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

[MysticSang'ha]

It is so because they are in different situations.

They're both human beings. They're both adults. They're both sexually attracted to each other. The only difference is one is cis and the other is trans. But they are far more alike than different.

You are free to do so.
I would just like to mention that no research has been presented to me that specifically states in its conclusion that CAIS are women on regards to sex. All sources presented to me previously loaded the word with a particular meaning beforehand.

Que sera sera.

Neither fair nor unfair.

Well, if you argue that it isn't transphobia, then you must have an idea of what it actually is. So, what is your assessment of the cultural phenomenon?

He got drunk willingly, correct?
He willingly did something that screwed up his own perception. She didn't omit anything.

She according to Tom's "preferences" omitted that she's beautiful. She didn't disclose to him something that important for him to decide if he wants to screw an ugly chick.

That is, of course, if we are to be consistent with the set up from the OP.

Besides, you missed the point. If Tom rejected to have sex with her because she is ugly, would that count as a phobia?

I'll repeat it again...preference is not what is at stake here. I'm talking about complete omission under any circumstance, and becoming viscerally angry at the other person if they find themselves in a morning-after situation where they regret agreeing to have sex with somebody they didn't like.

And, again, people can refuse all they want with whomever they want. But if a mistake is made, and somebody becomes angry and thinks they were misled, doesn't think that person they slept with are of moral equivalence, and thinks they are entitled to information more so than another party, that's much more than a preference. There's more to the story.

"Ugly-phobia." You make funny!

 

[Koldo]

They're both human beings. They're both adults. They're both sexually attracted to each other. The only difference is one is cis and the other is trans. But they are far more alike than different.

That's true. But so what?

Well, if you argue that it isn't transphobia, then you must have an idea of what it actually is. So, what is your assessment of the cultural phenomenon?

I could elaborate a bit about it but i think i have already answered what you want to know. You want a value judgement, isn't that right?

She according to Tom's "preferences" omitted that she's beautiful. She didn't disclose to him something that important for him to decide if he wants to screw an ugly chick.

That is, of course, if we are to be consistent with the set up from the OP.

How did she omit that? :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

I'll repeat it again...preference is not what is at stake here. I'm talking about complete omission under any circumstance, and becoming viscerally angry at the other person if they find themselves in a morning-after situation where they regret agreeing to have sex with somebody they didn't like.

And, again, people can refuse all they want with whomever they want. But if a mistake is made, and somebody becomes angry and thinks they were misled, doesn't think that person they slept with are of moral equivalence, and thinks they are entitled to information more so than another party, that's much more than a preference. There's more to the story.

"Ugly-phobia." You make funny!

Let us make a clear line here.
Is complete omission without becoming viscerally angry at the other person ( if they find themselves in a morning-after situation where they regret agreeing to have sex with somebody they didn't like ) sufficient to establish that a person has a phobia?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

1) He is neither right nor wrong. His preference is what it is.
2) She should inform him because she would be aware of the widespread
objection men would have to boinking a transgendered woman.
3) See answer to #1.

This is unfair to Shirley. But it's a kind of unfairness similar to physical attractiveness,
religion, race, height, weight, hair color, infection status, etc. Society generally
accepts these unfairnesses as normal.
Regarding the duty to notify issue, there is a parallel in real estate brokerage. If I sell
you a home, I have a legal duty to notify you of anything which would concern you,
even if that concern is irrational, eg, there was a grisly murder in the home once.
Some people might suffer emotional trauma if they discovered this after moving in.

Well, yes, but you tend to get stuck with a house for much longer than one night. For long term it is something that, for obvious reasons, needs to be disclosed, but just for one night is a different situation. Why should we not strive to do away with unfairness that hold people back?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

That's true. But so what?

That's MY argument. She's a transgendered person. Tom's making a bigger deal out of something that I say he shouldn't make a fuss over.

I could elaborate a bit about it but i think i have already answered what you want to know. You want a value judgement, isn't that right?

Well, I think your position has been vague enough to warrant a question like that. I've been quite clear what I think of how society views transgendered people. In regards to Tom's reaction in the OP, and how the argument is that he was justified, and how the argument has been made that many people might feel like Tom and being afraid of accidentally sleeping with a transgendered person... I call that having a fear toward transgendered people. In other words, a phobia.

I'm simply asking how you would define it. If you wish to attribute a value judgement to it, be my guest. I say because I see it as transphobia, that it is essentially unfair.

How did she omit that? :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

Now you see how silly this is?

Let us make a clear line here.
Is complete omission without becoming viscerally angry at the other person ( if they find themselves in a morning-after situation where they regret agreeing to have sex with somebody they didn't like ) sufficient to establish that a person has a phobia?

No. Let's say Tom discovers he slept with a transgendered person. He is razzed by his friends in the same way if he woke up next to a very unattractive woman. Tom is embarrassed because he thought he slept with a cis-woman. He made a mistake. But he doesn't get angry at Shirley. He doesn't think she should have disclosed information to him ahead of time that she is transgendered. He's simply going through what a lot of people go through when they have one-night stands that wind up turning out to be not what they wanted in a soulmate.

I don't see that as transphobia. In my second scenario, Tom hasn't ruled out transgendered people so much that they are obligated to cater to his anxieties. He also doesn't see them as sick versions of homosexuals. Tom also doesn't think he slept with a guy. Such view is not based on ignorance.

But if Tom thought he slept with a dude, that's ignorance. If Tom suddenly feels full of anxiety and fear masked by anger and bitterness, that's what I call a phobia. And if Tom feels Shirley has more responsibility than he does and places himself in a position to where he is entitled to a freedom to choose more freely than her, then that is what I call bigotry.

Does that clear things up?

 

[Koldo]

That's MY argument. She's a transgendered person. Tom's making a bigger deal out of something that I say he shouldn't make a fuss over.

That was not really your argument on that quote.
I can agree with that quote, and still say that Tom can make a big deal out of it if he feels like doing so.

Well, I think your position has been vague enough to warrant a question like that. I've been quite clear what I think of how society views transgendered people. In regards to Tom's reaction in the OP, and how the argument is that he was justified, and how the argument has been made that many people might feel like Tom and being afraid of accidentally sleeping with a transgendered person... I call that having a fear toward transgendered people. In other words, a phobia.

I'm simply asking how you would define it. If you wish to attribute a value judgement to it, be my guest. I say because I see it as transphobia, that it is essentially unfair.

I would like to say that my argument has never been that he was justified in doing what he did after having sex with her. I don't even find it relevant if you want to know. The OP just says he was angry and refused to approach Shirley.

Now you see how silly this is?

The OP situation and yours are so completely different on this point that I have a hard time imagining how you could think otherwise.

No. Let's say Tom discovers he slept with a transgendered person. He is razzed by his friends in the same way if he woke up next to a very unattractive woman. Tom is embarrassed because he thought he slept with a cis-woman. He made a mistake. But he doesn't get angry at Shirley. He doesn't think she should have disclosed information to him ahead of time that she is transgendered. He's simply going through what a lot of people go through when they have one-night stands that wind up turning out to be not what they wanted in a soulmate.

I don't see that as transphobia. In my second scenario, Tom hasn't ruled out transgendered people so much that they are obligated to cater to his anxieties. He also doesn't see them as sick versions of homosexuals. Tom also doesn't think he slept with a guy. Such view is not based on ignorance.

But if Tom thought he slept with a dude, that's ignorance. If Tom suddenly feels full of anxiety and fear masked by anger and bitterness, that's what I call a phobia. And if Tom feels Shirley has more responsibility than he does and places himself in a position to where he is entitled to a freedom to choose more freely than her, then that is what I call bigotry.

Does that clear things up?

Not completely.
Another question: Feeling like a trans woman should disclose this piece of information ahead of time if you are going to have sex with her is sufficient to make Tom a transphobic?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, yes, but you tend to get stuck with a house for much longer than one night. For long term it is something that, for obvious reasons, needs to be disclosed, but just for one night is a different situation. Why should we not strive to do away with unfairness that hold people back?

Ditching unfairness is certainly best.
I only answered the OP's questions in the context of this day & age.
But Tom might suffer effects lasting longer than home ownership.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

That was not really your argument on that quote.
I can agree with that quote, and still say that Tom can make a big deal out of it if he feels like doing so.

Tom can do whatever he wants. His reaction is under scrutiny, however. And it points to a larger picture as an example of a cis-normative culture.

When you responded to my contention that the only difference between Tom and Shirley is the gender and the fact that one is cis and the other trans (showing that there are far more similarities than differences), you responded, "So what?"

To which has been my argument. I would have asked Tom what the big deal is and why he's that upset. She's a trans. He had a one night stand. They both enjoyed themselves. He's making this out to be bigger than he should.

I would like to say that my argument has never been that he was justified in doing what he did after having sex with her. I don't even find it relevant if you want to know. The OP just says he was angry and refused to approach Shirley.

I was under the impression that you did find his reasoning justifiable. That he felt misled and deceived. I was also under the impression that your stance has been one where Shirley did mislead and deceive him, and therefore that Tom's anger was justifiable.

The OP situation and yours are so completely different on this point that I have a hard time imagining how you could think otherwise.

In both situations, Tom has a standard of who he wants to have sex with. In both scenarios, his partner turned out to be someone he would never have chosen in the first place. I find them both to be relevant. You brought up ugly women as comparable to trans-women in regards to what Toms wishes were. And I went with that comparison. So the joke's on you, Koldo.

Not completely.
Another question: Feeling like a trans woman should disclose this piece of information ahead of time if you are going to have sex with her is sufficient to make Tom a transphobic?

I think that position is bigoted, yes. It's not up to her. If it's such a big deal to Tom to never ever ever ever ever place himself in a position to sleep with a transgendered person, then he needs to take responsibility for that. I explained that earlier in regards to who carries the burden of responsibility for Tom's sexual pleasure and Tom's repulsions. It's his responsibility, not Shirley's.

Transphobia is what I see when people carry a certain anxiety and repulsion at transgenderism. It goes beyond preference when there is that kind of visceral emotional response.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ditching unfairness is certainly best.
I only answered the OP's questions in the context of this day & age.
But Tom might suffer effects lasting longer than home ownership.

And I see that as Tom's problem. Shirley was living her life, Tom was living his, and Tom is, at the very minimum, upset with Shirley and refuses to approach her, even though Tom was playing with fire and got burnt.
A wise woman once said that no one can make you feel inferior without your consent, Tom is letting the social stigmas of sleeping with a transwoman get to him. Shirley has obviously gotten over many of these stigmas. But this isn't about contracts and legalities. Really, what I see, are replies insisting that the stronger character submit to the weaker character because the weaker character is stuck in his ways and get's angry from the consequences rather than learning from them.
And, a landlord isn't required to disclose that walls used to be painted red, the trim used to be mahogany, and the floor used to be hardwood.

 

[Koldo]

Tom can do whatever he wants. His reaction is under scrutiny, however. And it points to a larger picture as an example of a cis-normative culture.

When you responded to my contention that the only difference between Tom and Shirley is the gender and the fact that one is cis and the other trans (showing that there are far more similarities than differences), you responded, "So what?"

To which has been my argument. I would have asked Tom what the big deal is and why he's that upset. She's a trans. He had a one night stand. They both enjoyed themselves. He's making this out to be bigger than he should.

Ah, now i can see where you are coming from when you said that was your argument. I thought you were referring to what you said, and not to what i said (' So what? ' part).

In his mind it is a big problem.

I was under the impression that you did find his reasoning justifiable. That he felt misled and deceived. I was also under the impression that your stance has been one where Shirley did mislead and deceive him, and therefore that Tom's anger was justifiable.

I agree he was misled. My focus has not been on his actions or feelings after having sex with her as i deem them to be irrelevant to whether Shirley did something wrong.

In both situations, Tom has a standard of who he wants to have sex with. In both scenarios, his partner turned out to be someone he would never have chosen in the first place. I find them both to be relevant. You brought up ugly women as comparable to trans-women in regards to what Toms wishes were. And I went with that comparison. So the joke's on you, Koldo.

You curiously ignore that in one case the woman didn't omit anything.
Go figure.

I think that position is bigoted, yes. It's not up to her. If it's such a big deal to Tom to never ever ever ever ever place himself in a position to sleep with a transgendered person, then he needs to take responsibility for that. I explained that earlier in regards to who carries the burden of responsibility for Tom's sexual pleasure and Tom's repulsions. It's his responsibility, not Shirley's.

This specific point has been the main subject under debate between people around here.

Let's try this way.
Give me what definition of 'bigotry' you are working with, and tell me how this specific situation fits it.

Transphobia is what I see when people carry a certain anxiety and repulsion at transgenderism. It goes beyond preference when there is that kind of visceral emotional response.

The OP doesn't mention whether he felt a repulsion for Shirley.
That's strictly your conclusion on what happened.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Ah, now i can see where you are coming from when you said that was your argument. I thought you were referring to what you said, and not to what i said (' So what? ' part).

In his mind it is a big problem.

Got it. I see it as Tom's problem. Not Shirley's.

I agree he was misled. My focus has not been on his actions or feelings after having sex with her as i deem them to be irrelevant to whether Shirley did something wrong.

You curiously ignore that in one case the woman didn't omit anything.
Go figure.

I didn't ignore anything. That's YOUR argument that she misled and failed to disclose important information. I have disagreed with that from the beginning of this thread. It is not Shirley's obligation to disclose such information when she is presenting herself as she is presenting herself.

Tom thought he was having sex with a woman. And he did. He also assumed she was cisgendered, and she wasn't.

This specific point has been the main subject under debate between people around here.

Let's try this way.
Give me what definition of 'bigotry' you are working with, and tell me how this specific situation fits it.

I have several times. Go back and read my definition again just a few posts back.

The OP doesn't mention whether he felt a repulsion for Shirley.
That's strictly your conclusion on what happened.

I think it's a fair assumption based on Tom's emotional reaction.

 

[Koldo]

Got it. I see it as Tom's problem. Not Shirley's.

She doesn't care about Tom after all. Why would it be her problem, right?

I didn't ignore anything. That's YOUR argument that she misled and failed to disclose important information. I have disagreed with that from the beginning of this thread. It is not Shirley's obligation to disclose such information when she is presenting herself as she is presenting herself.

You did ignore that the woman in the drunk Tom scenario did not omit her ugliness when you compared both situations.

Tom thought he was having sex with a woman. And he did. He also assumed she was cisgendered, and she wasn't.

Tom thought he was having sex with a cisgender woman. And she was not cisgender. Indeed.

I have several times. Go back and read my definition again just a few posts back.

I must have missed it then, and i can't find it.
Would you be so kind as to quote it for me?

I think it's a fair assumption based on Tom's emotional reaction.

So, now you see, we are both talking about what is reasonable to assume, at the end of the day.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

She doesn't care about Tom after all. Why would it be her problem, right?

She cares as much as he does about a one night stand. Tom isn't harmed by sleeping with a transgendered person. Tom is just angry and feels misled. We've been beating this dead horse for how many pages now?

You did ignore that the woman in the drunk Tom scenario did not omit her ugliness when you compared both situations.

Nope. Ignoring nothing. Neither woman omitted anything. They presented themselves as who they are. They wanted to sleep with Tom in each scenario and consented to sleep with him. Tom in both scenarios consented to sleep with them.

Tom thought he was having sex with a cisgender woman. And she was not cisgender. Indeed.

Well, drunk Tom thought he was having sex with a goddess. Maybe he should sue.

I must have missed it then, and i can't find it.
Would you be so kind as to quote it for me?

Post #724 was my latest embellishment on what I see as bigotry against trans-folk:

But if Tom thought he slept with a dude, that's ignorance. If Tom suddenly feels full of anxiety and fear masked by anger and bitterness, that's what I call a phobia. And if Tom feels Shirley has more responsibility than he does and places himself in a position to where he is entitled to a freedom to choose more freely than her, then that is what I call bigotry.

So, now you see, we are both talking about what is reasonable to assume, at the end of the day.

I was saying Tom's reaction was a repulsion toward Shirley. You challenged me on that. I said that based on his emotional reaction that it's reasonable to assume he is repulsed. I also stated it as being bigoted and transphobic.

One can reasonably assume things without saying such things that are assumed are actually reasonable. Catch my drift? It's reasonable to assume Tom is repulsed by transgendered people. But it's not reasonable to repulsed by transgendered people, no matter how many people may feel that way.

 

[Koldo]

She cares as much as he does about a one night stand. Tom isn't harmed by sleeping with a transgendered person. Tom is just angry and feels misled. We've been beating this dead horse for how many pages now?

Apparently not. She omitted something relevant to Tom.

Nope. Ignoring nothing. Neither woman omitted anything. They presented themselves as who they are. They wanted to sleep with Tom in each scenario and consented to sleep with him. Tom in both scenarios consented to sleep with them.

If she didn't omit, then she told him. But she didn't tell him....

Well, drunk Tom thought he was having sex with a goddess. Maybe he should sue.

He willingly got drunk....right?

Post #724 was my latest embellishment on what I see as bigotry against trans-folk:

Wait. I want you to define 'bigotry' too.

I was saying Tom's reaction was a repulsion toward Shirley. You challenged me on that. I said that based on his emotional reaction that it's reasonable to assume he is repulsed. I also stated it as being bigoted and transphobic.

One can reasonably assume things without saying such things that are assumed are actually reasonable. Catch my drift? It's reasonable to assume Tom is repulsed by transgendered people. But it's not reasonable to repulsed by transgendered people, no matter how many people may feel that way.

And it is reasonable to assume Shirley knew that many men wouldn't have sex with her if they knew it. Catch my drift?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Apparently not. She omitted something relevant to Tom.

And Tom's expectations are based on something I find to be problematic.

If she didn't omit, then she told him. But she didn't tell him....

She didn't omit anything more than Tom omitting he's a transphobic bigot.

He willingly got drunk....right?

And slept with an ugly woman. In both scenarios, Tom is responsible for Tom's behavior. Shirley is responsible for Shirleys behavior.

Wait. I want you to define 'bigotry' too.

I showed you mine. Now show me yours.

And it is reasonable to assume Shirley knew that many men wouldn't have sex with her if they knew it. Catch my drift?

Which is not her problem. That's a mark of a transphobic society. Catch my drift?

 

[Poeticus]

I showed you mine. Now show me yours.

You wouldn't be able to handle it. It's too spicy.

 

[Koldo]

And Tom's expectations are based on something I find to be problematic.

I know that.

She didn't omit anything more than Tom omitting he's a transphobic bigot.

Name calling?
Is that all?

And slept with an ugly woman. In both scenarios, Tom is responsible for Tom's behavior. Shirley is responsible for Shirleys behavior.

Yes, indeed.
Can you talk about the difference between both cases for once?

I showed you mine. Now show me yours.

You didn't show me how you define 'bigotry'.
You said how you apply this word to this case.

Which is not her problem. That's a mark of a transphobic society. Catch my drift?

You call it transphobic. I don't care what/how you call it, unless you have an argument that can possibly lead me to agree with you.

 

[DallasApple]

But we are talking about two people who meet, go home, screw, and would probably maybe only occasionally bump into eachother, if even that just depending on the circumstances of how they met. But they were both in the moment, had their fun, and now it's Shirley's fault because she is supposed to carry around a sign that says she isn't really a woman.

See I completely agree with this.Where I have a problem in this whole debate is that ANY cis hetero male that would decline or not pursue sex with a trans female because they are trans is a bigot against trans people.

 

[Horrorble]

See I completely agree with this.Where I have a problem in this whole debate is that ANY cis hetero male that would decline or not pursue sex with a trans female because they are trans is a bigot against trans people.

I think you are getting it wrong, I would decline to be with a transman if they had a vagina (in foresight) in this case Tom was happy with Shirley until he found out that she is trans and blamed her for feeling violated.

 

[DallasApple]

I disagree. Adults have a right across the board. Tom and Shirley had a one night stand, and they both had the right to engage in it. I'll ask where the "right" turns into a privilege.

I think you know what I mean .But just in case let me clarify.If I meet someone and I want to have sex with them but they don't want to have sex with me its not my RIGHT that they do so anyway.I'm not "entitled" to sex with whomever I please just because I want to have sex with them.They do not 'owe me" sex just because I want it.Their consent trumps my desire as far as "rights".Their consent is their RIGHT and my priveledge if they choose to engage with me and vice versa.To put it simply I guess you have the right to consent or NOT consent to sex.If someone excersizes their right to not have sex with me they have not taken away my 'right' to have sex with them .I only have that right if they give it to me.

 

[DallasApple]

I think you are getting it wrong, I would decline to be with a transman if they had a vagina (in foresight) in this case Tom was happy with Shirley until he found out that she is trans and blamed her for feeling violated.

No I get that.But its been proposed that If (for example) I declined to be with a trans man even if they had a penis ..just based on they were a trans man I would be a bigot.