with the same meaning. This is what they call argumentum ad nauseam



> Will a trans someone find themselves deeply invested into a relationship with someone who has such a contrasting worldview? Unlikely, but they may go on a date, and there may be romantic overtones, gestures, physical interactions, etc, that would offend their moral/spiritual/personal sensibilities. I refer back to the married person or relative analogies.


argumentum ad nauseam



> Most people don’t immediately meet and go on a date. No one is saying wear a sign on your neck. It’s not hard to find out where someone stands on issues in a few initial conversations which can be had in a context where you don’t risk violating someone else’s boundaries.


Here we have it, this is a contradiction with all of this (and previous posts of yours which I haven't rechecked for quotes)



> It is blatantly disrespectful of the beliefs of others to deceive them in this manner. To think it is acceptable to deceive someone this way reveals a sense of entitlement that is frightening.





> I never said it was okay for someone to deceive others in anyway. That’s precisely what I am saying is wrong here.





> Information concerning your physical sex from birth is highly relevant from the get-go


So yea ...



> People reveal sensitive things very early on if it’s considered a serious factor in dating. Sex at birth is a fundamental factor for most people.


And what people consider as being serious factors is relative based on the individual. For example your ex being divorced in my opinion would be a very small factor and wouldn't influence me in any way 



> No, because people can choose to not date them, but that doesn’t mean they cannot interact with them in other ways. Cis-blahbooglemoogleha-people can be friends, co-workers, etc, with trans-mishyfalalala-people. People do not have to sacrifice their morals, spirituality and personal preferences because of the desires, preferences, choices, conditions, etc, of others.
> 
> 
> The entitlement rears its head again…


This is again about having to out yourself from the get go (so again a repetition and a contradiction with a previous post). Look if you would out yourself from the get go, on something that would experienced as a date, than in most cases that person won't even THINK about being friends afterwards. In most cases they'll ask some awkward, horrible questions which might trigger one of transsexual their triggers, which'll make them feel horrible for a week or two. That person would leave their lives and never think about contacting them again (unless some friend of theirs is studying journalism or sociology who needs a lab rat to interrogate or interview for a paper). No every form of relationship friendship or love is based on meeting someone as a person, not as a figure head or caricature of a community of which they might even and most likely won't be a part of



> It is treating someone like crap to deceive them and violate their morality/spirituality/personal feelings. It is disrespectful at the least. These people have a right to be upset when violated (upset does not equal violence).


Again argumentum ad nauseam and another contradiction with the post about 'No one is saying wear a sign on your neck'



> It is not treating someone like crap to decline to date them because they had a gender reassignment, are living as the opposite of their birth sex, cross-dress, etc.


As said before I wrote a synopsis containing 'ok' and 'bad' reasons to break-up, go check it out. No where did I tell anyone they're forced to stay in a relationship, and actually no one in here did this



> Why can’t you guys see it goes both ways? You want understanding, compassion, sensitivity for a group of people, but don’t think they should have to give some of that too? REALLY?


As I've already said many times in the 52 pages of this thread: dating is the technique used to develop trust, this means that the sharing of secrets goes both ways in equally fair ways. I've been saying this from the start, so don't act as if I don't see it that way.



> Please work on your reading comprehension


This is a skill you also need to learn I fear, because many of things you said have already been answered for 40 pages. This is no insult, but constructive advice.



> People DO cease to be attracted to a partner who changes appearance dramatically later on


People change, people get older, people die, we are animals, aging is a normal part of our existence and sometimes aging might have dramatic appearance changes. Is this a good reason for you to dump someone after years of a good working relationship?



> whether shallow or not, but it often does not have the moral/spiritual components as this issue can have.


I agree, in no way should a partner be forced to stay in a relationship with someone who decides to transition. But it should be done in the most humane way possible and it'd be amazing if they could stay friends, but that isn't mandatory, it all comes down to the individuals and how they handled the situation.



> So as to be clear we are not talking past each other, I am referring to such things as:
> - changing one’s gender, as an identity
> - changing one’s sex, as a physical state
> - crossdressing in public &/or private as a habit


All fine 



> So you will dismiss the validity of a viewpoint simply because you don’t grasp it? You don’t see the hypocrisy there?


She dismisses it based on moral correctness based on her gut feelings, because in no way can she identify with such moral standards. Do you remember the things I said about the movie 'Transcendence'? Well here we're in a situation that the 'lack' of moral experience by the cruelty against transsexual people has led to the point were certain people have become incapable of identifying with other 'humans' because of the lack of morals those 'humans' show. (I'm sure this isn't 100% what Turtle meant)



> The OP did not express that viewpoint of disclosure so early on, and I am disagreeing with the OP and those who agree with the OP. The OP speaks of trust…a few dates does not build trust


Well then you should date more



> Casual dating for many can include physical things that would make many uncomfortable if they knew all the facts.


Well than you should think less with what's in your pants, show some self restraint.



> As I noted above, I have not proposed someone advertise these facts with a sign strapped to their body. It is reasonable to reveal it BEFORE anything becomes romantic, however. The moment any romantic interest is indicated or a real possibility, then it can be worked into conversation in increments, gauging someone’s reactions as you go and how much more is smart to reveal.


This is technically what we've all been asking and saying for 52 pages, that being said and accepted the conversation could actually stop, but again it's sadly enough a contradiction with many of your previous arguments. If only this was the foundation of your argument.



> Burden of disclosure is on the trans-burrrmuruhaa-person.


It is, when the time is right.



> Your analogy fails because the situation with the lesbian is clear from the getgo.


Uhm no, most lesbians are practically invisible (except for the butch) them flirting in a light way might just be the playful social way she interacts with people. So if she moves in for the kiss, you might and most likely won't have been suspecting that.



> Another imperfect analogy is to liken it to feeling that someone should have to state as a boundary that they don’t want to be raped. Oh really? People don’t want that? Obviously! Given the current norms, the safe assumption for the trans person is that unless given strong evidence of the contrary, most people will not be open to them romantically. To act with the assumption that people may be okay with it, and with no strong evidence to back that, is to feel it may be okay to violate a very common boundary. They may not like the reality of others’ feelings, but it’s mighty hypocritical to ask people to just not feel a certain way anymore.


By risking these boundaries many transsexuals are actually furthering acceptance and understanding by letting people learn through interpersonal interaction that transsexuals are also normal people, even if this often doesn't lead to a relationship. This kind of behavior in the end (even though you might not understand how or why) leads to a better understanding of the public, because some people put their lives out there in order to get to know people and letting people get to know them, without the main topic of the relationship being: "Lets talk about being transsexual" 



> You also don’t get to tell people what they are okay with. You don’t get to tell them the significance of a kiss. You don’t get to decide what is consistent for their worldview.


Indeed, it's a relative experience of the individual 



> In short - Don't deceive people


This contradicts the "I have not proposed someone advertise these facts with a sign strapped to their body" argument again



> Before things become romantic & especially before there is anything physically sexual/romantic, find out how someone feels on such matters


If you read the topic than you know that this is the consensus



> and recognize you will likely have to initiate the topic as it may not be in their mind at all


When the time is right



> Respect that other people feel differently from you & they have that right.


They totally have that right, and that respect should go both ways, this even counts for you Orange

Thank you for reading 23 pages of text


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

jeb said:


> So, an intersex person can be a person who is born with different variations of chromosomes and genitalia (sometimes both). At some point in their life, they decide for themselves where they identify in terms of gender and proceed from there. I am curious how people perceive this as opposed to them being transgender, or if they think its the same thing. It would be a better question for Eska as they seem less informed about the differences between sex and gender, but you're easier to communicate with.


I've provided a whole post with 4 different sources about the differences between sex and gender.



drmiller100 said:


> I am.


I won't, I've been asked to stop discussing the topic.

I fear that simply quoting you might get me banned.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@AesSidhe summed up my response to @OrangeAppled well, but I would like to make a few additional points.

@OrangeAppled

I'm glad that you decide to share personal information about yourself early in a relationship. I don't think people will necessarily share _all_ of their potentially important personal information on a first date, but I do think that they should disclose it as early as possible. I think that people also have the responsibility to try to determine (through questions or statements of their own) if someone has a quality that is an absolute deal breaker for them in a relationship. For example, I have a cat and want to live with pet cats and dogs for the rest of my life. I don't consider the people who don't like cats or dogs or who are untreatably allergic to them to be bad people, but my cat is a non-negotiable part of the package deal for living with me. I wouldn't expect another person to necessarily mention their allergy, so I would mention my cat long before I could consider moving in with a person since she is a non-negotiable part of my life. Both people in a relationship are responsible for communication. In the way the world currently works, a transgender person will probably need to be the one to initiate the conversation within a reasonable period of time. It's unfair to say that people's unawareness of trans people makes this reality justifiable.

I'm going to present an analogy to challenge the idea that minorities, simply by their small numbers, are morally obligated to share their minority status in a dating scenario.

Consider a Jewish person living in a country predominately populated by Christians and where Jewish people are a small minority. This scenario is true of many Western countries. One cannot determine religion by looking at a person, so a Christian person and a Jewish person could want to date each other without immediately knowing that the other person has a different religion from them. I have seen Christians on this website claim that Christians should avoid dating or marrying people of different religions in order to avoid possible conflict with their spirituality. I could also see how it could cause a conflict if each person expects the child to be raised in their religion even though this was not stated by the users. In a country where Christians are very common and there isn't much religious diversity, a Christian could hypothetically fail to mention that they don't wish to date people who aren't also Christians and get into a relationship assuming that their partner is also Christian. Is the Jewish person, as a religious minority, required to state their religion more than the Christian is even if the Jewish person wouldn't be opposed to dating a Christian? Imagine that the culture regularly discriminates against Jews in a variety of ways (including severe violence). Is the Jewish person mandated to disclose their religious identity before they get a chance to see if the Christian seems like a reasonable person who will not treat them shabbily?

I never dismissed the fact that people may have a spiritual or moral opposition to transgender people and the things that they do to express their identity. I don't see why I should have to adopt or personally accept a religious opinion simply because it is religious, but I would respect that a person with such an opinion wouldn't want to date a trans person. I would judge the person's reasoning as bigoted or ignorant of transgender people's experiences if they used language such as "mutilation" to describe gender reassignment surgery. With the religious situation I mentioned above, the Christians on this website used respectful language and didn't denigrate people who didn't follow their religion. I wouldn't make the same decision myself, but I did appreciate that they seemed to respect other people who don't share their religion. I'm an agnostic, so a spiritual explanation from anyone doesn't automatically make me agree with them. If they don't make any attempt to state an opinion in a respectful way, I will call them out on any logical inconsistencies that exist just as I would when I want to engage with someone who gives an opinion that seems bigoted to me.

As to the incest analogy, all I meant to say was that I have a very strong visceral disgust reaction to dating a family member that I would not have to dating an unrelated person of any gender. I really don't see my family in a romantic light regardless of their sex or gender. Here's your original post:



OrangeAppled said:


> Those are not comparable to someone being transsexual; it's apples and oranges. Those issues do not deal directly with sexual preferences and sexual morality, but may be more about long-term relationship preferences. There is nothing else really comparable to this, save being a family member or something like that (ie. you know you are family, but the other person does not). Even then, it may bother someone less if the family member is still the preferred sex by birth.


The only scenario in which I could see this scenario realistically happening is if someone stalked me or learned about me online, discovered I was related to them, and then set out to get a date with me before I even met them. This scenario was a lot more deliberately manipulative than many of the scenarios that I have presented as acceptable for trans people, so it just feels like you're setting up a straw man or deliberately trying to provoke as much disgust towards trans people as most people feel towards incest.

Finally, your response to my "lesbian decides to flirt with me" analogy shows that you seem to place an unfair burden on LGBT people in romantic interactions. Try to consider it from her perspective. I may have seemed to be flirting back with her, but I didn't even know that my behavior seemed flirtatious. Since I was giving her "signals," she decides to lightly touch my arm or leans in for a kiss. Who's in the wrong here? I would say it's not about wrong in this case but about miscommunication. If you are flirting with someone and don't know if they are transgender, it's up to you to decide what to do. Do you need to try to figure out if they're trans or cis? If you would be upset if you found out they were trans and wouldn't want to date them, it would be a good idea to try to figure it out instead of letting a potential violation of your boundaries continue.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

Blickwinkel said:


> I'm glad you're that open minded, but most people wouldn't be so understanding, at least where I'm from anyway. To be blunt, it'd probably get them hurt. My point is that they''re playing with fire by not telling their partner until late in a relationship about something this big, and yes most will see this as something big.
> 
> This also goes back to your topic title and first post. Honesty is not a privilege in a relationship, it is a right. I understand its screwed up that trans people are treated like that, but its also unfair for the person they're with to be left in the dark. Again, you're playing with fire by doing so. If it ever gets leaked that they were hiding this from their partner, I wouldn't see it ending well :\.


Very well said.
This is sad but true.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

It could be confirmation bias, I'll leave it up to people's scrutiny but I found things that further confound my difficulty to find a meaningful distinction between male and female even in biology though of course I worry about my ability to discern truthful information about genetics being a layman. That I believe I might be right that defining male and female by sex chromosomes is as meaningful as defining female as having a certain length of hair.
That I do think we are raised on a simplification of reality that has is trying to defend the abstract creation of culture as an objective standard and as a result inadvertently or otherwise use it as a basis that discriminates against a population.
I think I suggest we be critical of our science and it's impact from culture as it has a very clear history of being defined by self serving schemas more so than objective fact, conclusions based out of peoples desire to assert assumption. That even our facts have a shelf life as evident with the definition of sex over the last century or so.
How can you assign a gender (boy or girl) without surgery? | Intersex Society of North America

http://personalitycafe.com/infp-for...-random-thoughts-ideas-2380.html#post13764282

*"When you assign a child a gender as boy or girl, what you’re doing is labeling them a boy or girl. That’s it. You don’t need a surgeon for that."*​

My current perspective is that sex seems to be, like many human things, on a spectrum.
So I think with my intention with all of this is to make a point to anyone who would conclude our constructs of sex and gender to be objective determinations to reconsider such a perspective because sex isn't quite as objective as we would wish it and to be careful to the exclusionary nature one pulls with a rationalization that someone isn't a woman or man because of chromosomes or genitals. 
Because it seems quite clear, that people are male and female simply because they are believed to be and this varies individually and culturally. As a social construct it is quite a real thing but only because our collective belief and behaviour in accordance to it makes it real.

I suppose I ask myself is a social construct of sex best used to define what a real man and real woman is when it's full of so many exceptions to itself as to render the definition ill defined? One that has created a collective psychology that refuses to acknowledge a people as men and women arbitrarily.
I don't think I' hard up to hurt people based on a poorly defined line, a line that I think is mostly up held in the sense it is because we maintain the simplicity of the sort of education we received as children. We tell children simple concepts like girls wear dresses and boys don't, we tell high school kids simple concepts like the ones about chromosomes, but it would seem the reality is as always more complex and messy then our desire of boxes and simplification. 
That we use presumption of fact and science to simply exclude as arbitrarily as the boy who says that some kid is a sissy because he wore make up.
That when we say someone is male or female we're not dealing with objective facts but rather our social definitions.
Eh i'm rambling again XD

EDIT: More thought perhaps this plays into the fundamental change with the theory of evolution in which much was based about genetics being passed on and thus reproductive processes being the fundamental cornerstone of our view of biology.
Such a view I think was in part the reason homosexuality was pathologized and considered an abnormality because gays couldn't reproduce. There comes the over emphasis on chromosomes defined as X and Y which play but a but a minor but pivotal role in the phenotype of male and female among many other chromosomes.
There is almost the assumption that everything male is encoded on the Y and everything female encoded on the X or something.
I think we've perhaps created social classes in the same way we have race to some degree, there is no doubt biological differences but are minuscule in many case that it makes the question of whether they are valid to the degree of which people has historically believed.

I think the tendency is that visual difference constitutes fundamentally different biology, we look to an ape visually and take no consideration to how much genetics we share with it.
Women have almost been viewed as a different species because of their different form and biological significance of reproductive processes. 
Plug in that we no longer tend to define cultural assumption through Divinity as God made it that way but now through assumption of biological permanence which is now coming to problematic ends in which we now change our our phenotype and impact our biology to an increasing degree. 

A big one currently being, can we be defined by chromosomes that aren't expressed in phenotype after environmental changes like surgery?
To which I raise the same point I made earlier of whether one would define me blind if I had a genetic expression that made me blind but medical procedures gave me sight? That the phenotype is no longer congruent with the genetic expression. If I can be defined by genes that aren't expressed in phenotype, then am I every gene that is unexpressed to? 

EDIT 2.0: I think that some might be looking at the issue with a different starting point than others as well. I think some go well what defines sex, do trans people meet this standard, and though they technically don't know if they do they assume by by phenotype that they don't meet any criterion of the sex they appear to be. I can get that in that many transgender people seek to align their sex with their gender identity and my understanding is this is a general definition of trans of identity being non-congruent with the body.

But I think the perspective I take is I ask the question, what is male/man and what is female/woman? Because that's what seems to be divisive really, is the social implications of what we define a man as or a woman as. Regardless of sex or gender, I think I can't answer my question meaningfully and when I look to sex and gender I see arbitrary distinctions that simply keep going further and further and still excluding people no matter how far they go.
So my thought is that the current concept of male/man and female/woman doesn't yet accurately encompass what those two things are.
That our definition of both sex and gender are so malleable that I see no reason to further adapt them to be more inclusive rather than be exclusive and I think with more research into the brain and a close criticism of chromosomes we might come up with our next technical definition of sex which would complicate arguments that from biology that people use to say that trans people aren't as they identify.

I think to some the perspective may even be if the definition of trans runs along a general view that one's body/sex is misaligned/mismatched with their gender identity then when they have their male genitals but identify as a female their sex is male.
The conflict seems to come into when has a sex change whether it actually changes one's sex and then we're brought back to the confusion around definitions of sex where as they stand doesn't seem to necessarily exclude trans. Because by mention of the intersex, the variance giving rise to the spectrum in sex one could claim that when one has SRS that they run further along the spectum and after the surgery they in some ways are closer to the having a congruent sex with their gender identity, especially in regards to secondary physical sex characteristics.
Then back to the implication mentioned above of whether chromosomes that aren't expressed in phenotype should hold bearing over someones capacity to be defined as a particular sex, or one's genitals when contrasted that we wouldn't deny my sex as a male if I lost my genitals.
So we see the variance and perhaps the need framework needs to come up with the language that can best define this spectrum of sex and it'd be a better representation of the reality and inclusive and no basis for which people to express exclusion from.

Also thinking that what I tried to explain earlier in another post was about how when we define people socially as man or woman by biology we basically deny gender identity. Because we place more importance of the arbitrarily lines of what is man or woman based on genitals with hints from other things that can be non-existent and not change how we define someone.
My understanding is the trans movement seeks acknowledgement and respect in people responding their their gender identity that they prescribe to themselves, that gender take importance in terms of how people are identified than genitals. That's a real issue to I think most people would agree is rather problematic, the concept that somehow having a penis determines my sense as a male, my personality traits, my behaviours etc Because by nature of being this way there are presumptions of how I am to be that I may not fit or do fit into in varying degrees.
So I find it difficult to agree with this mode of thinking in regards that I would believe myself a man regardless of my genitals and regardless of whether I fulfill gender stereotypes of what is man and I would be right to do so. 

Writing a lot as it's helping me think and I think I have better clarity to my belief of what's best right now


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

Torai said:


> The idea of compulsory honesty in a relationship is not an empathetic view. It doesn't take into account that society at large is still transphobic...


But that's an excuse that many people use when they lie. The idea is that the truth gets you into trouble, or that your true self is not acceptable, so you lie because it's easier. But you're thinking of yourself only. It's like an old or ugly person putting a picture of a younger or more beautiful person on their profile (or even themselves, ten years ago). What about the other person who is lied to? Would you be just as "emphathetic" with them if they told you they had been cheating on you or had a serious disease or lied to you about a very major issue that is central to your relationship? Being trans is no minor issue. It's very major. 

I once read about a fake marriage between a gay guy and a woman, and the guy had told his wife, after many years of marriage, that he was gay and did not care about her at all but just married her so his family would not think he was gay, and that he had a traditional religious Jewish family and they were very opposed to homosexuality. He then left her because he said he was tired of faking it. But that excuse is selfish. What about the woman here who counted on the guy and invested so much of her life and hopes and dreams into that relationship? I wonder how she must have felt in all these years...

Reality is that people are rarely completely honest. But they need to be honest about major stuff, at the beginning of a relationship. I don't mean the first date. But very early on. If they lied about big stuff repeatedly, they better be ready to take responsibility for it. But better yet, think about their partner before they decide to hide something from them. Think about how it would affect them. Empathy is a two way street.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

conscius said:


> But that's an excuse that many people use when they lie. The idea is that the truth gets you into trouble, or that your true self is not acceptable, so you lie because it's easier. But you're thinking of yourself only. It's like an old or ugly person putting a picture of a younger or more beautiful person on their profile (or even themselves, ten years ago). What about the other person who is lied to? Would you be just as "emphathetic" with them if they told you they had been cheating on you or had a serious disease or lied to you about a very major issue that is central to your relationship? Being trans is no minor issue. It's very major.
> 
> I once read about a fake marriage between a gay guy and a woman, and the guy had told his wife, after many years of marriage, that he was gay and did not care about her at all but just married her so his family would not think he was gay, and that he had a traditional religious Jewish family and they were very opposed to homosexuality. He then left her because he said he was tired of faking it. But that excuse is selfish. What about the woman here who counted on the guy and invested so much of her life and hopes and dreams into that relationship? I wonder how she must have felt in all these years...
> 
> Reality is that people are rarely completely honest. But they need to be honest about major stuff, at the beginning of a relationship. I don't mean the first date. But very early on. If they lied about big stuff repeatedly, they better be ready to take responsibility for it. But better yet, think about their partner before they decide to hide something from them. Think about how it would affect them. Empathy is a two way street.


This is the consensus of the topic. (although the question if being trans is a major or minor issue is a relative view point based on the generation the poster belongs to, and most likely will become a non-issue during the next generation or in two generations. Also opinions and openness changes based upon how often they've interacted with transsexual people in real life. This shows that an internet debate on the matter doesn't show the full picture and complexity of these things, because written words can not communicate all the body and hormonal conversations going on in real life communication)

Torai also explained and kind of apologized for using the strong words in the first 2-3 pages, which she claims to have been used in order to start this whole conversation 

EDIT: Transsexuals are not lying, they're just not talking about it until the time is right. There is a difference between lying and not talking about something. When asked about it too early most will quit dating (like any person would do if they were asked such an insensitive question), when asked at a later time that is more appropriate they will talk about it. I know people that IF someone asks them about it, they give the asker a 24h time frame to ask everything they want to ask, after that the case is closed. I think this is a good strategy in order to prevent a whole 'friendship' or 'relationship' to start twirling around your 'disorder'


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

AesSidhe said:


> Transsexuals are not lying, they're just not talking about it until the time is right. There is a difference between lying and not talking about something. When asked about it too early most will quit the relationship (like any person would do if they were asked such an insensitive question), when asked at a later time that is more appropriate they will talk about it. I know people that IF someone asks them about it, they give the asker a 24h time frame to ask everything they want to ask, after that the case is closed. I think this is a good strategy in order to prevent a whole 'friendship' or 'relationship' to start twirling around your 'disorder'


Come to think of it, I probably should not have used the term "lying." You're right, I was partly reacting to the language in the earlier posts. Perhaps I can say we're talking more about withholding of information that affects the relationship, not lying. For me this is fine, as long as one is thinking about the other person's feelings, just as much as one is thinking about their own feelings. For instance, if I end up feeling that the other person is becoming heavily invested in me, and I am not sharing something major about me that could affect the relationship, I would share it with them then. 

As far as the 24 hours thing, I think that's not a bad idea. But I think if somebody wants to have a longer relationship, one based on trust and care for each other, you better make sure that the other person really does accept all of who you are. Some people are quite open. Some won't be. And whether they do ask more questions or you do not provide them the opportunity, they may not be accepting people and preoccupied with the "disorder", as you say. But some people would just see the trans thing as people being just "different." And if they do ask questions, it's just out of curiosity, as if meeting someone from a different culture. It can feel nice to be around people like that.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

conscius said:


> CBut some people would just see the trans thing as people being just "different." And if they do ask questions, it's just out of curiosity, as if meeting someone from a different culture. It can feel nice to be around people like that.


Uh huh, it all comes down to the general energy that is given and felt around the questions. I'm sure that if this is done in a playful, intellectual, friendly and curious way most people wouldn't make an issue of it, as long as it isn't over done, and as long as not every encounter with the transsexual person turns into a questioning of the transsexual person about being transsexual (because in most cases they're probably dead sick of that after they had to do that to their parents, siblings, psychiatrists, endo, teachers, etc etc xDDD)

So in general people have boundaries (and very healthy people have boundaries that are really hard to get past, because they have such a big healthy space within which they and you can operate), even in a relationship, and going past these boundaries can trigger people into less healthy mental health states, so that's why we shouldn't push those boundaries, if we know they're there


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

Yes, certainly, I've been around negative energy and know all about how the same question asked in different ways and under different circumstances, can mean something quite different. And yes, I bet transsexuals do get tired of people asking them questions. I think at some point it feels less like friendly curiosity and more like being under the microscope or being a lab rat. 

I really like how you phrased that, about healthy boundaries: "big healthy space." I've been working on boundaries myself, given that I don't think I've had ones or was aware of what I had. It feels so weird to have boundaries but they're necessary to protect the person. And this perhaps ties in with the topic of the thread, about sharing info as you start trusting the person more, not being forced to share if you feel that this person is not trustworthy and kind and that you are going to get hurt or have this info used against you. So you do need to protect yourself.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

@AesSidhe


> Transsexuals are not lying, they're just not talking about it until the time is right. There is a difference between lying and not talking about something.


 There is something called lying by omission. 

What is a lie of omission? 
A lie of omission is a lie in which somebody deliberately withholds pertinent details about something in order to skew someone else's idea of the truth or engender a misconception.Although a lie of omission is not technically a lie because it contains no false information, it is still referred to as one colloquially because it is deliberately misleading.

http://www.ask.com/government-politics/lie-omission-c9740e1f75e5556c#full-answer


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Jeff Felis said:


> @AesSidhe
> 
> 
> There is something called lying by omission.
> ...


Which doesn't apply here, because this is the 'was' and 'is' topic all over again.

You're just again saying that their whole life is a lie and deception, which is extremely insensitive, hurtful and shows that you're not even trying to understand these people who have to suffer so much in their lives. 

Well I'll tell you something Jeff: you adding all the people as friends who don't share your opinion in this topic is true lying by omission. I don't know what your end goal is by trying to add all those people you're not agreeing with, but I know that for my own safety I'm defriending you


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

@AesSidhe


> Well I'll tell you something Jeff: you adding all the people as friends who don't share your opinion in this topic is true lying by omission. I don't know what your end goal is by trying to add all those people you're not agreeing with, but I know that for my own safety I'm defriending you.


Because I can have friends that I disagree with. I can support transgendered people as beautiful individuals and still disagree with them. Friendship is not agreeing about everything.

I don't know why you would feel unsafe with me as your PerC friend when we just disagree on something. If you feel unsafe, inform a moderator. We could even have a separation agreement if you want.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Jeff Felis said:


> @AesSidhe
> 
> 
> Because I can have friends that I disagree with. I can support transgendered people as beautiful individuals and still disagree with them. Friendship is not agreeing about everything.
> ...


no need to involve mods if we have an ignore option which I'm not going to use


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Jeff Felis said:


> @AesSidhe
> 
> 
> There is something called lying by omission.
> ...


And to be totally honest this concept shouldn't even be used when it comes to dating. You know why? Because when you're dating someone, it means that you have this special, weird feeling around them, which makes you want to be around them. This creates a situation where you create these images and thoughts about this person in your head, without knowing the true details yet. And as trust grows more and more and people share more and more with each other, those ideas and images you created around this person are altered or broken, because the person you created in your fantasies of course isn't the person you're dating.

So that's why a concept like 'lie by omission' shouldn't be used in a situation like dating, because in the end EVERYTHING about a person is a 'lie by omission' until that person fixed your ideal/fantasized ideas by telling you more about themselves.

So when using certain vocabulary you should be aware in what kind of situations and discussion they can be used. And 'lie by omission' has no place inside the dating vocabulary


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

AesSidhe said:


> And to be totally honest this concept shouldn't even be used when it comes to dating. You know why? Because when you're dating someone, it means that you have this special, weird feeling around them, which makes you want to be around them. This creates a situation where you create these images and thoughts about this person in your head, without knowing the true details yet. And as trust grows more and more and people share more and more with each other, those ideas and images you created around this person are altered or broken, because the person you created in your fantasies of course isn't the person you're dating.
> 
> So that's why a concept like 'lie by omission' shouldn't be used in a situation like dating, because in the end EVERYTHING about a person is a 'lie by omission' until that person fixed your ideal/fantasized ideas by telling you more about themselves.
> 
> So when using certain vocabulary you should be aware in what kind of situations and discussion they can be used. And 'lie by omission' has no place inside the dating vocabulary


You have made a very compelling argument here. I am convinced. 

FWIW, I'm sorry we are not friends anymore, but I still see you as a beautiful wonderful person. Sorry it had to end. Take care of yourself.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

@Jeff Felis I'm sorry for deleting you, it's just, to be honest I'm getting really tired of having to see all these argumentum ad nauseam for 57 pages long, where the other side keeps on repeating the same thing over and over again, while I try to add new information over and over again. So yea, that post was me being tired, so I'm really sorry for that. It was incorrect of me to do so


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Jeff Felis said:


> @AesSidhe
> 
> 
> Because I can have friends that I disagree with. I can support transgendered people as beautiful individuals and still disagree with them. Friendship is not agreeing about everything.
> ...


It doesn't mean that we can't be friend again. I still have to reply on several of your PMs and questions. So lets start there and see what happens


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

AesSidhe said:


> It doesn't mean that we can't be friend again. I still have to reply on several of your PMs and questions. So lets start there and see what happens


Wonderful !! Online friends are still friends.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

conscius said:


> Yes, certainly, I've been around negative energy and know all about how the same question asked in different ways and under different circumstances, can mean something quite different. And yes, I bet transsexuals do get tired of people asking them questions. I think at some point it feels less like friendly curiosity and more like being under the microscope or being a lab rat.


I think the issue lies more with the types of questions asked and when. If someone reveals themselves as trans and immediately are given a lot of questions about sex and their private areas then that would probably be annoying. 



Jeff Felis said:


> @AesSidhe
> 
> 
> Because I can have friends that I disagree with. I can support transgendered people as beautiful individuals and still disagree with them. Friendship is not agreeing about everything.


In high school I had someone say something similar to me. I have pigment in my skin, and he was a skinhead. He said we could be friends even if he thought I should be a slave. 



AesSidhe said:


> @Jeff Felis I'm sorry for deleting you, it's just, to be honest I'm getting really tired of having to see all these argumentum ad nauseam for 57 pages long, where the other side keeps on repeating the same thing over and over again, while I try to add new information over and over again.


Indeed!


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

conscius said:


> Yes, certainly, I've been around negative energy and know all about how the same question asked in different ways and under different circumstances, can mean something quite different. And yes, I bet transsexuals do get tired of people asking them questions. I think at some point it feels less like friendly curiosity and more like being under the microscope or being a lab rat.


A good example of this is in the media for example (which then sets up a behavior pattern for people meeting transsexual people, because you're conditioned by the media to do so). You will never see an interview with a transsexual person with the topic being about how much they love animals, about how altruistic they are, about them having made this amazing discovery in physics, about them being computer game designers, etc, etc. No: you will only see interviews with transsexual people, where the main topic of the interview is about what is between their legs. Luckily this tendency has slowly started to change, but not thanks to the interviewer, but rather thanks to the transsexuals who are finally starting to kind of learn their lesson and change their public dialogue and self portrayal.

An example of this is one of the interviews with Laverne Cox (no I'm never planning to see Orange is the New Black), where the interviewer first showed fainted interest in her acting carrier and then quickly turned the whole conversation around by asking about her genitals. She and the other transsexual girl on the show luckily quickly deflected it in a polite way, but making clear that it is non of their business nor that of the public, and then they spontaneously started talking about a different topic.

This is another prove against Orange her statement claiming that it is transsexuals their fault for focusing their whole life around their genitals, which clearly isn't true. Instead it 'is' clear that a big part of the non-transsexual population has a genital based Worldview, which instantly explains a very modern philosophical question: "Is romance dead?" and the answer seems to be "If you're only thinking about genitals, than maybe romance might indeed be dead."


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

jeb said:


> In high school I had someone say something similar to me. I have pigment in my skin, and he was a skinhead. He said we could be friends even if he thought I should be a slave.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed!


High school was long ago, and I've grown up a lot since then and so have the vast majority of my classmates.

Allowing others to have differing views and differing opinions while still valuing them as friends is a sign of maturity. One of the posters above even alluded to it.

When he/she got tired, and crabby, the person said something unfriendly. with listening, and compassion, and a good night's sleep the two people agreed to continue listening to each other.

This is a sign of maturity and kindness.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

drmiller100 said:


> High school was long ago, and I've grown up a lot since then and so have the vast majority of my classmates.
> 
> Allowing others to have differing views and differing opinions while still valuing them as friends is a sign of maturity. One of the posters above even alluded to it.
> 
> ...


I don't understand. Are you saying I'm immature and unkind? Or that I don't think others should have different views? Or just speaking generally?


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

She's witty, sassy, classy and hopefully will smash some of the ridiculous prejudice around these parts:






Worth watching in its entirety.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

jeb said:


> I don't understand. Are you saying I'm immature and unkind? Or that I don't think others should have different views? Or just speaking generally?


I'm saying a kind, mature approach is to accept other people's differing viewpoints even if they disagree with you. I'm saying a Really mature approach is to KEEP listening, and trying to build communication bridges Especially if you hear something which could be taken personal. 

Maybe I took your skinhead post the wrong way. It seemed like you were conflating the skinhead with another poster on this thread. Was that your intention?


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

drmiller100 said:


> I'm saying a kind, mature approach is to accept other people's differing viewpoints even if they disagree with you. I'm saying a Really mature approach is to KEEP listening, and trying to build communication bridges Especially if you hear something which could be taken personal.
> 
> Maybe I took your skinhead post the wrong way. It seemed like you were conflating the skinhead with another poster on this thread. Was that your intention?


I'm saying that is similar. I don't know why I need to defend how respectful and kind I was to the skinhead in my high school. It's not as if listening is going to change my mind about what color my skin is? And its not like listening to jeff will make anyone not transgender? There are also lots of people who say things like "oh yeah, i support gay people even though they're going to burn in hell as sinners and blah blah" - its not really support. Its like saying separate but equal is a great way to end racism. I didn't say anything about no one listening to each other or about maturity.


----------



## jeb (Jan 6, 2014)

Hotes McGoats said:


> Worth watching in its entirety.


Thats brilliant :laughing:


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Hotes McGoats said:


> She's witty, sassy, classy and hopefully will smash some of the ridiculous prejudice around these parts


LOL OMG THANKS FOR SHARING XDDD

OMG the Real Name question made me go ROFL LMAO

I've lived in 3 different countries, have friends amongst many different sub-cultures, I've been part of certain religions and sects in order to study them and in all these different places I've had different names. I've learned throughout all my experiences that your name is a conventional thing, and that there is no such thing as a 'real' name xDDD

Several of my names are for example

*Belgium:* Anne-Katrien (which is my official name)
*Paris:* Anka (a contraction of Anne and Katrien. It actually sounds like frog eggs in Spanish, which was often a running joke amongst my Spanish co-workers xDDD)
*Thailand:* Ajahn Kathine (contrary to popular believe Ajahn is not an alternation of Anne, but actually is a Thai language term which translates as "teacher." It is derived from the Pali word ācariya, and is a term of respect, similar in meaning to the Japanese sensei, and is used as a title of address for high-school and university teachers, and for Buddhist monks who have passed ten vassa)
*Amongst Goths*: Anna-Catharina (since my Gothic friends are Victorian Age Vampire Gothics they have all fancified their names. This way I ended up with the Russian sounding version of my name, which suddenly gives my name a much more aristocratic sound)
*In Pali (The Indian religious language):* Kari (Pure; Joyful Song; Gust of Wind; Curly-haired; Form of Katherine; Strong; Feminine; Strong or Feminine)

etc 

To be honest I'm considering to add the Thai honorific 'Ajahn' in front of all my names, because I really like it xDDD


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

I think it would be fairer if cis people were expected to disclose that they were cis as often as trans people are expected to disclose this information. It would also be fairer if trans people were accepted enough to the degree that telling someone that they were trans would not risk some kind of transphobic or otherwise weird reaction being directed at them even when the trans person reveals this information in a timely manner.

Anything less than the above is going to be somewhat unfair to trans people. Having to try to figure out this stuff in an unfair world stinks.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

TurtleQueen said:


> I think it would be fairer if cis people were expected to disclose that they were cis as often as trans people are expected to disclose this information. It would also be fairer if trans people were accepted enough to the degree that telling someone that they were trans would not risk some kind of transphobic or otherwise weird reaction being directed at them even when the trans person reveals this information in a timely manner.
> 
> Anything less than the above is going to be somewhat unfair to trans people. Having to try to figure out this stuff in an unfair world stinks.


Your comment reminded me of this:


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Watching that video inspired me to try and make a list of perfect answers to those invasive questions:

*What's your real name?*

"Sigh... I guess you know my secret now.

The reason I don't use my real name is because I was raised by aliens.

I know it's hard to believe, but my name isn't pronounceable by the human tongue. Any attempts to do so will make a singularity appear and we'll all be sucked into a black hole."

*Any genitals question:*

"The truth is, being a half human, half alien hybrid, I have a vagina, but it's surrounded by teeth. I haven't been able to have sex because any man who has tried to penetrate me has had his penis bitten clean off."

*X is trans, do you know them?*

"Dammit, our secret is exposed." 

"What do you mean?"

"You see, all trans people are connected to each other by telepathy. We know when another of our kind is in the vicinity, and we have encoded our thoughts in a language that only we know.

We had plans to take over the entire universe, but you had to expose our telepathic powers. You bastard."


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

Imagines initiating this conversation on a first date.

Me: Just so you know, I'm cis. (I would pronounce this by individual letters since I have only read this term. I have never heard a single person use this term in real life.)
Him (no idea what the term cis even means): What the hell is "C-I-S"? 
Me: It means I'm what most people would consider a woman in terms of my biology and what I consider my gender to be. You can call me a woman and use female pronouns to refer to me. I have XX chromosomes and standard female genitalia that I was born with. I guess I should mention right now that I'm not intersex either.
Him: Okay. It's kind of obvious that you're a woman. Why do you think I needed to know this?

Do you see how awkward this conversation is? It's just like coming out as straight to your parents. Cis straight people aren't expected to declare information about themselves in this way.

ETA: I just learned that it's pronounced like "sis." In which case, he will wonder why I'm randomly telling him that I'm not an only child and am therefore someone's sister. That's true for me, but it's not at all what I meant to convey with the word "cis."


----------



## Strayfire (Jun 26, 2010)

Torai said:


> *What's your real name?*
> 
> "Sigh... I guess you know my secret now.


If I adopt a child, I'll call them Alex.

Good luck, haters.


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Baefire said:


> If I adopt a child, I'll call them Alex.
> 
> Good luck, haters.


Or Taylor, Dakota, Drew, Jamie, Jesse, Jordan, Mackenzie, Morgan, Riley, etc etc


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

TurtleQueen said:


> Imagines initiating this conversation on a first date.
> 
> Me: Just so you know, I'm cis. (I would pronounce this by individual letters since I have only read this term. I have never heard a single person use this term in real life.)
> Him (no idea what the term cis even means): What the hell is "C-I-S"?
> ...


I have nothing to contribute to this thread, but my follow-up impression upon reading that post.

***FIRST DATE***

_Setting: At a table in a restaurant._

Biff: At this stage, I would like to definitively establish our respective positions relative to human interspecies relationships.
Me: Um... 
Biff: Please convey to me your understanding of a "relationship", with the proper inclusion of all its explicit and implicit assocations.
Me: Uh, well, to be honest...
Biff: What is your definition of "honesty"? In the interest of semantic disambiguity.
Me: (Can't decide if hypercerebral troll, or the first sign of insanity. Silently curses nonexistent interpersonal skills.)
Biff: Define "definition". 

Dude, I totally want this dating sim. Think it'll sell if I made one?


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

Omg @Metasentient, you're killing me, that's sooooooooo funny hahahahahahahahah


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

AesSidhe said:


> Or Taylor, Dakota, Drew, Jamie, Jesse, Jordan, Mackenzie, Morgan, Riley, etc etc


I have preferred French names for my cats, but I would probably pick different names for my children since I don't have any French ancestry. A person might pick something like André for a child assigned male at birth. If the child ended up being a trans woman, all she would have to do is add an extra -e to be called Andrée and therefore have a "feminine" name. Since my cats don't care about being misgendered, they have been named Maurice Louis and Angelique Noëlle.

In all seriousness, if a transgender person changed their name to reflect their gender identity, it's not a big deal. Cis people are allowed to change their name at any time for much more frivolous reasons. If someone legally wanted to be called "Princess Consuela Banana Hammock" or "Crap Bag," they could be called that name legally and should be called it socially. (I'm using stupid examples from _Friends_ to make my point. I don't think transgender people make name choices that are that dumb.) Who cares about a person's "birth name" if they are telling you that they like to be called something else?


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

AesSidhe said:


> Or Taylor, Dakota, Drew, Jamie, Jesse, Jordan, Mackenzie, Morgan, Riley, etc etc


Lol Mackenzie?

Ok outside that tho yes :happy:

Ok yes obnoxious I know


----------



## AesSidhe (Dec 14, 2014)

In the choice of names by transsexual people I've seen 2 tendencies. 

Super Culturally Typical: In order to better fit in and be passable they'll choose a name they like that sounds like a very normal name of the culture they belong to, this raises the least amount of questions

Fans of Games/Anime/Manga: might go for a more fantasy like name, or a culturally normal name that they adapted by adding and removing certain letters to make it more unique and fantasy like. These are more often the political active or the more publicly open transsexuals. But in the case they're not publicly open about it, they can play the name off as being a chosen name amongst friends (like for example people using different names when they're in the Gothic scene, etc)


----------

