Leelah Alcorn, transgender teen, commited suicide

[Tatyana]

Yea, it's sort of amazing isn't it?

When I first asked in this thread for people to tell me whether they felt there was an obligation on the part of transgender people to inform those they are becoming romantically involved with, I honestly thought the common answer was going to be "well yes of course" even from people who were very much in the pro-trans, progressive mindset on the issue.

I guess I've been reminded not to ever underestimate just how extreme and detached from normality progressivism is getting to be these days.

Why should someone tell you if they are transgender?

I don't understand why you think it is necessary.

 

[Meadmaker]

No isn't a totally different thing. It is all basically exactly the same thing.

You are wrong. Get a dictionary and check it out.

 

[shuttlt]

Why should someone tell you if they are transgender?

I don't understand why you think it is necessary.

The overwhelming majority of men would have to make quite an adjustment to their sexual identity to knowingly partner/sleep with a trans-sexual. Willfully choosing to disregard this is certainly going to generate some intense situations.

 

[bluesjnr]

Why not? No one else appeared to give a rat's patootie.

Beanbag

Can you list in the order of your preference who else should have? Who else was responsible or required to give a "rats patootie"? Is it partly my fault because I couldn't care less?

 

[bluesjnr]

I agree. However, society has made it rather difficult for those people that want to exit it.

Beanbag

If one wants to check out its a cinch. The MA prevents me from describing the myriad ways that don't include a hapless victim in your grand gesture.

 

[Tatyana]

You are wrong. Get a dictionary and check it out.

No, you are wrong.

Biochemically and biologically, just slight variations on a type.

A colloquial definition is crap in the face of science.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

<snip>

The overwhelming majority of men would have to make quite an adjustment to their sexual identity to knowingly partner/sleep with a trans-sexual. Willfully choosing to disregard this is certainly going to generate some intense situations.

C'mon, stop being such regressive troglodytes.

Sex / age / species / status as alive vs. dead / existing or imaginary are all social constructs, don'tchaknow?

Get with the times.

LGBTQ people can freely disregard the sexuality of cis scum who they want to have sex with because well, duh, they know that their mindset is based on irrational backward thinking!

Of course, if a cis scum hetero pig were to disregard the sexual right to self-determination of an LGBTQ person... they'd basically be the devil.

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited to remove quote already in AAH

 

[bluesjnr]

What she did to that driver is wrong and terrible, but it's not the same as a school shooter who consciously decides to harm others. I doubt very much that part of her plan was to inflict pain on the driver. Rather, she probably saw the vehicle as inanimate. All conjecture, of course, but I'll stand by it.

She couldn't have cared less, it was all about her grand exit and how cinematic it might look. All conjecture, but I'll stand by it

 

[Tatyana]

Most people wouldn't even recognise that someone has has gender re-assignment surgery.

 

[Tatyana]

C'mon, stop being such regressive troglodytes.

Sex / age / species / status as alive vs. dead / existing or imaginary are all social constructs, don'tchaknow?

Get with the times.

LGBTQ people can freely disregard the sexuality of cis scum who they want to have sex with because well, duh, they know that their mindset is based on irrational backward thinking!

Of course, if a cis scum hetero pig were to disregard the sexual right to self-determination of an LGBTQ person... they'd basically be the devil.

............................................No.


What benefit do you think this post is?


Seriously.

How does this further the discussion?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Actually, I think this is true, but doesn't capture the agenda quite completely. Part of the agenda is also that if they are born with a penis, but go around representing themselves as female, that should be utterly insignificant, regardless of whether or not they keep their penis or have it replaced with some other surgically constructed replacement.

If you don't treat people as genitals with a body attached, in most cases it will be utterly insignificant whether someone is male or female and what they are hiding down their pants.

 

[Tatyana]

Are you on crack?

Same with you.

Was this post really necessary?

 

[Meadmaker]

No, you are wrong.

Biochemically and biologically, just slight variations on a type.

A colloquial definition is crap in the face of science.

A "colloquial" definition?

Transgender is a word in the English language that means a certain thing. This meaning can be found in any modern dictionary.

Intersexed is a word in the English language that means a different thing. That meaning, also, can be found in any modern dictionary.

They are not the same thing, and both definitions are perfectly compliant with modern science. In your examples, you described intersexed individuals. You did not describe transgender individuals.

 

[shuttlt]

Most people wouldn't even recognise that someone has has gender re-assignment surgery.

In the street, or the sack? There are certainly some, Candy Darling comes to mind, who I don't mind admitting looks convincing to me (at least in the famous photograph). My impression is that this level of success is a long way from being universal. It's hardly the point though.

 

[Meadmaker]

If you don't treat people as genitals with a body attached, in most cases it will be utterly insignificant whether someone is male or female and what they are hiding down their pants.

Surely you aren't suggesting that it is only insignificant if it is hidden, are you?

The point of my post is that whether or not it is hidden, and whether or not it conforms to common male or female expectations, it does not determine gender. Skeptic Tank had suggested that if one had had gender reassignment surgery, it didn't matter what sort of equipment you were born with, at least according to the transgender agenda. I was affirming what he said, but noting that the gender reassignment surgery was not a necessary condition. Even if there had been no surgery, and one still had the original equipment, it was not relevant to gender. Self identification is what determines gender.

ETA: And, by saying "in most cases" are you noting that there are exceptions? Would you care to expound on what conditions might exist that are not "most cases"?

 

[Stout]

She couldn't have cared less, it was all about her grand exit and how cinematic it might look. All conjecture, but I'll stand by it

Come to think of it, it was a very macho way to do yourself in. Horrifically violent and disfiguring.

 

[bluesjnr]

The bottom line: if you would be disgusted to find out that a potential sex partner had had reassignment surgery, or reconstructive surgery, or was not a virgin, or supported the designated hitter rule; it is up to you to discover such before engaging in intimacy than to expect that others will "know" your standards.

This sounds incredibly one sided.

 

[Caper]

Same with you.

Was this post really necessary?

Maybe not. I didn't mean it in a mean spirited way. I just don't know anyone who wouldn't be completely freaked out by being with a woman that used to be a man... With no prior knowledge. Also, I don't know how a person couldn't tell. Especially if it was a woman that transitioned into a man... Surely the 1/2 inch penis would be a dead give away.

 

[Dessi]

Right but when you are getting involved with someone sexually/romantically it would be a big deal that someone had been born with certain genitalia, to a very great number of people.

Fair enough. You are probably correct on this point. I won't browbeat the issue.

There was one point I thought I made that was pretty solid earlier that you didn't respond to, though. If you're willing to here it is again:

You definitely need to know whether your partner has an STDs, for your own safety and the safety of future partners. You need to know whether your partner has food allergies before you cook for them, for their own safety. You need to know about one another's fertility if you want to start a family.

So the problem with how you're framing this is that you cannot know whether the person will need that information from the point of view of starting a family. Even if they say to you that they don't ever want to have kids, it may just be youth talking and they may change their tune dramatically later on that point. It happens plenty often that someone talks a big game about "I never want to have kids" but finds that as their biological clock is ticking and as they start to get older, they feel differently.

This is why I think people have to be made aware of such an important matter (whether their partner can be a reproductive mate, which is the default assumption) or not. That's pretty huge. If someone is sterile and knows it, or if someone isn't a born female or male and knows it, I think they're obligated to inform any potential partner before any physical intimacy takes place. That's my view.

One partners infertility is definitely a barrier in family planning, but is it ever a deal breaker on the first date?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Perhaps a lot of my thoughts and comments on this issue are influenced by the fact that I don't have direct or intimate knowledge of what the end result of these surgeries is. Either traditionally or with the state of the art.

But even if it's super obvious with current techniques, a lot of the things we're discussing here re: obligation to disclose are still relevant with relationships that take a while to get to the sexual part, or relationships in the future when the surgeries and treatments and such get more convincing, or relationships where the people don't do a lot of genitalia-examination and just sort of do things in the dark, etc.