Transgender man gives birth

[3point14]

No, it's not. It doesn't explain the murder, because cannot be expected that someone would murder someone in that situation. It's a bit like saying that the explanation for the first World War was that Franz Ferdinand went to Sarajevo.

It lays part of the blame for the murder on the victim, as Aepervius explicitly said.

Can I just check then, that you believe that we should not look for or asses reasons why people do things of this nature?



All sorts of things are unthinkable or unacceptable - we still look for reasons. You seem to be saying that the first step towards investigating and rectifying things is not to seek an explanation because explanations for why bad people do bad things aren't allowed. with the greatest of respect, I think that's an utterly mental concept.

We know the action is wrong. We can still explain it though.

We can explain the actions of a psychopath - they're a psychopath.

We can explain the actions of a mass murderer, usually with the help of a mental health professional.

We can explain the racist murder of a man in Port Elizabeth - a combination of institutionalised and personal racism.

None of the above things are acceptable, none of them are things I would ever do. They still have explanations - chains of linked, causal events that lead to the outcome - Again, why on earth are you connoting 'explain' with 'excuse'. There's a reason we have the two different words.

 

[uke2se]

Can I just check then, that you believe that we should not look for or asses reasons why people do things of this nature?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. We should look for the reason. The reason is almost always found in the psyche of the murderer.

 

[uke2se]

Can I just check then, that you believe that we should not look for or asses reasons why people do things of this nature?



All sorts of things are unthinkable or unacceptable - we still look for reasons. You seem to be saying that the first step towards investigating and rectifying things is not to seek an explanation because explanations for why bad people do bad things aren't allowed. with the greatest of respect, I think that's an utterly mental concept.

We know the action is wrong. We can still explain it though.

We can explain the actions of a psychopath - they're a psychopath.

We can explain the actions of a mass murderer, usually with the help of a mental health professional.

We can explain the racist murder of a man in Port Elizabeth - a combination of institutionalised and personal racism.

None of the above things are acceptable, none of them are things I would ever do. They still have explanations - chains of linked, causal events that lead to the outcome - Again, why on earth are you connoting 'explain' with 'excuse'. There's a reason we have the two different words.

Those are all valid explanations. A trans-gendered person not disclosing his/her birth gender before a sexual encounter isn't. That's victim blaming.

 

[Darat]

If sexual attraction is innate and not learned, then we shouldn't be surprised (and accuse them of being closet homosexuals) when a straight man's attraction towards a woman goes away when they discover that they are actually a transwoman.

...snip...

Sexual attraction can be both learned and innate.

I think you are mixing some things up without realising. I could be attracted to someone in drag i.e. their physical appearance may coincide with what I've learnt my prefered sexual partner will look like in a non-sexual situation. In a sexual situation they will no longer match up to my preference. So my sexual attraction is both innate and learned.

What I don't understand is why when such a situation arises there is an expectation that a reaction should be more than a "Sorry I thought you had the bits I want in a sexual relationship, do you want to watch the leaked GOT episode instead?" Or to be more realistic "Hang on you know I only want sex with people with certain bits why have you not told me you don't have those before we got down and dirty?"

I would say the "physical reaction" the "you swine/bitch" reaction is the learned response - it is how we are told (as folk in this thread have demonstrated) we should react. That reaction is not innate.

 

[GlennB]

Those are all valid explanations. A trans-gendered person not disclosing his/her birth gender before a sexual encounter isn't. That's victim blaming.

Is the cisgender person who gets the (to them) 'unpleasant surprise' not also a victim? The whole scene could have been avoided with a little honesty from the outset.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

No, it's not. It doesn't explain the murder, because cannot be expected that someone would murder someone in that situation. It's a bit like saying that the explanation for the first World War was that Franz Ferdinand went to Sarajevo.

It lays part of the blame for the murder on the victim, as Aepervius explicitly said.

... What kind of backwards reasoning is this? An explanation is different from a defense. In the case given, that is an accurate explanation. It's not a defense. Or an excuse.

 

[uke2se]

Is the cisgender person who gets the (to them) 'unpleasant surprise' not also a victim? The whole scene could have been avoided with a little honesty from the outset.

He's the victim of a lie by omission. The trans-gendered person is the victim of murder.

Do you wish to attempt an equivalence between the two?

 

[uke2se]

... What kind of backwards reasoning is this? An explanation is different from a defense. In the case given, that is an accurate explanation. It's not a defense. Or an excuse.

It's victim blaming. It was quite explicit. Maybe you should read the conversation where Aepervius said this:

"Most of the blame should go to the one doing the murder, but part of the blame should go to the TG person outright lying fully knowing to the other party on such intimate matters."

That is what I am talking about.

 

[Belz...]

I don't believe being angry is ever any justification for violence. Those with too little self control cannot use 'I was really angry' as an excuse. Controlling emotional reactions is what differentiates adults from toddlers.

I don't think Aepervius said it was a justification, just an expected result. Not sure I agree with him, but it's the same principle why I don't go around in bars insulting the big bikers at the counter, safe in the assumption that they can't legally hit me.

 

[Belz...]

It's victim blaming.

You know, it's not the topic of this thread, exactly, but this accusation is often used to shame other people in the discussion. It's assumed that victim blaming, that is giving the victim of a crime a part of the blame by saying that their actions in part led to the crime, is always absolutely bad and false, but we rarely get an argument for that.

So why is "victim blaming" such a blanket shut down of another's arguments?

I mean, check out the Holocaust Denial thread right now. Accusing people of being holocaust deniers isn't and shouldn't be the end of the discussion, and people in that thread are making a lot of effort explaining why holocaust denial is wrong: it's factually wrong. So while I agree that you shouldn't blame the victim of a crime for the crime itself, why is it always seen as a bad thing to implicate their actions in the chain of events that led to the crime?

 

[GlennB]

He's the victim of a lie by omission. The trans-gendered person is the victim of murder.

Do you wish to attempt an equivalence between the two?

Ah. I wasn't talking about a murder scenario.

Should we take it that all your future references to the outcome of this theoretical 'meeting' are murder-related? (You worked very hard to extract that possibility from one poster here, it has to be said. It's almost as if you weren't going to be happy until you'd managed that.)

If not, can you please make it clear what you're discussing in each post?

 

[uke2se]

Ah. I wasn't talking about a murder scenario.

Should we take it that all your future references to the outcome of this theoretical 'meeting' are murder-related? (You worked very hard to extract that possibility from one poster here, it has to be said. It's almost as if you weren't going to be happy until you'd managed that.)

If not, can you please make it clear what you're discussing in each post?

It's what I've been discussing these past few pages. I didn't bring it up, for the record.

 

[tyr_13]

If someone says someone is a bigot because they don't want to have sex with a person, that's wrong and didn't arrive at that from liberal principles. If someone explains that the reason they don't want to have sex with a person (or hell, that they DO want to have sex with a person) is some bigoted reason, that doesn't grant immunity from holding the bigoted view. But liberals are kind of big on bodily autonomy generally speaking.

I'm sure someone somewhere has the rather extreme view that it makes one a bigot to not want to sleep with someone, but it isn't something anyone here has expressed. If we want to poison wells with things people have said somewhere online, we can talk about how that 'conversation' actually said that trans people should be murdered horribly regardless just for existing. Of course we can also talk about how that actually happens too. Being wrongly (or rightly!) called a bigot is wrong, but as far as tarring 'sides' go, no contest.

If someone believes that treating transgender women as women means you have to sleep with them, it inescapably follows that they believe they have to sleep with any given woman. Several of the comments here make it clear that some posters even know that's what that means. If not wanting to sleep with a woman means to them I'd say 'they don't know what 'woman' means', this means they think I think them being a woman means you have to sleep with them. You don't have to sleep with anyone you don't want to, transgender or not. Not wanting to sleep with someone doesn't make them not their gender.

Someone was asking about the other gender pronouns, and I've spent a lot of time with non-binary people as well as Pride groups, and the only people who ever wanted any of the odd sounding ones who I've actually met were some radical feminists in college (one of whom is ironically a TERF now). Every other one prefers 'they', and most are fine with anything besides 'it'. This might just be biased from location, but it rarely comes up. 'They' has been used for a long time when gender is unknown, and is already part of the language.

Someone also mentioned the idea that the definition of 'gender' had changed due to activism, but this is not directly true. Some activism increased academic and scientific research, but it was discovery this research found that led eventually to scientific support for the utility of gender being different than sex, because research keeps confirming that gender is different from sex. This is becoming more and more robust, and isn't just 'feelings' (psychology fields) but also biological fields like endocrinology and neurology. Transgender people, according to our best understanding of it thus far, have many, many biological indicators that align them more closely with the gender they identify as rather than the one they were born seeming. Saying it is just 'feelings' directly contradicts what we know biologically of this entire issue.

This isn't just some 'pc libtard activism'. The ideologues don't drive the science. Gender is different than sex, based on our best understanding of both.

 

[theprestige]

Sexual attraction can be both learned and innate.

I think you are mixing some things up without realising. I could be attracted to someone in drag i.e. their physical appearance may coincide with what I've learnt my prefered sexual partner will look like in a non-sexual situation. In a sexual situation they will no longer match up to my preference. So my sexual attraction is both innate and learned.

What I don't understand is why when such a situation arises there is an expectation that a reaction should be more than a "Sorry I thought you had the bits I want in a sexual relationship, do you want to watch the leaked GOT episode instead?" Or to be more realistic "Hang on you know I only want sex with people with certain bits why have you not told me you don't have those before we got down and dirty?"

I would say the "physical reaction" the "you swine/bitch" reaction is the learned response - it is how we are told (as folk in this thread have demonstrated) we should react. That reaction is not innate.

People take offense when they've been insulted or betrayed. You think they're wrong to express their offense?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

 

[Belz...]

I'm sure someone somewhere has the rather extreme view that it makes one a bigot to not want to sleep with someone, but it isn't something anyone here has expressed.

Not here in this thread no. Here in this forum, yes.

I've spent a lot of time with non-binary people as well as Pride groups

And:

The ideologues don't drive the science.

That seems at odds, since "non-binary" isn't something scientific at all. At the very least, ideologues misrepresent the science. But science has never been immune to ideology, just resilient to it.

 

[Aepervius]

I don't think Aepervius said it was a justification, just an expected result. Not sure I agree with him, but it's the same principle why I don't go around in bars insulting the big bikers at the counter, safe in the assumption that they can't legally hit me.

Neither did I mean it is an expected result, what I mean is that this could happen, has been known to happen in a few cases, and thus one should discuss such thing beforehand the water early rather than come to a far too late stage and risk violent consequence.

As for those who says this separate toddler for adult, I would like to use this "I am sorry dear mr Robot, did you never have any utter disgust reaction ? Or Anger ? I am terribly sorry you did not pass the human test. Better chance next time". The toddler thing is an excuse to not admit that all human, ALL human , can in some time compltely bypass their cortex and react from thalamus only.

If you don't believe me, then ask somebody to get into a box and give you what it contain, pretend it is something you forgot to get hold of, then replace it with something disgusting (a pile of excrement), or that the person fear (giant spider), or soemthing which will make them deeply angry.

And then tell me that their first reaction was rational and not , you know emotion.

Giant negative surprise by sex WILL lead primarly to a reaction. For some it may be anger for some it will be disgust, for some it may even be fear.

But the FIRST reaction will be emotional. Always. Thalamus react far quicker than cortex.

 

[uke2se]

Neither did I mean it is an expected result, what I mean is that this could happen, has been known to happen in a few cases, and thus one should discuss such thing beforehand the water early rather than come to a far too late stage and risk violent consequence.

You did say that while most of the blame lies with the murderer part of the blame lies with the TG murder victim. That's quite a bit more than you are saying now.

 

[Darat]

People take offense when they've been insulted or betrayed. You think they're wrong to express their offense?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

No.

 

[DragonLady]

Please address a trans-gendered person with the pronoun of his/her choice. It's only polite.

And when we don't know what that is?

"Is that your wife? Tell her I said Hi!"

Becomes at best:

"Tell them I said "Hi!"

Which doesn't quite fit with English as she are spoken. I do believe it's linguistically correct, but it's not the way most of us use the word; usually we would only use that term if someone has more than one wife.

Please allow a trans-gendered person to use the locker room/bathroom of the gender he/she is transitioning to.

How do we know?

If I see a 6' muscle monkey follow my teenage daughter into a locker room or bathroom, am I really supposed to sit tight and think "Oh, I'll bet that's one of those trans-people...no worries!" Despite the far more likely chance he is a standard-issue male rapist?

Same if you see your wife leaving the restroom with the club tennis pro. "Oh, no, Dear...don't you know they're really a woman?"

Seriously? Or do you think you're going to at least consider the far more likely scenario: the tennis pro is a standard issue male, and your wife just enjoyed a quicky on the bathroom counter?

OTOH...if you're a physical female, but enter a locker room full of standard issue men, how much time do you think you can realistically spend there before one of them reveals himself to be a rapist? Do you think he'll stop if you say "But, wait! I'm a man! Really!"

I'd say:

If you have the equipment to rape women, stay out of the women's restrooms, locker rooms, etc.

If you have the equipment to be forcibly penetrated, and look like a woman*, stay out of the areas most often frequented by those heterosexuals with male parts.

*Yes; I realize those with male parts can be forcibly penetrated, too, but I believe it's much rarer, and those thus endowed have a far better chance of defending themselves, at least one-on-one.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And when we don't know what that is?

"Is that your wife? Tell her I said Hi!"

Becomes at best:

"Tell them I said "Hi!"

Which doesn't quite fit with English as she are spoken. I do believe it's linguistically correct, but it's not the way most of us use the word; usually we would only use that term if someone has more than one wife.

It is as bad as singular you. You is plural as well see historic arguments against it.

"Again, the corrupt and unsound form of speaking in the plural number to a single person, you to one, instead of thou, contrary to the pure, plain, and single language of truth, thou to one, and you to more than one, which had always been used by God to men, and men to God, as well as one to another, from the oldest record of time till corrupt men, for corrupt ends, in later and corrupt times, to flatter, fawn, and work upon the corrupt nature in men, brought in that false and senseless way of speaking you to one, which has since corrupted the modern languages, and hath greatly debased the spirits and depraved the manners of men;—this evil custom I had been as forward in as others, and this I was now called out of, and required to cease from."

https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/singular-they-you-and-a-senseless-way-of-speaking/