107 replies to this topic

[DashSim]

I never suggested vanity. You would say that insecurity plays absolutely no part, then? What you are telling me is that those who are transsexual are entirely secure in the body that they were born with, which nulls the entire point of a sex-change operation.

They are not insecure, they suffer from a physical deformity (being born with the wrong genitals), which surgery corrects.

It is not a view or an opinion; it is definitively fact. To say otherwise is to attempt to counter fact with opinion, which does not work. I urge you to re-read what I previously said, as I spoke of attraction to genitalia, and not of emotional attachment, as it seems you thought.

There is more to sexual orientation in humans than whether one of the humans or both produce sperm cells and/or ova cells. Human sexual orientation does not work that way in real life situations with real people interacting with other real people and it will continue to not work this way no matter what you see or want to see in the definition of 'homosexual' or any other word.

No. I believe the well-being of people who have physical injuries to be of higher importance than someone's happiness with their own body.

Alas, if only these two things weren't completely mutually exclusive, and it were possible to pay for both.

FOR f***S SAKE. Here is my reasoning (the same as I gave to Vaelstrom), and in the future I would ask that you do not judge my stance before understanding it.

This is likely because 'I find people whose bodies don't produce gamete cells to be romantically unlovable' is something of an absurd position to take. But perhaps I could find it more understandable and relatable if this wasn't coupled with posts describing how you're 'fundamentally opposed' to transition and/or people being trans, or implying that trans people who transition with tax money are selfish, or that people who date trans people of the opposite gender are in fact homosexual, no matter what their orientation really is.

also trainwreck.gif

[Moonbread]

Oh, for the love of Pete.

Alison: You know better than to post substanceless, off topic crap. Cut it out. You're just making it worse.

Jared: We don't need comments like this either. What does this add to the thread? IT DOESN'T.

The debate is fine. Even if people disagree, they're doing it without trying to squeeze the other person's head off in anger. Stay to the topic at hand, or I will lock it.

[Fabbrizio]

This is likely because 'I find people whose bodies don't produce gamete cells to be romantically unlovable' is something of an absurd position to take. But perhaps I could find it more understandable and relatable if this wasn't coupled with posts describing how you're 'fundamentally opposed' to transition and/or people being trans, or implying that trans people who transition with tax money are selfish, or that people who date trans people of the opposite gender are in fact homosexual, no matter what their orientation really is.

Well, I didn't want to say those EXACT words, but now that you've said it, I don't have to. And also, your reasoning is difficult to argue with.

So Ornlu...I must ask...is tax money your only argument against the operation at this point? Because unless I'm missing something, it seems you've admitted that every other argument you've made has been based on your personal preferences. You have shown no argument that points to it being fundamentally wrong, and have really only served to denote that you sell the issue short on it's severity.

Edited by DavidReinold, 09 January 2012 - 08:21 PM.

[Geoffrey]

f*** it; I will not continue to debate with people who misinterpret the majority of what I say, and put false words in my mouth thereafter. If you want to continue this, I suggest that you go back and reread my arguments in both threads regarding transsexuality, and understand them word for word.

EDIT:

To clear things up:
I am not apposed to transsexual people, and never said I was.
I am not apposed to the surgery specifically, and never said I was.

EDIT 2:

Ornlu, why cannot thy acquiesce with someone who has no functioning genitalia? That is most ridiculous, good sir. When I look at women, or even men, I look past the genitalia, for it as not as important as you think, sir.

I hath decreed that thus be of such potential megalithic hilarity that it wouldst be a much atrocious occasion to deny thine questioning.

...I could not love someone romantically if they were sexless. I cannot fully explain it, but I would feel absolutely no sexual desire for them, something that is a keystone in romantic relationships (whether it is admitted or not). That is not to say that I am a shallow bastard; moreover, I want the ability to have children, and I want to be able to have that bond with another person. In my opinion, there is no greater bond than that of creating a living creature with another person, one that is of and from the both of you.

Edited by Ornlu, 09 January 2012 - 08:48 PM.

[DashSim]

I can not respond to the things you meant to say, but only to the things which you have said. I have replied to you in only the most sincere ways and interpreted your posts in only the most accurate ways I am able.

Edited by DashSim, 09 January 2012 - 08:45 PM.

[Geoffrey]

I can not respond to the things you meant to say, but only to the things which you have said. I have replied to you in only the most sincere ways and interpreted your posts in only the most accurate ways I am able.

I apologize for whatever misunderstanding was due to my own clarity, or lack thereof.

I feel the urge to reiterate that I have no opposition to transsexual people or to sex-change surgery itself, nor have I ever. I ask that you hold nothing to the contrary as opposition to me.

[Fabbrizio]

f*** it; I will not continue to debate with people who misinterpret the majority of what I say, and put false words in my mouth thereafter. If you want to continue this, I suggest that you go back and reread my arguments in both threads regarding transsexuality, and understand them word for word.

This is me going back through your arguments and taking them word for word. You won't mind if I leave a few comments in bold..

I could not acquiesce to romance with a transgendered person, but it is not as you think it to be.
I'm listening...?
Considering people who have had a sex-change operation: I have no desire to be emotionally tied to any person who has undergone cosmetic surgery, as the wish to change one's appearance represents insecurity in oneself.Here's that word: Insecurity. It's not insecurity, and I'd love it if you'd listen when we all say that. Insecurity implies that they're worried what others think. The issue is much deeper than that, a feeling of being out of place in your own body. Like it's a foreign creature. I'd almost go so far as to call it a self-hatred. By definition, those without functioning genitalia are without a sex, and I simply do not find that attractive. Moreover, I want to have children, and in the context provided, that would be an impossibility.Okay, that's fair.

Considering people who have not had a sex-change operation: Since ones sex is defined by the presence of functioning reproductive organs, and of which ones they have, this kind of romantic interest would make me definitively homosexual. So because you want children, this is where your mind is and that's why it would be homosexual...okay, I can roll with that. I am personally not sexually attracted to those of the same sex, and therefore would not want to be romantically involved with a male cross-dresser. This is where the line must be drawn - first off, there's a HUGE difference between transgender and crossdresser. If you sincerely meant crossdresser, I'd like to remind you that we weren't talking about that. But if you WERE talking about transgender, - le snip for privacy reasons -. Furthermore, as stated above, having children would be an impossibility.That's all cool.

I would advise that you not to change yourself because of the actions of others; only change if you know it is what you truly want, regardless of how others act or feel.I've been questioning my gender identity sincerely for a while now (sincere thanks to Vaelstrom for pointing me to reddit /r/transgender and reddit /r/asktransgender) and I find I'm becoming more sure about my convictions. I wouldn't let let factors like the actions of others affect my decision, I would only take it as a "good riddance".

If they undergo sex-change surgery, they did likely feel insecure in themselves; if they did feel secure in their own bodies, they would likely feel no reason to change so drastically.I think you're mistaking "feeling secure" for...well, actually, any adjective would be more accurate.
No. If a person is sexually attracted to someone of the same sex, then said person is definitively homosexual (or bisexual, depending on the exact context). In the case of transsexual people, it is a specific version of homosexuality, but it is still homosexuality.I stand by what I said. Sexual orientation depends on what qualities you judge. If you are pansexual (genderblind) and judge solely on personality, having romantic affection of someone with the same biological gender but who has a feminine personality could still be called hetero.

EDIT:

I have another reason:
Sex-change surgery is paid for by taxes where I live. That is specifically taking funds and care from people who likely need it more. I could not be in a relationship with someone who thought their own happiness to be more important than the well-being of others.If you think having a genital and hormonal birth defect is an issue of happiness and not well being...well, go ahead, keep thinking that. I won't stop you.

I never suggested vanity. You would say that insecurity plays absolutely no part, then? What you are telling me is that those who are transsexual are entirely secure in the body that they were born with, which nulls the entire point of a sex-change operation.Again, "secure" isn't the word you're looking for.
It is not a view or an opinion; it is definitively fact. To say otherwise is to attempt to counter fact with opinion, which does not work. I urge you to re-read what I previously said, as I spoke of attraction to genitalia, and not of emotional attachment, as it seems you thought.
No. I believe the well-being of people who have physical injuries to be of higher importance than someone's happiness with their own body.I'm not going to repeat myself more than is necessary

--
As I said to DashSim, I spoke only of physical attraction to the genitalia. You seem to have misunderstood me greatly.
I did not intend to sound as though I was grouping all transsexual people into that demographic. I apologize that it did.
I never called them leechers. Also, not all taxes go to operations, they go to a multitude of other things, so the fact that they pay that much (the same as any other person in their financial situation) is really irrelevant....

--
Yes; this is true, but I could not love someone romantically if they were sexless. I cannot fully explain it, but I would feel absolutely no sexual desire for them, something that is a keystone in romantic relationships (whether it is admitted or not). That is not to say that I am a shallow bastard; moreover, I want the ability to have children, and I want to be able to have that bond with another person. In my opinion, there is no greater bond than that of creating a living creature with another person, one that is of and from the both of you.And again, I don't hold that against you.
What I speak of is sexual attraction to the genitalia, nothing more. I am not speaking of romantic feelings. I cannot say for the romantic side of this, as I have not put enough time nor research into it, but if a person has a sexual attraction to the same genitalia that they have, then they are homosexual.
You have no need to be sorry; I feel that you phrased everything politely and tactfully, and I have incurred no offense.

EDIT:
FOR f***S SAKE. Here is my reasoning (the same as I gave to Vaelstrom), and in the future I would ask that you do not judge my stance before understanding it.

"...I could not love someone romantically if they were sexless. I cannot fully explain it, but I would feel absolutely no sexual desire for them, something that is a keystone in romantic relationships (whether it is admitted or not). That is not to say that I am a shallow bastard; moreover, I want the ability to have children, and I want to be able to have that bond with another person. In my opinion, there is no greater bond than that of creating a living creature with another person, one that is of and from the both of you."Okay.

You still continue to misinterpret me. I do not care if it is my money or not; what I take issue with is that it is taking resources from those who have incurred physical injury. That is it; that is my entire argument in regard to taxes paying for sex-change operations.

All that I have said is that I am incapable of romantically loving someone who is sexless. To say that no one could would be a terrible thing to say. I am sincerely sorry, and I apologize if that is what you thought I meant. Gotcha.

--

I also sincerely want you to understand this (and that it is merely my opinion), so I will repost it, in case you missed it. I am not as shallow as you may think me to be.

To clear things up:
I am not apposed to transsexual people, and never said I was.
I am not apposed to the surgery specifically, and never said I was. Got it.

Edited by DavidReinold, 09 January 2012 - 11:26 PM.

[Geoffrey]

This is me going back through your arguments and taking them word for word. You won't mind if I leave a few comments in bold..

I thank you for doing so. But fortunately or unfortunately (whichever you consider it), I have determined that I will retract my stances on everything except for my own personal sexual and romantic preferences until a time wherein I feel I have sufficient knowledge to hold them (whether or not they have changed at such a point in time).

[Beefster]

Yes. I messed up. I REALLY should have posted this in Mature Discussion.

DR: I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to outright disagree with you on your comment about shallowness. You seem to act like it's bad to be straight and that everyone should be bisexual. Even from a purely intellectual standpoint, this is (frankly) a ridiculous assertion. For the sake of keeping the human race alive, heterosexuality is the most productive way to do so. There's a reason males evolved (or were created) to think with their penises.
No offense to gays was intended. When most people are born straight, it's stupid to tell them that they're wrong. Likewise, if you're born gay or bi, go for it; I don't really care.

My request, as the starter of this topic, is to have this moved to Mature Discussion or to be closed. However, I still leave this at the mods' discretion.

Edited by Beefster, 09 January 2012 - 11:19 PM.

[Fabbrizio]

DR: I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to outright disagree with you on your comment about shallowness. You seem to act like it's bad to be straight and that everyone should be bisexual. Even from a purely intellectual standpoint, this is (frankly) a ridiculous assertion. For the sake of keeping the human race alive, heterosexuality is the most productive way to do so. There's a reason males evolved (or were created) to think with their penises.

I think you missed the intention entirely.

< - is completely heterosexual, MAYBE pansexual at the very most.

My point was that you can have homosexual feelings for heterosexual reasons. That is all.

Edit: I hope it doesn't get moved before my application for Mature Discussion gets approved, and if it does, that I don't miss much...

Edit 2: Scratch that, feel free to move it <3

Edited by DavidReinold, 09 January 2012 - 11:32 PM.

[NoeL]

There's a train wreck going on in here? COUNT ME IN!!!

Ornlu, why cannot thy acquiesce with someone who has no functioning genitalia? That is most ridiculous, good sir. When I look at women, or even men, I look past the genitalia, for it as not as important as you think, sir.

Lol, get off your soap box

I don't really see anything wrong with Ornlu's position. It's commonplace to overlook potential partners because you find them physically unattractive, and if you happen to find a woman with a penis unattractive you're not likely to fall in love with them. This doesn't necessarily make you "shallow". It's not a black and white "looks vs personality" issue as some people here (naively) think - love is a combination of both. If you cringe every time your partner gets naked you're not going to have a very fulfilling love life.


Now for the obligatory touting of my desire to debate religion!

I'm sorry, it's just difficult for me to take a stance on what's very much a gray area as far as my religious beliefs go.

When it's an issue concerning what other people do with their lives, why would you care what your nosy religion has to say about it? They're not hurting anyone, so mind your own business.

[Rover]

There's a train wreck going on in here? COUNT ME IN!!!

Lol, get off your soap box

I don't really see anything wrong with Ornlu's position. It's commonplace to overlook potential partners because you find them physically unattractive, and if you happen to find a woman with a penis unattractive you're not likely to fall in love with them. This doesn't necessarily make you "shallow". It's not a black and white "looks vs personality" issue as some people here (naively) think - love is a combination of both. If you cringe every time your partner gets naked you're not going to have a very fulfilling love life.
Now for the obligatory touting of my desire to debate religion!
When it's an issue concerning what other people do with their lives, why would you care what your nosy religion has to say about it? They're not hurting anyone, so mind your own business.

the 11th commandment

Also Beefster, yeah it is other people's life, and as long as your obeying your religion or whatever then you're fine. If you think that they're doing wrong, but they think they're doing right and don't really care, why should you care?

Edited by Rover, 10 January 2012 - 07:10 AM.

[Moosh]

My request, as the starter of this topic, is to have this moved to Mature Discussion or to be closed. However, I still leave this at the mods' discretion.

But think of all the folks like Rover and I who will never be able to see this topic again because we'll never be allowed in that place where all the mature folks are...THINK OF THE SOAP, MAN!

When it's an issue concerning what other people do with their lives, why would you care what your nosy religion has to say about it? They're not hurting anyone, so mind your own business.

Some churches teach the gospel of "Thou shalt be an intolerant asshole or thou shalt burn in Hell!" It would be nice if we could all accept each other, but that will never happen as long as there are folks who believe in a god who wants them to hate other folks based on sexual preference.

[Sheik]

Wow, this sure is a war of semantics right here.

[Beefster]

Also Beefster, yeah it is other people's life, and as long as your obeying your religion or whatever then you're fine. If you think that they're doing wrong, but they think they're doing right and don't really care, why should you care?

I usually stay out of it as long as it isn't shoved into my face.
I don't necessarily have a clear stance on this sort of issue, because it's way more complicated than "God hates fags," which, by the way is ridiculous and completely intolerant. I have a gay relative, and he may get a break of some sort on judgment day. Likewise, there may be actual cases where a female spirit was intentionally assigned to a male body.
Essentially, it comes down to this: I am not God; I cannot accurately judge anyone's actions because of extenuating circumstances I may not know about.
I will tolerate homosexual behavior, but I don't exactly support it. I won't stop you if you want to be gay or transsexual, and I will do my best to look past it when in a nonreligious context. I have no problems with being friends with gays and lesbians as long as we stay off that topic most of the time.

But think of all the folks like Rover and I who will never be able to see this topic again because we'll never be allowed in that place where all the mature folks are...THINK OF THE SOAP, MAN!

It is a mature topic after all. It never needed drama.

Edited by Beefster, 10 January 2012 - 05:52 PM.