Yeah, but everyone else ignored meMartianWarMachine said:
and I wanted to know if it was because they didn't have an answer, didn't think it needed one, or just didn't see it.
Poll: Would you date a transgendered person?
- Thread starter BloatedGuppy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
and I wanted to know if it was because they didn't have an answer, didn't think it needed one, or just didn't see it.
What if I always assumed there was no opposite of transgender, other than not-transgender. I had someone tell me they were transgender my response was "cool, I'm not"drisky said:Cis is only ever needed to be used when comparing the opposite, it is far more sensitive than saying the opposite of "Transgender" is "Normal" or "Real". It is the same as saying heterosexual and homosexual. It is not common use because transgender people aren't as common as homosexual or bisexual. My question to you is why do you care, if people who use cis aren't "worth knowing", why is it worth your time to keep coming back here to complain?twohundredpercent said:
On a related note I'm not making "ain't" a part of my vocabulary and I don't know a single person worth knowing who would.
Notice how you're now insterting a qualifier in your statement? 'genetically' male, or female. Yes, if you include that qualifier obviously the statement is valid. But it's not very meaningful, and it's open to abuse precisely because it lack any practical meaning.artanis_neravar said:
That aside, you can change genes. A lot of research on this matter has been done. You just can't do it safely or reliably enough to use it on living humans.
And yes, you can change the plans to a building. But changing the plans and changing the building are unrelated acts.
Changing the plans doesn't magically cause the building to change to match.
My point was that if you change the building, but don't change the plans, it would be incredibly silly to argue that the plans are correct, but the building is wrong. (Which is how arguments about your genetic sex are almost always used.)
I am curious about your opinions of this analogy;
If a woman has surgery and makes herself a male, then if I have facial reconstruction surgery to make myself resemble Harrison Ford, change my last name to Ford, and start saying I'm his son, does that make me his son?[/quote]
No. It would not. It would make you a person with the last name Ford, that bears a physical resemblance to Harrison Ford.
The problem is you're mixing up definitions again by posing this question.
It's a bit like asking, "If I have an identical twin, are we the same person?".
Genetically speaking, you would be, but obviously, based on the actual definition of what makes two people different, independent beings, it should be obvious that two people can't both be the same person.
OK, though. I'll try not to get overly distracted.
What is the definition of being someone's son? (Aside from implying you are male, that is.)
Does it have anything to do with what you look like? Or what your last name is? Or even your genetics?
In actual fact, it isn't really based on any of these things.
I have a step-brother. OK, so yes, there's a qualifier here. But the point is, this is my brother, and we are in no way genetically related at all.
So why is he my brother?
Because his mother married my father.
Similarly, if you wanted to be Harrison Ford's son, you could do so by having him legally adopt you.
Point is, will changing your name and having surgery make you someone's son?
No, because no part of any definition of being someone's son involves any requirements of sharing the same last name, or having any physical resemblance to them.
Now, yes, there are those that might say if you're not genetically related to someone then you aren't their son.
But in practice, the definition of being someone's son, is either that they are biologically related to you. (I'm not sure if this definition holds up for things such as cloning, but that's theoretical for now anyway. There's also problems surrounding such things as a surrogate mother, or a sperm donor...)
Or, that they were or are legally responsible for you.
It's a little more complicated than that, but no part of any definition of being someone's son even theoretically involves having the same name, and similar appearance as a prerequisite.
At least some definitions of male & female depend on your physical traits, or even your behaviour. (Whether those definitions are correct is another matter, but they do exist.)
You can argue about which definitions for anything are actually correct, but you do have to consider whether any hypothetical case you're making even bears any resemblance to the definitions involved.
There's a pretty big gulf between saying This table is actually a chair, and saying this is a table built by Bob. (When in fact it was built by Fred.) - The first is within the realms of possibility. The second is not.
Of course, This chair was built by Bob (using a table built by Fred) is a perfectly valid statement...
Anyway, I see I've gone on about this for far longer than I should have already. Hopefully you can see what I'm getting at.
You basically have to ask yourself how something is defined as being what it is, before you can meaningfully say if, (and how), you can change it. You chose an example where the changes being made held no relation to the definition of what you were trying to change.
I'm fine with that. Cisgendered is commonly only used when transgender is the actual topic, especially on a scientific or medical journal. In that sense its more professional to use cisgender. Still I don't expect it to be a common use term. Hell spell check will not even recognize it.artanis_neravar said:What if I always assumed there was no opposite of transgender, other than not-transgender. I had someone tell me they were transgender my response was "cool, I'm not"drisky said:Cis is only ever needed to be used when comparing the opposite, it is far more sensitive than saying the opposite of "Transgender" is "Normal" or "Real". It is the same as saying heterosexual and homosexual. It is not common use because transgender people aren't as common as homosexual or bisexual. My question to you is why do you care, if people who use cis aren't "worth knowing", why is it worth your time to keep coming back here to complain?twohundredpercent said:
On a related note I'm not making "ain't" a part of my vocabulary and I don't know a single person worth knowing who would.
The damn forum ate my post. Karma? Anyway, Take 2.CrystalShadow said:
I concede that sex is difficult to define, without using some very precise medical terminology (although I think most people have quite a secure "gut feeling" of what male and female usually mean).
I also acknowledge that very occasionally people are born who are hermaphrodites, or who have other hormonal or chromosomal imbalances or abnormalities.
But I think that these two facts constitute a very flimsy precedent for declaring sex to be a spectrum rather than a binary state, and furthermore to take this as positive encouragement to switch from one physical sex to the other as a matter of personal choice. To my mind it just fundamentally does not work this way.
*shrug*
Ah, but declaring sex to be a binary state, where the definition is effectively a logical contradiction is quite useless.Batou667 said:
My primary point is to get a clear, objective definition that is not in fact circular, and doesn't pretend fringe cases such as intersex conditions (however rare they may be), don't even exist.
Because if we let subjective opinions and 'gut feelings' determine this kind of question, what you end up with is a huge mess.
Case in point, to a transsexual their actual view on the matter usually isn't that they're changing their sex, but that they always were that sex to begin with, physical traits be damned.
If you take that perspective, a person's sex is incredibly nebulous and non-physical in nature.
Any such definition would create similar issues. If you can't take what you see at face value, then what can you actually base a decision on?
If something isn't what it appears to be, then what actually defines what it is in the first place?
(Yes, I know not everything is what it appears to be, but there usually still is some obvious reason why not, and some obvious reason for saying what it actually is.)
Anyway, I would argue that declaring sex to be a binary state in spite of evidence to the contrary is a rather flimsy argument overall.
Declaring sex to be immutable also seems completely nonsensical to me. I can't come up with any way that makes any sense.
Not without invoking the equivalent of 'magic', or 'the soul', or other equally unprovable and untestable statements.
Just like everyone else I have a strong predisposition to 'knowing' what sex someone is intuitively. (And to assuming it's a binary thing).
The difference is, I know with considerable certainty that this intuitive sense of a person's sex is based on very superficial traits.
There's nothing mystical about it. If a person has certain physical and behavioural traits, the mind will tend to interpret this as implying they are of a given sex that matches those traits.
But none of those qualities actually reflect any real 'truth' about another person. The judgement is superficial, so by extension so is the most obvious definition.
"What you see is what you get." is mostly true as far as I'm concerned. If you don't like what you see, fair enough.
But that's quite different from liking it until you find out some detail that doesn't really mean anything.
You quite clearly thought one thing before.
If it were a trick that would be something you could work out for yourself.
If the only way you can know about it is me telling you, then I seriously have to question your belief system.
From what I've heard, the science really isn't there yet. Shifting the nerve endings to where they ought to be so the person feels the way they want to feel, lubrication issues and associated tearing, etc... we just can't do an effective gender switch yet, which is unfortunate.
Whether the proceedures, as they are, are good enough to satisfy those people who need them probably varies from case to case, but I think it's clear that we have a long way to go. While I don't expect we'll be able to make transgender people fertile any time soon, we should at least be able to manage the mechanics of sex (that being a large part of the point, after all). Then again, we didn't learn how to do heart surgery well by waiting until we had it all figured out, so...
If all that was required was a bottle of lube and if she could still experience sexual pleasure, even if it took a bit more work or creativity on my part? Sure I'd date a MtF. Medical bills are another issue entirely, though it doesn't automatically represent more luggage than other people bring into a relationship.
Whether the proceedures, as they are, are good enough to satisfy those people who need them probably varies from case to case, but I think it's clear that we have a long way to go. While I don't expect we'll be able to make transgender people fertile any time soon, we should at least be able to manage the mechanics of sex (that being a large part of the point, after all). Then again, we didn't learn how to do heart surgery well by waiting until we had it all figured out, so...
If all that was required was a bottle of lube and if she could still experience sexual pleasure, even if it took a bit more work or creativity on my part? Sure I'd date a MtF. Medical bills are another issue entirely, though it doesn't automatically represent more luggage than other people bring into a relationship.
I say yes, in the sense that I don't mind, as long as this person has something that I like. After I saw "The Crying Game", I think I became more open minded.MartianWarMachine said:
WOW.....I can't believe that I received a moderation warning for giving a short answer(!) This is crazy, and I don't like frequenting in a site with crazy rules.
Goodnight.
Goodnight.
Sure, I go on personality anyway. And looks, have to admit that.... The important part is that I don't choose who I'm dating based on their plumbing.
Dating is harmless so I would date one, but not bed one. I don't mind the idea that the person I'm having a date with was born a woman, but I am uncomfortable of going any further than a date. I need all parts to be, um, "in good working condition". I apologize if that sounds rude, I mean no offense, but that's how I feel.
Just to clarify, I voted "I am a female, and I would NOT date a FTM". I voted thinking "would I consciously date an FTM and consider moving to a serious relationship?" and so I voted no.
Just to clarify, I voted "I am a female, and I would NOT date a FTM". I voted thinking "would I consciously date an FTM and consider moving to a serious relationship?" and so I voted no.
Exactly. While all the shit they get is wrong, I'm not sexually attracted to them at all. Even if they look perfect, if I know, then that's gone. It's a psychological thing, but not one I'm of a mind to change.Saladfork said:
I could happily be friends with one though. The same thing applies to hermaphrodites, too.
Right. I finally figured out what my problem with transgenderism is. I don't think gender matters. Just like ethnicity or sexual orientation. It doesn't matter. You are not your gender, your ethnicity, or sexual orientation. You are independent of these things. They affect you, shape your life to a certain extent, but they are not fundamentally you. They are just aspects of you, and in a perfect world they would not matter one bit.
In a perfect world a gay guy would live a completely normal life, and the fact that he loves men in a sexual manner wouldn't matter. It would be as important as him having brown hair. In a similar manner, ethnicity and gender wouldn't matter.
So my problem with transgenderism is that gender and sex becomes too.... important? Sex is a biological thing. Gender is a social construct. Ethnicity is a biological thing, but its also a social construct.
An African child adopted by German parents become socially German (he thinks and acts like Germans). You could be sexually male but socially a woman(you think like a woman and act like one). But the German African shouldn't attempt to change his skin color, just because he's white culturally. Because then skin color matters, and it doesn't. Similarly, why should someone who is socially of a different gender attempt to change their biology? Then you are implying that your genitalia matters, but it doesn't!
I would be against my friend changing his skin color, just like I would be against my friend changing his genitalia.
The fact that my German friend has dark-skin color doesn't matter, doesn't change who he is. If someone said they find people with dark skin color attractive, it point them his way (depending on who he found sexually attractive) . If someone told me they find people with male genitalia attractive, i'd point them to my other friends way (depending on who he found sexually attractive).
The problem for me occurs when a transgender person thinks that they have to change their biology, just as if a person felt that they HAD to change their skin color. Neither genitalia or skin color matter. Be proud of what you have. By trying to change it you are attaching to much importance to it. Breast size doesn't really matter, neither do skin color, genitalia, hair color, ethnicity, etc.
But I personally have a thing for people of northern Asian ethnicity with female genitalia . 'Course, in the long run it's their personality I stay for.
I know that there is a huge flaw in my argument, but I'm to tired to sit up and figure out how to defend it.
If it doesn't matter, then why wouldn't I date a MTF?
Here is a short version: Because to me personally it matters. And because I feel that being socially male or female isn't binary, there is no such thing as being male or female psychologically. It's just a term we use to define people with certain behaviors. When I say that I'm heterosexual, I mean that I like people who have female genitalia, not people who have the socially defined female psychology. A transgender person is still biologically male, his psychology doesn't matter when it comes to sexual compatibility, his genitalia does.
Since I'm hetero, the person I date must for me must first be biologically male. After that I can find out if we're socially compatible.
Finally: I don't know what kind of brain I have. I don't think my masculinity or femininity should matter enough for me to change my body, and I don't think anyone should let it define them.
In a perfect world a gay guy would live a completely normal life, and the fact that he loves men in a sexual manner wouldn't matter. It would be as important as him having brown hair. In a similar manner, ethnicity and gender wouldn't matter.
So my problem with transgenderism is that gender and sex becomes too.... important? Sex is a biological thing. Gender is a social construct. Ethnicity is a biological thing, but its also a social construct.
An African child adopted by German parents become socially German (he thinks and acts like Germans). You could be sexually male but socially a woman(you think like a woman and act like one). But the German African shouldn't attempt to change his skin color, just because he's white culturally. Because then skin color matters, and it doesn't. Similarly, why should someone who is socially of a different gender attempt to change their biology? Then you are implying that your genitalia matters, but it doesn't!
I would be against my friend changing his skin color, just like I would be against my friend changing his genitalia.
The fact that my German friend has dark-skin color doesn't matter, doesn't change who he is. If someone said they find people with dark skin color attractive, it point them his way (depending on who he found sexually attractive) . If someone told me they find people with male genitalia attractive, i'd point them to my other friends way (depending on who he found sexually attractive).
The problem for me occurs when a transgender person thinks that they have to change their biology, just as if a person felt that they HAD to change their skin color. Neither genitalia or skin color matter. Be proud of what you have. By trying to change it you are attaching to much importance to it. Breast size doesn't really matter, neither do skin color, genitalia, hair color, ethnicity, etc.
But I personally have a thing for people of northern Asian ethnicity with female genitalia
. 'Course, in the long run it's their personality I stay for.I know that there is a huge flaw in my argument, but I'm to tired to sit up and figure out how to defend it.
If it doesn't matter, then why wouldn't I date a MTF?
Here is a short version: Because to me personally it matters. And because I feel that being socially male or female isn't binary, there is no such thing as being male or female psychologically. It's just a term we use to define people with certain behaviors. When I say that I'm heterosexual, I mean that I like people who have female genitalia, not people who have the socially defined female psychology. A transgender person is still biologically male, his psychology doesn't matter when it comes to sexual compatibility, his genitalia does.
Since I'm hetero, the person I date must for me must first be biologically male. After that I can find out if we're socially compatible.
Finally: I don't know what kind of brain I have. I don't think my masculinity or femininity should matter enough for me to change my body, and I don't think anyone should let it define them.
