I'm following up on these two posts about coming out as transgender to romantic partners.
In both threads, there were people who not only argued that trans people have an ethical obligation to come out to their partners, but a few people were even arguing that having sex while stealth is sexual assault. That is, they were arguing that transphobic people can't consent to sex without knowing their partner's trans status, as such knowledge would effect their decision making. Thus, they argued, trans people must either come out to their partners or be celibate.
This line of thinking is deeply disturbing for several reasons.
Before getting started, I'll point out that most of this discussion applies only to post-operative trans people who are indistinguishable from cisgender people. For other trans people, having sex without their partners finding out simply isn't an option, at least not most of the time.
The first reason that this line of thinking is disturbing is that it reinforces the notion that trans bodies are shameful and that cisgender people need to be warned about them. There is nothing shameful, sick, or dangerous about transgender people or their bodies. If you can't tell, you don't need to know.
The second reason is that it treats sex and privacy like commodities that can be traded under contract.
The idea is that the transphobic person has sex and the trans person has privacy. The transphobic person offers to give sex in exchange for the trans person's privacy. By not coming out, the trans person failed to fulfill their part of the "bargain" - they stole sex from the transphobic person. That is, the trans person raped them.
The flaw in this logic might be better illustrated with a different example.
Suppose you're into BDSM. In fact, you like it so much that you refuse to have sex without it. You enter romantic relationship with a new partner and mutually decide to have sex, but only on the condition that you get to whip them. They say "OK" and you start having sex, but they back out when you reach for the whips.
You do not get to claim that you were raped just because you thought you were consenting to sex with someone who would submit to being whipped. The idea is ludicrous.
At worst, you could argue that they shouldn't have lied to you about their intention to submit, but that's not the same thing as sexual assault. This part doesn't apply to trans people though, because they also have safety concerns. I wrote about this in more detail in my previous post.
The problem with this logic is that the choice to have sex, freedom from violence, and privacy are not commodities that can be traded.
They are things which are so important to our sovereignty that we've deemed them to be fundamental rights. They cannot be surrendered.
Privacy is particularly important to trans people. For many, information such as their karyotype and body configuration at birth is deeply personal. Not only do they live with a profound stigma against them, but this type of information can also make them vulnerable. They are disproportionately targeted for violence - often by romantic partners upon coming out. They are also discriminated against in employment, housing, and access to medical care, among other things. It's not just a matter of personal comfort, its a matter of safety.
A trans person cannot ligitimately be required to give up their privacy, nor can anyone ligitimately be required to give up their freedom from violence. Agreements with these requirements are void.
You don't get the option of violating your partner's rights just because you want a guarantee about what type of sex you'll have or what your partner's body was like at birth. No one is entitled to a guarantee about these types of things, and if you can't have sex without one, then you are the one who should be celibate. The onus is not on your partners to subjugate themselves for you.
Which leads me to the third reason that this line of thinking is deeply disturbing: it places the responsibility on trans people to cater to the transphobia of others.
When you say that trans people are obligated either to be celibate or to come out to their sexual partners, you're suggesting that trans people should either disappear on their own or identify themselves so that they can be ignored, all for the benefit of transphobic people who would prefer it if they simply didn't exist.
You're telling transgender people to participate in their own oppresion.
That is deeply, deeply transphobic.
This list isn't necessarily complete nor is it in order of importance - all of these reasons are important.
I think most trans people do choose to come out to their partners first, because they want to be sure that their partners are safe before getting sexually intimate with them. The key here, is that it is a choice.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Having Sex While Stealth is Not Sexual Assault.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16935
I'm sure you'll probably flounce after this post, and I'll probably get banned for posting this. But I just can't agree with you. It might not be sexual assault, but it is dishonest.
Respectfully disagreeing with the OP seems reasonable to me. Using the word "flounce" doesn't.
Flounce?!
If you can't get more than five words into your response without using cissexist (and sexist, FWIW) language, maybe "dishonesty" isn't your biggest problem here.
Flounce is a common word used when someone makes a dramatic departure from a message board.
And why would you assume that I'm cis? Perhaps you should check your privilege.
"Flounce is a common word...."
It is?
Where?
On what message boards?
I've never ever heard that word in my life, nor have I ever seen it on the net until I read your comment.
I had to break out the Oxford American Dictionary to even find out what in the blue hell Flounce even means.
According to Oxford :
Flounce (flowns) v. to go in an impatient and annoyed manner , flounced out of the room Flounce n. a flouncing movement.
There was another definition - flounce is also a type of trim on the bottom of a skirt.
Judging by context, I'd bet you mean definition one - but I could be wrong, of course.
Beyond that, I feel that when folks use SAT words like Flounce instead of plain English words, they are privileging the college educated folks in the discussion over those of us who don't come from a higher ed background.
Perhaps it would have been better to say that the OP might storm out of the discussion rather than using fancy upscale words that are not in common use in ordinary American English.
I'm sorry but this seemed like a bit of a stretch to me. Flounce is not some upper-level professional jargon. Maybe it's not common in American English jargon, or maybe it's just not common to your dialect of American English, but there's no need to attack someone because their vocabulary doesn't fall in line with yours. I highly doubt the intention was to exclude or marginalize anyone, and it's absurd to expect everyone to monitor the usage of their language to cater to some subjective standard "education" level. I mean, should I not have used "subjective"? Is "arbitrary" fine, or do I need to break it down?
I don't like to derail threads, but it's really bothersome how syndella got attacked for the usage of a word (potential cissexist or sexist connotations aside) becuase of a supposed "education" privilege.
Agreed. I refuse to censor my vocabulary because of a fear of seeming privileged. I am privileged, and I'm not ashamed of the educational opportunities that have been given to me as well as the opportunities I've worked relentlessly to build for myself. Editing our writing to seem less intelligent or educated is a far more dire problem than the possibility of using a word a reader may not understand.
Additionally, using 'SAT words' on internet forums doesn't put anyone at a disadvantage. If you're online you have access to hundreds of english language resources like dictionaries and reading unfamiliar words is the best way to build vocabulary.
Like amvander, I realize that this comment doesn't contribute to the discussion on this thread and I'm sorry for derailing.
From Urban Dictionary:
Flounce: When a member of an online community announces they are leaving, usually after a protracted disagreement with other members of the community.
The usage is common on internet communities such as LiveJournal and UseNet, as well as all over blogs and messageboards of various kinds.
THANK YOU
Ha ha yeah
Flounce is totally an impossibly complex academic word. It certainly doesn't have a particular usage specific to internet forums. Good call GB!
Weren't you banned before? I thought feministing had a specific policy about returning to the forums under a new username.
I think in this case, the poster (though being pretty rude) just assumed you spend time in the same online circles as they and I do. 'Flounce' is indeed a common term in *certain* circles, and it is used essentially to mean 'abandon a post in an offended huff.' However, in those same internet circles that use 'flounce' as a descriptor, pretty much everyone knows that accusing someone of doing so before they get a chance to is exceedingly rude, and is treating the person like they're a childish tantrum about to happen.
I strongly disliked the original commenter's comment, but as someone who knows the term as they do, they absolutely did NOT intend to use 'flounce' as an SAT word to insult you. They intended to use an 'encyclopedia dramatica' (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Flounce) word to call you a childish wuss who wouldn't be able to take what they had to say with grace. :\
I am a cisgender person. Although that's a word that people use constantly on message boards and comment threads all over the internet, I had to look it up, because even though the word was being used to describe who I am, I didn't know what it meant the first time I saw it used. Actually, to be more accurate, it is absolutely demanded that cis people figure it out on their own, and educate themselves. "Cis" is most certainly not plain english. Maybe in a few years, maybe in a decade, but not right now, it isn't.
I don't see why it should be any different when it comes to any other bloody word in the dictionary for any other person on this planet.
I think that this word is being used in the internet context of "leave a forum after a disagreement." It's still rude of course, but I don't think it's necessarily sexist.
Okay, that's fair. Context matters. :)
Thank you for being polite when correcting me.
Certainly. I truly believe that politeness matters, and I would hope that someone would do the same for me if I was unaware of a recently changed usage of a particular word.
You have me flummoxed on this one.
Flounce:
1) verb, to move or go with emphatic or impatient movements
(Source: http://www.wordia.com/flounce, Collins Dictionary.)
Where's the sexism in that word?!
Your use of flummox perplexes me.
I hope I didn't discombobulate you though.
"Flounce" does actually have a gendered connotation. I wasn't aware that it had gained popularity on the internet. Prior to that, it was used more often to describe women than men. I wouldn't have called it cis sexist, though.
Why do you need to know?
Th only differences between post-op trans women and cis women in bed are that a) trans women can't get pregnant and b) you need more lube with trans women. A) doesn't really apply except in serious long-term relationships, and b) is pretty trivial. I mean for starters, trans women are likely to have their own lube.
Trans men I don't know about from personal experience, so I'm not going to speak.
There's nothing dishonest about it. They're post-op, they have everything society says should pertain to their sex. They ARE of their identified sex. They live, breath, go about their lives in that sex. If said partner has known and fallen in love with this person up to the point of having sex, I fail to see any reason why their history should change that.
This is the third post you have made on this topic. I think that there is some misunderstanding going on here. I think that when people were saying that it was necessary to disclose a transgendered status, that the majority of the people that commented on these posts were refering to pre-op transgendered individuals. (If you read the comments, a lot of them mention the importance of being clear on what genitals you posess at any given time.) I fully agree with this. I think though, that you are right that post-op transgendered individuals do not have to reveal their status, though I still think it is reasonable for a person to be upset about being lied to in the relationship latter down the line. So in general I think it would be best to be completely honest with a romantic partner, but I don't think the ethical obligation to disclose this information is as pressing for post-op individuals.
This comment has been deleted.
Both of your examples involve someone pretending to be someone they aren't, for the purpose of having sex.
That has nothing to do with transgender people.
I should correct myself to say "for the purposes of committing a sexual assault."
The point, is that there is absolutely nothing deceptive about being trans.
not really. the twin can lie simply to have sex, but th act itself may be deemed the assault. same goes for a man lying that he is a woman to have sex with a lesbian
this implies that trans people are ~*maliciously lying*~ about something...
precisely
This whole conversation confuses me. In most cases, when a person has sex with another person, their genitals will be revealed. So, at some point, yes, trans folks do need to either reveal their genitals or have only non-genital sex. Just like cis folks, when you get right down to it. I don't see a way around it.
On the other posts, I was under the assumption that the trans gendered people were pre-op. I'm not quite sure of all of the connotations of "stealth," but I agree with you that it's not sexual assault (unless, of course, there is force or coercion involved).
What would you consider an instance of sexual engagement involving fraud?
It depends on the type of fraud. If someone lies to me, saying they're a feminist rather than the misogynist they truly are, to sleep with me, I'd feel angry, but I don't consider that sexual assault. However, it it's fraud in that they are representing themselves as a specific person who is the ONLY person I was going to have sex with (like if my SO had a twin who represented himself as my SO), I'd call that sexual assault.
For me, it's sexual assault when someone is misrepresenting who they are, not when they are misrepresenting one aspect of themselves that may not have even been discussed before sex.
I'd say, even pre-op, if I was having sex with someone in the dark and I noticed something unexpected, but didn't matter to me at that moment and we continued, it's not sexual assault.
Interesting. I would consider any physical sexual engagement absent consent to be a form of sexual assault.
I am of the opinion that 'consent' premised on a false belief is not consent at all, especially when an individual would not have consented otherwise and the source of that false belief is a fraud deceitfully perpetrated against them in order to manipulate their sexual 'consent'.
ElleStar: "I'd say, even pre-op, if I was having sex with someone in the dark and I noticed something unexpected, but didn't matter to me at that moment and we continued, it's not sexual assault"
What would your orientation be towards the following situation?
-'Person A' and 'Person B' meet at a concert, fully clothed.
-'Person A' is a male bodied transwoman.
-'Person B' will only consent to sexual encounters with female bodied individuals.
Throughout the course of their encounter:
-'Person B' reveals they only have sexual attraction towards female bodied individuals.
-'Person A' purposefully convinces 'Person B' that 'Person A' is female bodied.
-'Person B' decides to engage sexually with 'Person A' based on this false belief.
-'Person B' discovers, after allowing certain physical sexual trespasses routine to sexual encounters, that 'Person A' is in fact male bodied.
-'Person B' withdraws from the sexual encounter after discovering this fact, 'Person A' gives no resistance.
Are the sexual engagements of 'Person A' upon 'Person B' before 'Person B' withdrew from the sexual encounter a form of sexual assault?
I don't know. It seems to me that stating that they aren't sexually attracted to a transgendered person when they obviously can be (and are, in your scenario) negates that point.
Even if Person A simply stated, "I will not have sex with you if you are transgendered. Are you?" And then they're lied to, it might be a form of coercion. But I'd really have to have an understanding of the other power dynamics in the relationship.
Sorry, that's the best I can do with this hypothetical.
no. it's a perfectly valid reason to stop sex, but not sexual assult.
This whole line of argument is dangerous. It legitimizes the very stereotypes that result in trans phobic murders of the type we most recently saw in the case of Angie Zapata.
I mean we've always ridiculed people like Angie's murderer for the transparently false argument that they killed a trans person because they didn't know. Now this argument paves the way for that very defense. Everybody is entitled to informed consent, even people we don't like.
This is very dangerous. The recent LGBT hate crimes bill that BO signed was a step forward, why would we voluntarily take a step back???
a male bodied transwoman... what the fuck does that mean?
Used to describe a trans woman (presumption - sex: male) prior to any action taken to change their physical composition (male sexual organs, etc).
I'll endeavor to describe what I mean differently if there is something problematic .. ?
I should be used to reading these kinds of comments here, but I am disapointed.
ElanaFulana, I just wanted to tell you how much I support what you've written here. It is clear and well written. Thank you for writting this!
Excellent post.
Unfortunately, I am sure that there will be even more defenders of transphobia leaving comments in this post.
I think many people on this forum do not understand that post-op, many transsexuals are indistinguishable (yes, genitals too!) from cisgender people.
Moreover, I understand that many post-op transfolk no longer feel the need to call themselves transmen or transwomen -- they are just men and women, as it should be!
Meaningful differences exist between
1. the circumstance wherein a person does not identify their trans status when the subject is not broached by a potential sexual partner
Example: One finds themselves in a situation wherein a potential sexual partner has not revealed a belief as regards their trans status and then engages in sexual activity.
and
2. a circumstance wherein a person is participating in and perpetuating a deception that involves their trans status to a potential sexual partner
Example: One knows a potential sexual partner has come to an incorrect conclusion as regards their trans status, allows this misconception to persist and take hold without objection, and then engages in sexual activity anyway.
I believe allowing a person to engage in sexual activity under a false belief of this nature is dishonest at best, and probably much more at worst.
And sexual activity encompasses many more activities than where one's trans status can be
Not sure why a draft got posted, reference the next post please :).
Meaningful differences exist between
1. The circumstance wherein a person does not identify their trans status when the subject is never broached, nor a belief revealed, by a potential sexual partner.
Example: A potential sexual partner has never revealed a belief as regards my trans status and I then engage in sexual activity with this person without identifying my trans status.
and
2. A circumstance wherein a person is participating in and perpetuating a deception that involves their trans status to a potential sexual partner.
Example: I know a potential sexual partner has come to an incorrect conclusion as regards my trans status, I allow this misconception to persist and take hold without objection (or even actively perpetuate the incorrect belief), and I then engage in sexual activity with this person.
I believe allowing a person to engage in sexual activity under a false belief of this nature is dishonest at best and probably much more at worst.
I believe everyone has a right to privacy, but I do not believe that right justifies the knowing deception of another person in a situation wherein they are consenting and making determinations about in what ways they are going to be exercising their own rights.
Essentially, one might not have an obligation to disclose their trans status absent evidence that it may be relevant to a potential sexual partner or indication that a potential sexual partner holds a false belief as to one's trans status.
But do we have the obligation to correct false beliefs as regards our trans status held by a potential sexual partner before engaging in sexual activity with them?
I believe that we do. Any 'consent' given that is premised on a false belief is not consent at all.
Using a false belief in this manner (and arguably in some instances to one's advantage), no matter it's source, is deceptive and uncomfortably close to fraud.
So, would you consider a trans person performing his/her/hir gender to be fraud? Perhaps the fact of trans people's existence is a willful deception of others, since they aren't really the gender they say they are?
You realize that trans identity as deception is a really old and fucked up trope, right?
Example that might be easier to grasp. I'm white and also Latina; people assume that I'm not Latina because of my skin color. If I have sex with someone who would not ordinarily have sex with someone of my background, who then finds out that I'm Latina, should they consider the encounter sexual assault? No. There's no deception. I've merely not told them every single bit of my history and they have made an unfounded assumption.
Obviously, there's a huge difference between this and trans people's experience: I'm not likely to be beaten or killed if someone finds out. I don't want to make this into a hierarchy of oppression or anything, it just seems like you'd be more likely to buy "Racism is bad" than "Transphobia is bad"... clearly we aren't to that second step yet.
Trans people do not have responsibility for making sure that their partners do not assume things about them. Full stop.
I do not consider a trans person performing his/her/hir gender to be a fraud.
I would consider a trans person portraying themselves as a cis person to be a deception, but one that could be justified in a number of circumstances.
Something fraudulent emerges when
1) A potential sexual partner overtly holds the false belief that the trans person is a cis person and this false belief is a fundamental premise in their decision to consent.
2) The trans person realizes that this false belief exists and may be relevant to the potential sexual partner's decision to consent, yet allows it to persist without clarification or actively supports the false belief.
3) Sexual engagement between the two persons occurs.
Transpose every instance of 'trans person' and 'cis person' and the dynamic remains the same. If a cis person were allowing a potential sexual partner to believe they were a trans person my position would not change. It's not clear to me how my orientation towards this is transphobic. My issue is with the actions being performed, not with the composition of the actor. The position seems fraudphobic.
Nepenthe: "Example that might be easier to grasp. I'm white and also Latina; people assume that I'm not Latina because of my skin color. If I have sex with someone who would not ordinarily have sex with someone of my background, who then finds out that I'm Latina, should they consider the encounter sexual assault? No. There's no deception. I've merely not told them every single bit of my history and they have made an unfounded assumption."
As I said in the post you replied to:
"Essentially, one might not have an obligation to disclose their trans status absent evidence that it may be relevant to a potential sexual partner or indication that a potential sexual partner holds a false belief as to one's trans status."
The same would hold true as regards your obligation to disclose information as to your white/Latina background. If, however, you realize that your potential sexual partner holds a false belief as regards your background and that this belief is relevant to their decision to consent, and yet you perpetuate and/or support their misconceptions as to your background, your deception is not enabling their informed consent (but deceived consent). What I find to be problematic is when the "unfounded" incorrect assumption becomes founded through your actions/reactions as regards their false belief (original unfounded assumption) as to your background.
I would consider any physical sexual engagement absent consent to be a form of sexual assault and am of the opinion that 'consent' premised on a false belief is not consent at all.
Look forward to your response :)!
How often is it really the case that someone explicitly says "oh, by the way, I'm transphobic, so here's your opportunity to let me know if you're trans, so I don't end up having sex with you"?
I don't think that's what this post is about.
I don't know the prevalence of the circumstances I depict (Unfortunately, I think your hypothetical question reveals a misunderstanding of my argument. I'll restate it again if you'd like, but it's posted 10x times on this thread). I simply described the circumstance under which I believe an obligation exists to correct an overtly held false belief by a potential sexual partner before engaging them in sexual activity.
Further, someone's lack of attraction towards trans women might not find it's source in transphobia, but in their sexual orientation (completely independent of transphobia/socialization).
This comment has been deleted.
but you can't catch anything by sleeping with a trans person
I am puzzled and a little disappointed by the line of argument used in the OP.
There are many statements taken as lemmas (i.e. statements that are self-evident), which cannot be argued with. Well, I disagree with most of them.
"[...] it reinforces the notion that trans bodies are shameful [...]": that is actually irrelevant.
Wishing to know about 'important' information does not imply shame - a woman might want to know if the man chatting her up is married. According importance to the matrimonial status of the man does not imply that she feels that marriage is shameful.
"If you can't tell, you don't need to know." What an approach! Who says that *I* don't need to know?! (As a counterexample; would the OP be upset if he or she spent the night with someone and then learned that his or her partner is a member of the KKK? "If you can't tell..."?)
"The second reason is that it treats sex and privacy like commodities that can be traded under contract." Err, actually, yes, sex can be traded - and there is such a thing as a moral contract. It can be explicit, and it can be implicit and it can be tacit. If someone hides information from a partner while knowing that that partner would consider the information to be relevant then I would say that the withholder is being deceitful - a breach of trust.
"A trans person cannot ligitimately be required to give up their privacy." Nor can anyone else, true. However, by having sex with someone, one has to be realistic - one's privacy is no longer wholly secret. Showing and sharing one's body is part of the deal; I cannot imagine anyone arguing that it is possible to have sex with someone and expect one's whole privacy to remain unbreached.
There are many other examples.
One more point: it is grossly unfair to label people who do think that they have a right to know as "transphobic". It is almost certainly untrue. And it divides the world into two groups: those who agree to sleep with trans people and those who hate them. An unfair grouping.
I completely agree with this comment, but most specifically the last bit - I don't feel like a very large majority of the people on the side for full disclosure are really advocating for transphobic people. Some certainly did make that argument, but I think most people just feel like it is an issue of honesty in an intimate relationship, information much as many other things.
It is, as smiley said, grossly unfair to label those/ any ideas on this side of the argument as "transphobic" simply because they are the other side, and it really undercuts the debate.
"Wishing to know about 'important' information does not imply"
And then you said a lot of other things.
The basic problem with everything you said is that you have categorised "trans" as "important information that prospective partners need to know".
For people whose genital configuration doesn't match their presentation, that's reasonable.
But for post-op trans people, why is it important?
That is the big question. So far the only answers are either about reproduction or transphobia. This is why pushing for disclosure at the casual sex stage makes people call you transphobic - because as far as we can see there isn't any other reason why you'd want to know.
If you can think of one, go ahead.
I am going to say it again since it doesn't seem to be getting through. This is for the protection of trans people (pre op here there is absolutely no reason for a trans person to say anything post op). If you cannot feel comfortable sharing your gender with someone because you are afraid of what they might do, then you shouldn't be sleeping with them in the first place. You are a hell of a lot more vulnerable without your clothes on then you are with them on. Telling your partner before you are about to engage in sex is the best possible thing that you can do for yourself.
I think we're on the same wavelength with that, definitely. I'm just now getting angry/heated because now I've been called transphobic for saying "if you're close enough to have sex or are intending on engaging in sexual acts, you should be able to disclose this information" (paraphrase, of course).
I think we're all aware of the safety concerns, but that's something trans people can navigate for ourselves. We all put ourselves in danger for all sorts of reasons every day, whether we like to drive motorcycles or we like to play in the rain near tall trees. If a trans person decides that the risk of having sex while stealth (or simply decides not to discuss it with a partner) that is that trans person's decision, and it's really patronizing for anyone else to presume to make that call for them.
But that's what this entire discussion has been and is being propagated to be about. Honestly, I think it'd be patronizing if I told you, as a specific trans person what to do in all situations, however many people have been keeping in the abstract of how that consent functions.
As I said in the last OP about this, I think this issue is more about consent than it is about the actual status of the trans person. If this discussion was framed using any number of other experiences which are stigmatized (I used disease last OP because it felt more comparable), it wouldn't be seen as -phobic, just as people wanting to know information about their partner before consenting to sex.
Aside from the weird pile-on below which I'm not even going to touch because there's a lot of privilege going on that I don't want to be associated with, this discussion has really been made into something it, I don't think, originally was. Some posters are trying to force people into thinking that they're transphobic when it really comes down to something else. When do you tell a partner about something which might matter to them? It's a hypothetical situation which each person has to figure out for hirself, I agree, which is why this debate has gone on for three threads (four?).
I don't know where this became about post-op trans folks, but I'm going to tackle this since I've been brought up directly through terminology (stealth), and I feel like I'm being told I hate trans people. I find that wildly offensive and hurtful.
Post-op trans people, since their genitals match their gender presentation, don't have to tell anyone shit. It's when something does not match expectation that that disclosure become something to discuss.
I pose this question, since this hinges so much on safety:
Why in the hell are you having sex with someone you think would perpetrate a hate crime against you if you tell them of your pre/non-op status?
No one's addressed that. If you don't trust them with your safety, why are you fucking them to begin with?
Too bad people don't walk around with "trans-phobic" signs on their foreheads so that trans people and their allies can avoid them. Sometimes you don't know a person's attitude until you bring up the subject matter.
Which, I think, should happen before you have sex with them. No matter what situation regarding the consent is, I think it should be brought up. This isn't specific to trans gender people.
My gut level reaction is that I would want to know. But when I delve into that reaction, I can't find anything behind it that I would consider motivated by reason.
If I replace "post op transsexual" with something else, the only things that keep that same level of offense are things that I consider bad like smiley's memorable example of "KKK member". If I replace it with something innocuous or positive, then I don't mind at all.
Real life example: My wife grew up in the South, but worked hard to lose the accent for academic reasons, so that I did not know upon initially meeting her that she was a Southerner. In fact, I honestly don't remember if I knew where she grew up when we first slept together.
Did I have a right to know? Was my consent fully informed? (No, but it never is.)
I can think of precisely one reason-based reason to want to know that I'm dating a post-op transsexual, and that's sterility. Assuming I want kids (already have one, love her to death, but we're talking hypotheticals here), I would not want to get too deeply involved emotionally if kids were off the table, but sterility shows up for lots of reasons, is often a surprise, and adoption is always an option, so the one "reason" I could think of turns out to be pretty weak.
I'm reminded of this case, which generated a lot of outcry on this very blog. A man was accused of impersonating his brother in order to have sex with his brother's wife. The state Supreme Court ruled that there was no law against obtaining sex through fraud in Massachusetts.
Where to draw the line between "doesn't need to know" and "raped" is left as an exercise for the reader...
Uh, he was impersonating someone else. That's very different than just being ourselves.
thank you ElanaFulana, I completely agree.
Although i think it'd be great it trans people were in relationships where they felt safe and comfortable telling their partners about that aspect of their lives there is no reason they have to disclose this information.
Do people really think they have to disclose every aspect of their lives to someone they have sex with? Even if it concerns an aspect of your body being different due to surgery? Do women with breast implants have to disclose that to every guy they have sex with? (some guys i know hate implants, so i'm sure they'd like to know)
Should you have to tell every casual sexual partner that you have your tubes tied? No? so why is it that people who have altered their genitalia to fit their personality have to tell of their health details to every person they sleep with.
And yes, i think its likely most have told their long term partners of this.
Seriously, if you guys are so scared of sleeping with someone who is trans why not ask before you have sex 'oh, so were you born a woman or a man? not that i'm gonna react violently, but i prefer to know with the people i sleep with'. If people react badly to that think how a lot of people would react to 'oh, yeah, i was born as the opposite sex' from a casual sex partner.
I think something to take into consideration with this is that the discussion originated about an article in Seventeen about a pre/non-op transman making excuses about binding and other things. The submitting party said that she never cared her bf was trans, just that he kept lying to her about.
From there, it was discussed about issues of consent vs. bodily autonomy vs. safety.
Now, we're talking about post-op trans sexuals. These issues keep being pushed in these weird directions based off of what a couple people are saying and then the implication that when someone says something similar it's suddenly everyone agrees with the most out there idea. It's not the case and there cis privilege involved in this, as well as trans paranoia. It's cutting very much both ways.
There were very few people who said anything about it being assault. Most people were talking about whether it behooves a pre/non-op trans person to disclose hir status because of gender binary expectations of genitals and other anatomy.
Post-op trans people are binary conforming and so don't really fit into the discussion we were having in threads past... so I, as well as some other people I see, am confused about how this became about those people and not the people about whom we were speaking.
Bethan,
I disagree with the gist of your argument, but... you do make a good point about disclosure.
I really don't know what should be considered reasonable disclosure. I might not care about someone's former accent, others might. I might not care about someone's politics, others certainly will. Others might not be bothered about someone's other, existing, lovers, I would.
On the other hand, those grey zones should not mask the notion (it is no more than that) that a minimum of honesty is required and expected.
The problem is that these minima are not engraved in stone! I (probably) know what my criteria are (but I have some doubts!), and I certainly don't know what other people's are.
As a good starting point, I would say that if someone suspects that a potential might just have a problem with an aspect of one's person, then it is probably better to inform or desist. Is that a fair argument?
yes they do. Their partner has a right to know that information. I want to know the person who I am sharing myself so intimately with, and I hope that they want to know those things and share those things too. Anything but full disclosure is being dishonest and untrustworthy.
[Deleted due to violation of comment policy]
The circumstance you outline is more akin to fraud than coercion ... and in my mind does not allow for consent at all.
nice victim blaming there.
How about not joining the Klan?
I'm confused...are you suggesting Phenicks is in the Klan?
And who do you suggest is the victim in this situation?
I was responding specifically to this: "How about NOT HAVING SEX WITH SOMEONE WHO HATES YOUR GUTS IN THE FIRST PLACE?"
I was refering to the klan member in the example, not to Phenicks. I was referring to the black woman as the victim.
I'm just utterly confused...if you have sex with someone that hates you, your a victim? I just don't understand.
I'm sorry, I just can't agree with labelling a woman as a victim because you don't agree with their sexual choices. How about setting aside your privilege and giving WOC credit for having agency.
WOC can have sex with whoever they want.
My issue is with the obvious contempt Phenicks has for people who stay in relationships with people that hate them. In this example, a black woman who has sex with a Klan member.
Instead of asking "why do they stay", we should be asking "why do their partners hate them"?
Perhaps I'm confused about the Klan, but I wouldn't think that a klan member would enter into a relationship with a WOC.
it was Phenicks' example, not mine.
No, I believe phenicks example referenced a black woman sleeping with a klansman, not having a relationship with him.
True.
I still take issue with Phenicks' contempt for people that do that.
as far as I'm concerned, everyone should be able to have sex with who they choose, free from fear of hate or violence.
we should be criticizing hate and violence, not people's sexual choices.
That kind of runs counter into the reality of the situation, though. Sure, in a perfect world, we'd be able to express ourselves in whatever way we wanted with no consequence, so long as no other people were harmed unwillingly. But, that's not reality as we live in it now.
As it stands, your argument is that the WOC in this situation is the victim because she misled the racist about her ethnic background when ethnic background is intrinsically important to the racist in his sexual choices. You then go on to equate this woman to being in a situation of domestic violence when the reality of domestic violence stands as the woman didn't enter into a pre-existing potentially abusive situation (abusers couldn't abuse if they, out the gate, abused their partners).
As I had said before, I'm entirely failing to see your logic in this. The WoC misled the racist about something which was important to him (which, where this whole discussion began, is what was being discussed). Whose obligation is it to ask/disclose?
I think an argument can be made in this situation that the racist doesn't have to tell the WoC that he's racist, as much as a transphobe doesn't have to out himself as transphobe. However, there are ways of speaking out something that effects you personally without talking about yourself.
She could bring up the JP in Louisiana who refused to marry a mixed-race couple to test the racism inherent in this man's attitude. A trans person could ask about the inclusive ENDA and the trans component to feel out how someone approaches trans people and any transphobia/biases.
I think a big component we're missing here in this is that there is this expectation on the part of the trans person to go "OH HEY I'M TRANS!" which, while could happen, doesn't necessarily have to in that way. There are ways to broach a topic without outing yourself. This way you remain safe while also getting a feel for the other person. Then, when you're going to hop in the sack, you're more comfortable telling the person of your status because, lo and behold, you have a better idea of the person and hir attitudes towards trans gender people.
No one is a victim; the trans person is still safe and they still get sex in the meantime.
Looks to me like this is not as big a deal as we're motioning it to be. I'm not saying that this pattern will work for everyone, but I think it's important to realize there's ways to glean information without just throwing yourself out there all (excuse the expression) balls-to-the-wall about it.
Who's the victim of what here? I ask because I think it'll help me understand where you're coming from and why I'm so incredibly confused by some of your arguments.
How bout the fact that its perfectly legal for people to join the klan and many do it. You could argue that racists shouldn't be racist but why would you KNOWINGLY put yourself in a vulnerable position with a person who *IS* racist int he first place? Exchange racist for transphobic and you get my point.
The alternative is not to be with a racist/transphobic person or be alone. You have the free agency to do as you please but there are things we do that puts us in danger, like Skydiving and basejumping in the rain. Being with someone who utterly hates you is a very very dangerous thing and a considerably bad choice.
You're not a victim because you choose to be with someone who is detrimental to you, you're a perosn who made a bad decision who chose to be with someone who makes worse decisions to your detriment.
Is that what you tell women who stay in abusive relationships?
I won't force the label of "victim" on anyone who doesn't identify as a victim, but the point I'm making is that instead of focusing on the "bad decision" decisions that people make when entering relationships or staying in them, we should be focusing on the actions of the oppressor.
This is an emerging line of logic and I must admit that I don't know enough about it. But what I will say is that having an ex who is transgender has been instructive in that the YouTube videos he posts periodically show him in the process of figuring it out for himself. I learn with him and that makes what to some is an abstract concept very real.
I'm curious, do you see a distinction between someone who just doesn't bring up that they are trans, vs someone who flat out lies about it when asked (and then still proceeds with the sexual encounter)?
Having not experienced either side of the situation, I don't have all that much to say. My off the cuff opinion is that its not rape but it is dishonest and unfair to your partner to lie about it.
Whoa, my comment was reported? Wow. Does anybody now how to go about finding out WHY my comment was deleted?
Because 1) I'm a WOC, I think by now I've made that very clear. 2) I don't see why its a problem to tell people not to have se xwith someone who hates them or is it somehow bad to try to deter people from havign sex with someone who would kill them if they knew who they really were?
I'm at a loss here. Truly.
I am as well, perhaps our opinions aren't valued here.
No, it's that your "advice" is presumptuous and patronizing. Trans women are fully capable of making these decisions for ourselves.
You can say "I wouldn't have sex with someone like that" and that's fine. But obviously I WOULD, so what are you trying to say? I can manage my own risk-taking, thank you, and when it comes down to it, what works for you might just not work for me. So let me take my experiences and make that decision for myself, if you please.
From the comments policy:
"Victim blaming is never allowed."
That's my guess. That's what you did in that comment.
I've read all the pre-op vs. post-op distinctions in the comments and the OP. Post-op vaginas/labia do usually look a lot like cis vaginas/labia, but post-op penii/scrota don't necessarily. A pre-op/post-op distinction in conversations about genital revelation must by necessity be specific to how good a job the surgeon did. Some people who have had bottom surgery still risk outing themselves when revealing their genitals.
I'm not going to presume to tell anyone what they are required to disclose. I will make the comment that by the time clothes are being shed, emotions and hormones are raging, and that is not the best time for surprising revelations, whether they are about your genitals or your marital state or the fact that you keep your bed in a giant hamster cage, complete with litter. Some things, even when not deal breakers, just go over better when revealed upfront.
I think cis privilege is manifesting itself heavily here. After all, most cis people take the fact that there is a pool (however small it may be) of people who are willing to have sex with them (and also live up to said cis people's standards) for granted. Given the fact that transphobia is highly prevalent, the situation is completely different for trans folks. I personally would not want to have sex with someone who wouldn't want me if I were to reveal a certain detail of my biography, but then again, there is nothing in my biography that would make me an undesirable candidate for even casual sex. If there were, I think I could let my disclosure standards drop a bit (unless it was something like an STD where I could pose actual harm to another person). I like sex. I don't think everyone who is currently foaming at the mouth about full disclosure has really pondered what it would be like to have your honesty rewarded with rejection by people who were genuinely attracted to you a minute ago, time after time, for no logical reason.
I remember reading a post by a trans woman who has casual stealth sexual encounters; she actually said she preferred that situation, however far from ideal it was, to being with so-called "tranny chasers" who completely objectified her and regarded her more as an exotic masturbation aid than a partner. Unfortunately, open-minded individuals are pretty hard to come by; I could see myself doing the same thing if I were in her position.
I think if I were trans and wanted a serious relationship, I would come out to my partner not because I think it's morally obligatory but because trust is essential to a serious relationship, and it would also be a good way to weed out the bigots before you got too attached. But I think trans people are perfectly capable of evaluating their own preferences and unique situations since they possess the same mental faculties as the rest of us. It's not like their ethics are somehow invalid until we cis folks affix our seal of approval to them.
I really agree with this comment.
I think what's coming into play here is the difference between casual sex and relationships.
I can definitely understand the argument that it's dangerous to be transgendered and therefore, many have to lie about their status to stay safe. Also, transgendered people may want to have casual sexual encounters as the sex they identify with, and not someone who has or is transitioning. And if they get into an encounter where they can be stealth and be believed there probably won't be much harm in it.
I can also understand where other people are coming from. While most of us haven't been in a position where the person we're in a relationship with is trans, many of us have been in a relationship where we've been lied to. And a lot of those times, the lying hurt worse than the actual transgression that the partner committed.
So when the "people are assholes and we have to lie for our own safety" argument comes up, there is some defensiveness. People think, "I'm not an asshole, why would my SO lie to me?"
I think what's being lost is the level of relationship here. Trans people can't trust everyone right away and might lie or misrepresent their pasts in order to stay safe when they have personal or sexual encounters with others. But in relationships, it's best for people to be truthful to one another.
And if they get into an encounter where they can be stealth and be believed there probably won't be much harm in it.
Unless they engage in sexual activity with someone who does not want to have sex with a person who is biologically male or female. Then they have violated the other person because they asserted that their right to sex was more important than the other persons right to define their sexuality as they choose.
They have caused actual harm to the other person in the violation because they violated the other persons rights. Defining ones sexuality based upon the sex of other partners is not simply a sexual hangup, and its not merely a kink. This is something which is integral to someones sense of self identity
If it's a one night stand and gender identity never came up, the encounter happened in such a way that the transphobic person didn't know the person they were with was trans, and he or she will never find out that the person they were with was trans, then, no, I don't think there has been any violation.
If someone told me that a person I had sex with back in my college days wasn't actually the sex they represented, I'd be surprised, but I wouldn't feel violated. I didn't come out and tell them my sex. And in the bedroom, I never expect anything that I'm not willing to offer, myself.
Again, like I've stated in this thread, the dynamics change in a committed relationship where honesty should be best policy. But if people are out just to scratch a sexual itch and aren't doing anything dangerous or non consensual, if it's not broached at the time of the sex, it must really not have been that important.
Except I'm not talking about it never coming up, I'm talking about it coming up after some sexual activity has taken place. E.g. oral sex is performed on one person who then finds out that their partner's physical sex did not match up with their sexual orientation, and then I'd say there was harm done.
Well, that's precisely the scenario I'm NOT talking about, then. Like I said, I'm not aware of all of the connotations of "stealth," but I bet, in pre-op people, it doesn't involve sex where the genitalia becomes fully exposed and focused upon.
but why is it the trans person's problem if their potential partner has a weird hang up about the gender someone was assigned a birth?
I a really super gigantic problem with this comment. It takes for granted that everyone's entitled to have sex, even if, in the process, they have to do something that's ethically wrong. My understanding is that we're talking about ethical obligations here, not whether trans people should be able to go stealth and have sex without disclosing just because they're horny and couldn't get any action otherwise.
Except that this issue is being treated differently than other privacy-related issues for no other reason that society has decided it has a right to stick its nose where it doesn't belong. If you used to have a large mole on your face and had it removed, do you have to disclose that to potential sexual partners in case that might be a turn-off for them? Is it sexual assault if you don't? And, of course, one is only expected to disclose one's biological sex if it doesn't match the way they present, according to the majority. If disclosing one's biological sex were a routine part of the process of obtaining consent, then a discussion about ethical obligations would be appropriate. But we all know that's not the case. So what you are trying to do is burden trans people with additional ethical obligations to cater to the majority's irrational fears that are based on emotions and socialization as opposed to an evidence-based ethical framework.
"If disclosing one's biological sex were a routine part of the process of obtaining consent, then a discussion about ethical obligations would be appropriate. But we all know that's not the case."
The reason disclosing ones biological sex is not routine is because 99% of the time it matches gender. So people don't think to ask when its usually a given.
Assumptions: they make an ass out of u and...mptions
But seriously, that's the problem. Not everybody is cis. So we ought to stop assuming they are, if we care so much.
This comment has been deleted.
The thing that most disturbs me about the whole discourse is the idea that the transperson has to disclose their trans status or they are being dishonest.
Gwen Araujo presents herself as a woman, has sex with some dudess. The dude finds out that Gwen is a woman of trans history. They kill her. Their defense? That Gwen lied to them. That they were basically sexually assaulted.
What was seen as the lie? That she was a woman.
People who say that transfolk have to disclose or they are being dishonest are basically saying that transmen are not really men and that transwomen are not really women.
That is the transphobic part.
When I live my life and meet people and tell them I am a man, I am in no way being deceitful. This is not about safety, this is about being honest. Telling people I am a man is being honest. Telling them I was once a woman, or that I am really a woman, would be the lie. Because I am not really a woman, and I never was a woman. I once lived as a woman, but that doesn't mean I was or am a woman.
Do I disclose to people I'm dating that I am a man with a trans history? Yeah--mainly because as a transman without bottom surgery I'm going to have to sooner or later. Do I do it right away? No. Why should someone know my entire medical history before they know my middle name, before they know who I am? Being trans is not who I am. It is something that is part of my background. Many of the people in my life don't know about my transhistory. I am not lying to them in anyway. I am living truthfully finally. And I will tell you this, if there were bottom surgery that I could get that would give me passable genitalia, I would probably not disclose at all. I might at some point in time if it came up...but you know what? It rarely does.
Gay people come out so that people can see them for who they really are. When transpeople come out people very often stop seeing them for who they really are.
I wonder what people here would say if I said I didn't want to date survivors of sexual assault. What if my last girlfriend was a survivor of sexual assault and didn't tell me that until after we already seriously dating. Then she revealed the truth about her. So she lied to me and got me to date her dishonestly. She should have told me on the first date that she was a survivor so that I could have dumped her right away. She basically sexually assaulted me. What would people say about that? I bet people would not be all that sympathetic to my position.
I think some of the tension in here comes from whether being trans is "just different." It's comparable to a question like, pre-civil rights, would it have been wrong to conceal from someone you were dating that you were actually black (if you could otherwise pass)?
The OP is right that this is question of whether trans people are obligated to invest effort in supporting transphobia. However, I think it's more subversive than it's being cast: it's not that this obligation arises out of trans people needing to support individuals' transphobia, but out of trans people acknowledging that they're operating in a fundamentally transphobic environment. If you sleep with a cisgendered person without them knowing you're trans, and your status later comes out to more than just that person, you've stigmatized that person. Additionally, we live in a time when being transgendered is still not legally considered the same as being born cisgendered in your gender of presentation (in many, if not most, legal jurisdictions). There's a legal argument that there's fraud going on in not making your status clear.
Finally, it's not cisgendered privilege you're seeing here, but a straining effort for the cisgendered to have their sexualities taken seriously. A trans person may not see himor herself as different from a cisgendered person of his or her gender presentation, but to the person who does not want to sleep with a trans person, they are different. To the world at large, they are different.
There isn't a social movement on earth that has ever succeeded without the support of "not in my back yard" people. You may want to see a day when trans status is like having colored contact lenses or having had your appendix removed, but we're so far from there that it's useless to pretend these things don't need to be discussed. It's like revisiting this article : http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28491 ("Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years")
And here, I know, no trans person needs me to tell them that society's not where it should be in terms of trans acceptance, or that they should start crying for the poor people who didn't want to have sex with the real them... but in a world where being trans is dangerous, and being WITH a trans person is dangerous, and it can cause such deep trauma for the person who didn't have all the available information... sleeping with someone and not disclosing post-op trans status ahead of time is an aggressive act. You're painting someone else with a stigma you don't want to have, yourself, and it's akin to saying that if the whole world had herpes, it wouldn't be a big deal. (herpes = minor physical distress with few actual negative effects in the age of modern medicine, but with severe social stigmatization)
Finally, it's not cisgendered privilege you're seeing here, but a straining effort for the cisgendered to have their sexualities taken seriously. A trans person may not see himor herself as different from a cisgendered person of his or her gender presentation, but to the person who does not want to sleep with a trans person, they are different. To the world at large, they are different.
This. I'm a hetero cis man who isn't interested in romantic relationships with trans women, and it seems to me that many in this thread are strongly implying - if not outright stating - that my sexuality isn't okay, that I'm wrong for being sexually interested in who I'm sexually interested in. Nobody else's sexual orientation is questioned on this site; if someone says that she is a lesbian and is wired to desire sex with only women, nobody here (or at least nobody here that doesn't want to get immediately banned) tells her that she's wrong or a misandrist for not wanting to date men. The fact that her orientation isn't questioned is absolutely appropriate and right, as her orientation is her business and nobody else's. But when someone says that they don't want to have sex with a trans person, that's up for question and the person is a transphobe? I don't buy it. Why can't people accept my sexuality - hetero and cis - for what it is, just as I accept theirs? Why should my sexuality be considered bigoted while theirs is sacrosanct? Shouldn't we all respect one another's sexual orientations?
I'm cis and hetero male also, and I kind of see where you're going with this. But also, as a "hetero cis man who isn't interested in romantic relationships with trans women" maybe you ought to take someone questioning your sexuality as an education.
I'm not saying it's right for it to be questioned this way, but before you get too upset about it maybe you better try it on and let it soak in a little.
"Why can't people accept my sexuality - hetero and cis - for what it is, just as I accept theirs?"
Come on man, EVERYBODY accepts your cis het man sexuality. The world is crafted around it. Some people will never know what it feels like to walk down the street and just kind of be who they are so maybe for five minutes on this blog you can be offended a little.
Yah, but now you're just reducing this to one of those pesky Privilege wars, where Privileged people lose just because the world is set up in their favor. If you're going to take it there, why not say that straight guys are *obligated* to sleep with trans women just to even the odds a little and make trans women feel better about themselves? Hell, why not say that there should be dating affirmative action?
We date and sleep with who we want to date and sleep with, and those desires and concepts overlay a plethora of details, some major, and some minor. Sex at birth is a major one for a lot, most, nearly all, cishetero guys. You're disrespecting their sexual orientation/preference by not disclosing that you're a trans woman. And so if we're going to start getting into what is and isn't fair as a driving criterion for who you're going to sleep with, then I'm going to protest as bigoted the fact that some women who think I'm otherwise awesome don't want to sleep with me because I'm very hairy. It's not my fault, and hair removal can be expensive and can cause nerve damage and severe skin irritation. Of course, since people usually take their shirts off while having sex, I can't really go stealth...
Depending on your peer group, roughly 1 in 5 people in the US have herpes, and that percentage is probably growing. That's a huge percentage, but the stigma is still there.
If I found out that someone I had had sex with was trans, I would be upset and feel deeply violated. Does that make me transphobic? Yes, absolutely, it does. And I have a responsibility to change those gut-level prejudices that I have, because I know that it's morally wrong to have them. But it's not something that can necessarily be accomplished overnight- intellectually knowing something, and bringing your feelings into line with that knowledge, are two very different undertakings.
However- I am not certain that my responsibility to change my transphobic impulses translates into a trans person's right to have sex with me to which I did not give informed consent.
Is sexual assault (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, sex that causes a participant to later feel assaulted or violated) an appropriate punishment for transphobia? One could certainly make the argument, "Whatever sense of violation she's feeling now, she brought it on herself throught her transphobic feelings and she deserves it for being such a hateful little bigot." One could also make the argument that no one deserves to feel sexually violated, for any reason, ever.
I don't know what's right here.
Some people don't want to date survivors of sexual assault, or people with depression, to do so would upset them and make them feel violated--does everyone who is a survivor of sexual assault have to disclose that they are a survivor before they sleep with anyone or else they themselves can be accused of being sexual assaulters?
"One could also make the argument that no one deserves to feel sexually violated, for any reason, ever."
I agree with that sentiment. The problem is that we can't always predict or control other people's feelings. The only thing we can control is our actions.
In the example I gave in my post, The BDSM person might feel like they were raped, but that doesn't mean that's what happened, nor does it mean that their partner is responsible for their feelings.
This is particularly true with prejudice. Prejudice as a nasty way of altering our perceptions and making us believe things that aren't true.
I think people need to take responsibility for their own prejudice. If they can't accept the possibility of having sex with a trans person, then they shouldn't have sex. Or, they should take the "risk", but not blame their partner for their reaction.
Its not about blame or deserving to feel violated. Its about taking responsibility for one's own prejudice.
You speak the truth.
For another example. Let's a say a racist meets a hot person of their preferred gender (let's say someone like either Rashida Jones or Wentworth Miller as you prefer--but our hypothetical hot person does not identify as black because they find one-dropism tiresome and irritating) and they have a hot time in the bedroom. The racist then finds out that the hot person in question is "really black!" But hot person neglected to mention this upfront! Now we call the hot person a liar and a rapist? And the racist who feels violated by having been "tricked" into having sex with a black person is the victim?
And interracial couples still have stigma attached to them, and the racist might get stigma by association for dating a person who is black...even though no one in society would read that person as black nor does that person identify as black.
So that mixed raced person if they want equal rights need to identify as others identify them and act accordingly! They have to deny their truth and accept the truth of the racist or they are a rapist!
What is up with this line of argument?
Oh, kind've like how if a woman doesn't want to get knocked up, she should keep her legs shut?
Nice.
All I know that is, as a mixed race person, I certainly wouldn't want to sleep with someone who was a racist. But that's just me.
Right, I'm a mixed race person, too. And there are a lot of people I don't want to sleep with. For example republicans.
But there are mixed race people who don't identify as mixed race. They identify as white. Just because we are living in the aftermath of Jim Crow laws that define anyone with a small sliver of black ancestry as black doesn't mean that everyone see it that way. A white-identifying mixed race person may not have a problem dating a racist if they themselves don't identify as a racial minority. And such a mixed race person probably wouldn't disclose the "truth" that they are really black if they don't think that is true. And if they are truly passable, in all likelihood it won't come up. So why are they a sexual assaulter for lying to their racist lover? Heck, they might not even realize their lover is racist for months and months or even years into the relationship. Because while the white-identifying mixed raced person may not disclose this "truth" on the first day, neither may the racist.
Heck, I have dated some crazy classist people. I didn't realize they were classist until well into the relationship...because they didn't disclose their classism at the go. I would not have slept with them or dated them if I had known they were classist (cuz although I'm working in the academy, I'm really very working class in my background and if you can't deal with my family you are out of there). But I don't call them liars or say they sexually assaulted me.
How exactly did you jump to that conclusion based on what I said?
There is a huge difference between slut-shaming, and telling people to take responsibility for their prejudices.
I'm lost as to how you could even see a similarity.
You are giving people certain conditions on which they should or shouldn't have sex. I mean, if they don't want to have sex with a certain kind've person, they shouldn't have sex at all! That's what you seem to be saying.
"You are giving people certain conditions on which they should or shouldn't have sex. I mean, if they don't want to have sex with a certain kind've person, they shouldn't have sex at all! That's what you seem to be saying."
All I'm saying is that if someone is so deeply prejudiced that they can't stand the idea of having sex with someone whom they are prejudiced against, and if they can't always know whether or not their partners are one of those people, then they shouldn't have sex.
Or, if they are going to have sex, they shouldn't blame their partners for their feelings.
the main point, is that they shouldn't expect their partners to take responsibility for their prejudice by outing themselves.
Pregnancy is really not comparable here, but if you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT EVEN POSSIBLY GET PREGNANT OR YOU'LL DIE, then maybe you SHOULDN'T be having sex.
It's risk analysis. If getting pregnant is life-or-death to you then you need to seriously consider whether or not sex is a good idea for you, knowing as you do the risks involved.
Gwen Araujo's murderers contended that having sex with a trans woman was life-or-death; it just happened to be HER death that came of it. If they cared so much (and that's assuming they really didn't have any idea, which I have a hard time believing...) they should have been letting potential partners know: "I don't want to love/date/have sex with/have my children taught by/by food from/give the time of day to a trans person." It's your hangup, so do something about it. It's not my job to guess what you do and do not care about, so if something isn't relevant for an immediately pressing reason, I'm not bringing it up, because I don't assume everyone has that particular bigoted problem with me.
But her murderers DIDN'T bring it up, because apparently it wasn't that big of an issue until after the fact, when they realized that for a second there they'd shown a trans woman respect, and gosh, why would you do that when it's more fun to beat the shit out of her?
So really, this is more like a person not wanting to get pregnant, but taking absolutely no steps to keep that from happening. Except, of course, an abortion is still an option for a pregnant person; for transphobes it takes an abortion of an altogether more macabre sort to make right their perceived errors.
(discussing very specifically pre-op)
How is it prejudice to be homosexual or heterosexual? It is a deeply seated part of who a person is and for most people it is based upon the sex of their partner not on the gender of their partner. It does not suggest that all the other situations are bad, merely that the person is not attracted to those. A lesbian woman does not hate men because she does not want to have sex with them just as a heterosexual woman does not hate women because she does not want to have sex with them. So why should it be any different if they differentiate based upon sex rather then gender?
It is not a question of bigotry but a question of someone not having a very crucial part of their sexuality violated.
It isn't that simple.
Trans men are not women.
Trans women are not men.
That is the bigotry.
And people don't date based only on sex rather than gender. I know very few straight men who would look at Brad Pitt and upon finding out that Brad Pitt had a vagina would say--Brad Pitt is woman because of the vagina and that is all I care about so I'm going to go walking down the street hand and hand with Brad Pitt and kissing on a mustachioed Brad Pitt because he's totally really a woman. Similarly, I know few straight women who would be super happy to date Heather Locklear upon finding out that Ms. Locklear has a penis.
It isn't just what is in your pants. It is your smells and walking down the street hand in hand and all sorts of things.
It isn't that simple.
Trans men are not women.
Trans women are not men.
That is the bigotry.
And that was asserted nowhere in the claim, nor required for a person to not want to have sex with the transperson. Many people do define a large part of their sexuality upon sex. It's right there in the name heterosexuality homosexuality. They do not need to make an assertion about the other persons gender to refuse consent based upon the other persons physical sex.
And people don't date based only on sex rather than gender.
That it might be based on both does not disprove my point.
Sex is more than just genitalia.
It is a combination of genitalia, gonads, hormones, DNA, secondary sex characteristics and gender identity. And none of those things fit into binary boxes.
Let me recommend the book Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality by Anne Fausto-Sterling.
Definitely a good book.
A person has the right to define which types of sexed people he or she will consent to having intercourse with. It does not get decided by the other person.
"A person has the right to define which types of sexed people he or she will consent to having intercourse with. It does not get decided by the other person."
I beg to differ to a certain extent, when someone has sex both parties decide what kind of sexed person they want to be involved with. Is not a one way kind of deal. This all deals with the ideal of relationships in general. I do believe however, that trans people, because in their specific circumstances should disclose to a potential sexual partner their transgender status. And is a win-win situation for both parties regardless of who is transgender (maybe both!) For the transgender individual(s), disclosing before a sexual relationship enables them to make sure that they are going to be intimate with a person that shares the ideals that they have and that they don't have a problem with their lifestyle. Personally as a trans woman myself, I would not want to be intimate with someone that would feel hatred towards transgender individuals, so why hide the fact that I am trans even if I went "all the way in" post-op. And lastly but most importantly, as we learn from sad cases such as Gwen Araujo and Angie Zapata, this is all about safety as well. This is also an issue of honesty.
For those of you that think is all about genitals, penises or vaginas or whether a surgically constructed vagina or penis is indeed consider a real vagina or penis, consider this: Just because a trans woman has a penis doesn't mean she is going to use the penis to engage in a sexual relationship. That is a decision that needs to be agreed by both parties, and this is even true in "normal" cis-heterosexual relationships. For the purpose of this writing, sexual assault is not defined by whether your trans partner didn't tell you his or her status in a sexual relationship. Sexual assault is defined in terms of willingness. Do you want to have sex with a transgender individual? If you say no (and you are in your right to say so) but the transgender person forces you to have sex then yes is assault. If you happen to enjoy sex with a stealth transgender individual but later found out that she or he is transgender, there is no way you could claim it was assault because it was consented.
Yeah that sounds all good and well now. But if you were a lesbian that used dildos and you got with a transwoman who still had a enis and used her penis and not a dildo would you not be very extremely pissed off about that? Would you not feel lied to and betrayed? You CONSENTED to sex with a dildo NOT sex with a penis.
It is not WRONG to be heterosexual or homosexual those two things are about the genitalia you have for the overwhelming majority of people. If it weren't than gay men would be sexually attracted to any ciswoman who presented as a man and straight women would be attracted to ciswomen who presented as men as well KNOWING they did not have penises.
"cis gendered woman who presents as a man" let's call such a person a pre-op transman. Well, yeah, gay men and straight women date transmen all the time.
Now to go converse to your assertion that gentitals is all that matters, I don't know a lot of heterosexual men who would date me, who basically looks like Cuba Gooding Jr. with a goatee and moustache, who would make out with me in public, who dancing with me, introduce me to their buddies, all because I have a vagina.
If all that mattered were genitalia, then the straight guys here should have no trouble dating transmen or post-op transwomen.
Right, but what if a given lesbian cis woman were a survivor of sexual assault, and for no fault of her own, and because of no transphobia on her part, her trauma had caused her to have a seriously phobic reaction to the sight of a penis, no matter whether the penis were the body part of a pre-op trans woman or a man?
Isn't that kind of problematic? Shouldn't any sensitive lover not want to put their partner in a potentially terrifying situation?
It's a hard line to walk. But if that hypothetical lesbian cis woman would have been able to deal with dating a trans woman upon full disclosure -- even if that would have meant waiting a little longer to have sex, and mentally preparing herself for the body she would be interacting with -- it seems pretty sad to lose out on the relationship because of a desire to go stealth.
A pre-op trans woman who wants to remain stealth from her lover is not going to be showing her any penises. That would defeat the goal of being stealth. So your hypothetical cis gendered lesbian surviver of sexual assault wouldn't have to deal with penises.
But let's put this in the real and take it out of the hypothetical in my experience this is not about penises.
I dated a cis gendered bisexual woman who was a surviver of sexual assault. And she also mostly dated women. And she was suffering from PTSD. And she ended up deciding to date me. For all I know she decided to date me because I was a man without a penis, I don't know. But you know what? It didn't make a difference if I had a penis or not. In the middle of sex she would smell me and then she'd have a freak out. Just my smell. Then everything would stop and I'd help her with whatever she needed to get through her freak out. I'm not a sexual assaulter or a problematic person just because the way I smell was a trigger for her.
And also, I think it is really problematic to connect sexual assault and lesbianism in the way that it is being connected. That is very old stereotyping.
Look, the fact is this is not a hypothetical. I am a survivor of sexual assault. Brutal sexual assault. When I was fourteen I was almost strangled to death by my sex partner and then almost run over by his car.
And I dated a brilliant, kind, beautiful, amazing trans woman who is "pre-op," although I don't even like that word at all because it implies that the telos of her gender identity is SRS, which it's not, because even with a penis she is A WOMAN.
And even with the attitude I have, I had trouble dealing with her body at times. I have a phobia about penises, not about trans people. When you are almost killed, that causes a reaction on a certain fight-or-flight level. I feel a terrible amount of grief for the fact that my phobia caused her to feel more guilty for her gender identity than she has already been made to feel by the rest of society. But it would have been a lot harder if I hadn't known that my girlfriend was trans. I don't even think this would mean she sexually assaulted me, at all. I am just saying I appreciated her transparency. WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH THAT?
And look, so what if being sexually assaulted by a man made me more willing to take lesbian relationships seriously? Are you kidding me? Can't I have my own reasons? Does that origin somehow invalidate the profoundly meaningful and passionate lesbian relationships I have had?
You should seriously think about who you might be hurting with statements like this.
It isn't just what is in your pants. It is your smells and walking down the street hand in hand and all sorts of things.
But it's also what's in your pants. I'm a heterosexual cis male, and I don't want to have sex with someone who has a penis, no matter whether that person is a cis man or a pre-op trans woman. For that matter, in all honesty I really don't want to be romantically involved with a post-op trans woman. I don't think that not wanting to be romantically involved with a trans woman makes me transphobic anymore than not wanting to be romantically involved with a man makes me homophobic or a misandrist. I fully support equal rights and I fully support hate crime laws, but my orientation is such that I don't want to be romantically involved with men or trans women.
That's not a sexual orientation.
Saying you don't want to be involved with trans women but you're OK with being involved with cis women is like saying your "sexual orientation" is that you're only attracted to white people.
Maybe you will only end up dating white people. But that sure as hell isn't a sexual orientation. If it's anything, it's some slight racial bias. And if you refuse to date trans women, that's transphobia.
Why are the major physical differences between a cis woman (presumption- sex: female) and a post-op trans woman (presumption- sex: originally male) irrelevant to sexual orientation?
Two reasons:
1) There aren't any totally consistent external physical differences.
2) For the same reason that the average physical differences between members of various racial groups do not constitute a sexual orientation.
Here's the unexamined assumption in your posts: that trans women are "really" men, and vice versa. We are not.
"There aren't any totally consistent external physical differences."
Why are external physical differences all that should matter in sexual orientation? I am of the position that fundamental internal physical differences are can be relevant to sexual orientation, ie. reproductive organs/ability to fulfill the female reproductive role.
"Here's the unexamined assumption in your posts: that trans women are "really" men, and vice versa. We are not."
That assumption absolutely does not exist. If a trans woman self-identifies as a woman, she is a woman. However, that does not therefore mean she is female-bodied or of the female sex. Further, so there's no confusion, that also doesn't mean (if they were originally male-bodied), post-op, they are male-bodied. My assertions rest on the premise that there are physical differences between a female body and a trans woman's body that might be relevant to some individual's sexual orientation/preferences (independent of transphobia, etc).
There's no value judgment attached to any of this.
So far, you've named "reproductive capacity."
It's fine that someone might want to, say, marry a woman capable of giving birth. That's still not the same thing as "sexual orientation." Nobody has ever accused a sterile cis woman of being deceptive simply for having sex with a man who eventually wants to have children.
This isn't at all unique to relationships with transgender people.
I think sexual attraction is usually based on a combination of being attracted to someone's personality and being attracted to their body.
Our sexual orientation and socialization influences what traits we're attracted to, but that's largely outside of our individual control.
If someone isn't attracted to another person based on some physical trait, fine. No on is saying that they should be forced to be with them.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
The difficulty arises in the fact that consent given without being informed is not consent.
The physical sex of the other person is a major factor in many peoples choice to give consent.
I think consent is much more complex than many feminists admit. Consent is, by its very nature, murky. If you feel that consent is rendered null and void by not knowing various details of a partner's life, I would argue that you aren't consenting to most of the sex that you have. You can never know everything that you might not like about a person when you decide to have sex with them. It does not invalidate the consent. It simply means that when you enter into relationships with people, you never truly know everything about them.
Further, this kind of thinking about consent related to trans people shows that you think that trans people are essentially and vitally different than "normal" people. Trans men and women are men and women, not inferior women and men, but real women and men -- they just got there differently.
This isn't about needing to know everything about your lover. It is about needing to know that the most basic things about them, the things you are attracted to, are what you think they are. Sex and gender are a part of the attraction equation as are many other things. To mislead here is dishonest and in what should be an intimate romantic relationship a betrayal of trust. Not knowing these things completely fudges up informed consent. That in no way makes it rape. Honestly who came up with that idea?
you know the basic things about your lover -- they have the primary and secondary sex characteristics that you desire (stealth being that they are post op and passing); they are therefore what you desire sexually.
They have the sex characteristics you desire (what you and many posters in this thread have said is necessary for consent), so by your very definition, what is the problem?
I'm sure the desire to be sexually intimate and the desire to tell your partner the most intimate details of your history make it difficult for trans folk to decide when they broach this subject with someone. I'm not disputing that.
I state again that the reason that people want to term having sex with trans people sexual assault is because they are so viscerally disgusted by the idea of having sex with a trans person. And sorry, that is bigoted and all kinds of wrong.
I just wish people would question why they think that there is something so disgusting and so wrong about having sex with a trans person. Their sex and sexual organs are not "real" enough? They have genitals reconstructed out of their own genitals and skin. They take hormones to help match their identity to their body.
Why are trans people seen as so different?
Should a large breasted girl who had implants tell her partner before they have sex that her breasts aren't real? Should someone who has had any surgery or medicines to improve their bodies, noses, skin, mental functioning, moods, etc?
I state again that the reason that people want to term having sex with trans people sexual assault is because they are so viscerally disgusted by the idea of having sex with a trans person. And sorry, that is bigoted and all kinds of wrong.
Why? Why is that bigoted? I'm a heterosexual cis man who would be viscerally disgusted by the idea of having sex with another man. Does that make me a homophobe or misandrist? I'd argue that it doesn't; my orientation is such that I don't want to have sex with a man, and I shouldn't have to explain it any further than that.
I similarly don't want to have sex with a trans woman, whether pre- or post-op. I shouldn't have to explain it any further than that, just as I shouldn't have to explain my desire not to have sex with men. It is my orientation, plain and simple, and I owe nobody an explanation or an accounting for it.
Keep in mind here that I'm not one of those who would call having sex with a stealth trans person sexual assault - though I do see it as ethically problematic. But I find it really problematic that my sexual orientation is defined as "bigoted." Why are the sexual desires of those who only want to be involved with cis people unworthy of the same respect rightly given to everyone else's sexual desires?
You are saying that trans women are similar to men.
That's what makes you bigoted. It has nothing to do with your sexual orientation.
No, I'm saying that I'm not interested in being involved with a trans woman. I'm also not interested in being involved with a man. I'm not saying they're similar, except insofar as my not desiring to be romantically/sexually involved with them. The comparison was to point out that my attraction to cissexual women is just as much a part of my sexual orientation as my heterosexuality, and that we in this community wouldn't accept the labeling of anyone else's sexual orientation as bigoted.
The problem is, there are a lot of trans women out there who you simply do not know are trans. If you are attracted to them, you are attracted to trans women.
Finding out about it later and getting turned off does not invalidate your former attraction. It just demonstrates your prejudice.
Thats a poor analogy. Take it a step further. What if I, a cis heterosexual woman, was attracted to a woman dressed in drag.(Not trans or anything like that, just simple drag) Upon learning that she is a she I would no longer be attracted to her. It doesn't now mean that I am attracted to women. The same applies to trans people. This is not prejudice. You really shouldn't shame other people for their sexual orientaion. If you tried to pull that on a lesbian woman on this site you would probably get banned.
"Thats a poor analogy. Take it a step further. What if I, a cis heterosexual woman, was attracted to a woman dressed in drag.(Not trans or anything like that, just simple drag) Upon learning that she is a she I would no longer be attracted to her. It doesn't now mean that I am attracted to women. The same applies to trans people. This is not prejudice. You really shouldn't shame other people for their sexual orientaion. If you tried to pull that on a lesbian woman on this site you would probably get banned."
A drag kind isn't a real man, a drag king is a character portrayed by an actress.
When you lose your attraction for a drag king upon finding out, what's happening is that you're finding out that the person you were attracted to was fictional, and that the real person is a woman. If you aren't attracted to women, you lose interest.
Trans people aren't characters. They are real people with gender identities that are just as valid as as cisgender people's. When someone comes out to you as being transgender, nothing about them has actually changed. The only thing that changes is your perception of them. If you go from being attracted to loosing interest upon finding out, its because something has changed about how you perceive them.
And lets not pretend that this change in perception is unrelated to their gender.
Upon finding out, on some level you've stopped perceiving the person as being a real man or a real woman. The fact that you would use a drag king as an example is actually very telling.
Thats what's transphobic about it.
I never said "Drag King" I said a woman dressed in drag. Very different. Maybe I don't understand all the connotations of the word drag. I thought it just meant dressing like the opposite gender. I wasn't trying to imply any sort of intentional deceit, just a misunderstanding.
Where did all that "fictional character" stuff come from? I never said trans people aren't real men and women. I am just not romanitically interested. This is not transphobia.
Oh and our perception of people is constantly changing for many reasons. You discover something new about a person and your perception of them may change. Whether you are attracted to them or not may change. Don't try to make being cis or trans somehow immune to this.
except being heterosexual should not mean that trans women are not an option, unless you think of them as separate from 'women'
I suppose I really don't understand your position. Presumably, you are hetero (from your post), and if you were attracted to someone who was completely passing as a woman, you would probably have sex with her, telling me that your orientation has little to do with your actual desire for "real" women as opposed to trans women.
If all the parts are the same and the person is a woman on the inside and out, why would you have reason not to have sex with her (presuming you were attracted to her)? The only thing that springs to my mind is prejudice. I simply don't buy the argument that it is an orientation not to want to have sex with trans folks. It doesn't fly because they, in many instances, pass with great success, and presumable have great sex with people who do not necessarily know that they are having sex with someone whose body did not always match their gender identity.
What is the difference between a trans woman and a woman for you, especially if there is no difference between having sex with one vs. the other?
Talking about "passing" can be troublesome.
The word implies that there is some cisgender standard that trans people must measure themselves against, and if they don't measure up, they fail.
A lot of trans people use that term, but I still think its important to be careful with it.
There are other terms that are much less judgmental.
the OP here uses the word "stealth" which implies some form of passing and deception
"I similarly don't want to have sex with a trans woman, whether pre- or post-op. I shouldn't have to explain it any further than that"
There's a contradiction here. On the one hand, you are saying that post-op trans women are different from cis women on some fundamental level that makes them unattractive to you. On the other hand, you are pushing for disclosure - which makes the assumption that you find trans women attractive enough that you'd shag them if you didn't know.
So you acknowledge that you could find a trans woman attractive physically, and you acknowledge that you might not spot that she's trans, but then your position is that if you knew you would then be disgusted with yourself (see your description of a nauseous reaction).
So you see "trans" as a possibly-unnoticeable trait that still somehow (if noticed) makes people extremely unattractive. Disgustingly so.
I can solve your problem for you. Just weart a badge that says "I am transphobic". None of them will ever try to get you in bed, and it has the advantage of being honest. You're all in favour of openness and honesty, right?
Sex and gender are two different things. For example, I once knew this guy. When I first met him I thought he was really cute and I was a little attracted to him. Then I was told he was trans. I still thought he was cute (he was very cute) but I was no longer attracted to him. See, I was attracted to his gender but not his sex. This isn't bigotry. Its just personal preference. I'm not denying that bigots exist they do. But to label everyone as a bigot who cares about sex and gender is wrong and insulting.
we're talking about two different things, I think. I understand your perspective. I'm talking about transsexuals (people who feel they are born in the wrong body, and identify completely as the opposite gender). Many transsexuals understand themselves in as sex matching gender. For instance, a trans man feels himself to be a man in every way. Post op, he would understand his gender, body and identity as matching. Most transsexuals do not necessarily understand their gender identity as fluid. Does that make sense?
I'm not at all saying that as a hetero, cis woman, being attracted to someone masculine means that you should be able to have sex with masculine women and not have a problem with the fact that your partner has a clitoris instead of a penis.
What I am saying is that when a transsexual is post op, they are their new gender/sex, and they should be seen as the gender they have crafted their bodies into. And if the body parts are the same as bio folks, then I don't buy the idea that you can have an orientation that disallows you from being attracted to post-op transsexual folks.
**Sigh** We will have to agree to disagree.
I just think that if you knew transsexuals, you would understand my point. With transgender people, sure, I understand that you might not be attracted to someone who is "gender bending", gender queer, etc.
But, I think that it would be difficult for you to know the difference between bio men and trans men - with clothes and without.
I also don't know if the guy I talked about was pre/post op or if he planned on GRS at all. It was none of my business so I did not ask.
Wait a minute, so whether or not I am allowed to not be attracted to someone I mistake as a cis man all depends on how they identify? Shouldn't my attraction to other people be dependent on how I define my own sexuality? As far as post op trans men are concerned, I don't care about their genitalia. Attraction is not limited to heterosexual fuckability. I can be attracted to someone just fine with out sleeping with them.
I think consent is much more complex than many feminists admit. Consent is, by its very nature, murky. If you feel that consent is rendered null and void by not knowing various details of a partner's life, I would argue that you aren't consenting to most of the sex that you have. You can never know everything that you might not like about a person when you decide to have sex with them. It does not invalidate the consent. It simply means that when you enter into relationships with people, you never truly know everything about them.
You can consent without knowing (for certain) everything, even if some of that knowledge might invalidate consent. A person can enter into a contract with the expectation that the other party has informed them accurately of any information they know to be relevant or have reason to believe is likely to be relevant.
Further this is not some minor issue. This is about the fundamental nature of a persons sexuality. It is not a 'detail' it is a major aspect.
Their sexuality is the same -- being a transsexual isn't a sexual orientation. If they are trans men who desire women, they are heterosexual, if they are trans women who desire men they are hetero and vice versa.
I agree that this is a large part of a person's life, that if you are going to be in a long term relationship, you should probably address. However, having sex with someone does not mean you have to delve into the big issues with them. Use me as an example, I have never told partners about my "issues" (ED, mental illness) right away. It has usually happened afterwards, a long time after the first time we have sex. With some, I wish I could tell, but it's really hard. I'm sure it's this way for trans folk. Not every sex partner deserves to hear my deepest darkest secrets -- that comes with true intimacy and a longer commitment.
Their sexuality is the same -- being a transsexual isn't a sexual orientation. If they are trans men who desire women, they are heterosexual, if they are trans women who desire men they are hetero and vice versa.
We aren't talking about the sexual orientation of the transgendered person. We are talking about the sexual orientation of their sexual partner.
That sexual orientation which very often requires their partner to possess a particular category of genitalia as a requirement for any sexual activity even if that sexual activity does not involve that set of genitalia.
I'm talking about transsexuals...I should be clear on that. Maybe we're misunderstanding each other here.
My argument assumes that a transsexual man has a phalloplasty and his genitals now look like your average male genitals. If the genitals are the same, the body is the same, the mannerisms are the same as a man, then how is one's sexuality and their ability to consent compromised?
As I stated at the beginning I am talking explicitly about physical sex/pre-op which was the predominant discussion in the original two threads, and the primary source of conflict in this thread.
Not a person who has transitioned, but a person who possesses an unexpected set of genitals.
okay, well what are we arguing about? haha! sorry for the misunderstanding there.
I'm not necessarily sure how I feel about this aspect of the argument, but I suppose that in my own sexual life, if I am having my body/genitals touched, I am also touching the other person's genitals, so I would know what is going on -- so consent would be a non-issue in my case (because it would be explicit right from the beginning).
from my understanding, the OP is talking about stealth, which usually refers to Post-op transsexuals (I think! *goes to look up*), hence my confusion.
Yeah as was mentioned by other posters the first post referenced was about a pre-op individual, in both posts there were people talking explicitly about pre-op individuals and its affect on informed consent.
There seems to have been a misunderstanding along the way for original post. The discussion has basically continued through.
Just a quick note to everyone regarding the terminology being used in this thread. Trans posters in other threads have several times requested that we stop saying things like "transman," "transwomen" and "transpeople" and instead use "trans man," "trans woman" and "trans people."
I don't think anyone here is being deliberately disrespectful with their language, so I thought everyone would probably like to know.
Does anyone posting in this comments thread realize how damaging their comments could be to trans folks reading this thread. It's really sad to me. :(
I know it is all fun and games to debate about these issues, but these are also painful parts of life for people. I'm just a little shocked by everything that has been said here.
What would your suggestion be then?
perhaps we could stop talking about trans folk as potential rapists.
I should clarify. Frankly, this is not an issue that most cisgender people will have to deal with. If we stopped treating it like an intellectual exercise and started thinking of the people we are talking about, then we would probably realize that the trans folk that are reading this would be deeply offended, especially on a feminist website, for godsakes. I expect this kind of exchange on popular talk show, but not in a forum where people are supposed to be sensitive to trans issues and gender issues. The whole premise sort of bothers me. The questions that we are asking about trans people bother me. The things we assume about sexuality bother me. I respect everyone's right to an opinion, I'm just disappointed and voicing my discontent with the vast majority of the opinions expressed here. That's all. I think they are transphobic and regressive.