107 replies to this topic

[Sheik]

I'm straight - I love my girlfriend and I will still love her even when she stops loving me - but so many of the guys in my area are so loud, obnoxious and rude that I may one day think to myself that I don't want to be a guy anymore. I may be driven to start dressing like a girl, and consciously acting like a girl. And if and when that day comes, I can only hope that my girlfriend will accept my decision and won't stop being the best friend I have.

Gender does not define by how you act but by what you carry between your legs.* That's all you are supposed to care about as far as manliness is concerened. Everything else is personality. Don't want to be loud, obnoxious and rude? Don't be. Still doesn't change your gender, just makes you a person that is not loud, obnoxious and rude. Case closed.

*Not true for transexual persons that feel born into the wrong body but for people that are what their biological gender happens to be.

[DashSim]

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.

This is grossly incorrect.

It's a difficult thing to explain to anyone who hasn't experienced being trans, but people can feel how their bodies are supposed to be. The brain has expectations of what sort of parts the body is supposed to have. Someone whose brain's expectations of their body's sexual organs have never been out of alignment with their body may not even realize this. Trans people don't get the surgery due to insecurity, or vanity - it's because it's a disturbing and horrifying experience not to.

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.

Human sexuality and gender is far too complicated for a statement like that to actually work. 'You both have the same naughty bits! You're gay!' sounds fine when you're viewing things in a sort detached, nebulous way but with how people actually interact with one another in real life this does not work in any practical way; this view is really oversimplified.

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.

This is an absolutely horrible belittlement of the pain, trauma and stress that people who are trans go through. One's body being out of sync with their internal expectation of it in the extreme way it can sometimes be with trans people is torturing. Transition should be covered everywhere; it is an ethical imperative.

[Fabbrizio]

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.

Have you considered that there are people out there who love for reasons OTHER than getting into someone's pants? If someone's personality is distinctly effeminate, there is nothing homosexual about being in love with them. You like them for their feminine personality - that would still be hetero. If for you love and sex are the exact same thing, well...okay, for one thing I have a lot less respect for you, and for another, I should point out that sex isn't everything. Love without sex can exist, and it's a shame more people don't realize this.

If you LEGITIMATELY love someone, you love them for who they are, not because you like their genitals.

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.

Well then...that's a problem with where you live, then. Most trans people I know would be more than willing to pay for the operation out of pocket. To imply that they're deliberately leeching tax dollars...I'm sorry, but that crosses into SO many more worlds of offensive implications. Welfare, for example. If you chose to argue in such a manner, you could imply that all people who are on welfare are trying to skate by with as little work as possible. It's not true of course, but certainly closer to the truth than saying that all trans people are leeching tax dollars.

Trans people have jobs, and they pay taxes just like anybody else. In a single lifetime, an average trans person will likely pay in taxes enough money to cover three such operations. And yet you want to call them leechers? I have nothing more to say to you.

Edited by DavidReinold, 09 January 2012 - 05:37 PM.

[Vinyl Scratch]

I could not acquiesce to romance with a transgendered person, but it is not as you think it to be.

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. 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.

Perhaps I'm just interpreting this wrongly, but the bold sends up a red flag. You love somebody for who they are, the way they act, not because you want to have sexual intercourse with them.

And sure, biological children would be impossible for the time being, but there's always adoption.

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.

But that's a pedantic reading of the dictionary definition of homosexuality. Whether or not they have male genitals is irrelevant; if you love them as a female, and they present themself as female, then it's not homosexuality.

There are people in relationships with non-op trans people who are definitely not gay, regardless of any pedantic reading of dictionary definitions.

EDIT: I'm not trying to attack you, and I'm sorry if it seems like I am.

Edited by Vaelstrom, 09 January 2012 - 05:57 PM.

[DashSim]

In fairness, if someone requires a physical relationship, is attracted to another's body and personality but just sincerely can't bring themselves to be attracted to their partner's genitals, and has to bring themself to end the relationship because of this, I don't think it's necessarily indicative of prejudice or trans/homophobia. It would be a sad situation for everyone involved, but, it happens, I suppose, and I wouldn't say that anyone in particular is to blame.

Myself, for what genitals I'd prefer, certainly a vagina would be ideal... I don't think it would matter too greatly, for me, if they had vagina, penis or a series of pink tentacles with blue dots.

Actually, that last one might be my new ideal.

[Fabbrizio]

In fairness, if someone requires a physical relationship, is attracted to another's body and personality but just sincerely can't bring themselves to be attracted to their partner's genitals, and has to bring themself to end the relationship because of this, I don't think it's necessarily indicative of prejudice or trans/homophobia. It would be a sad situation for everyone involved, but, it happens, I suppose, and I wouldn't say that anyone in particular is to blame.

This is something I can get behind. But if their genitals make it impossible for you to love their body and personality...that's PRETTY shallow.

If that boner of yours is your only compass, I'm allowed to find that just a LITTLE bit pathetic.

Edited by DavidReinold, 09 January 2012 - 06:51 PM.

[Geoffrey]

It's a difficult thing to explain to anyone who hasn't experienced being trans, but people can feel how their bodies are supposed to be. The brain has expectations of what sort of parts the body is supposed to have. Someone whose brain's expectations of their body's sexual organs have never been out of alignment with their body may not even realize this. Trans people don't get the surgery due to insecurity, or vanity - it's because it's a disturbing and horrifying experience not to.

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.

Human sexuality and gender is far too complicated for a statement like that to actually work. 'You both have the same naughty bits! You're gay!' sounds fine when you're viewing things in a sort detached, nebulous way but with how people actually interact with one another in real life this does not work in any practical way; this view is really oversimplified.

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.

This is an absolutely horrible belittlement of the pain, trauma and stress that people who are trans go through. One's body being out of sync with their internal expectation of it in the extreme way it can sometimes be with trans people is torturing. Transition should be covered everywhere; it is an ethical imperative.

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.

--

Have you considered that there are people out there who love for reasons OTHER than getting into someone's pants? If someone's personality is distinctly effeminate, there is nothing homosexual about being in love with them. You like them for their feminine personality - that would still be hetero. If for you love and sex are the exact same thing, well...okay, for one thing I have a lot less respect for you, and for another, I should point out that sex isn't everything. Love without sex can exist, and it's a shame more people don't realize this.

As I said to DashSim, I spoke only of physical attraction to the genitalia. You seem to have misunderstood me greatly.

If you LEGITIMATELY love someone, you love them for who they are, not because you like their genitals.Well then...that's a problem with where you live, then. Most trans people I know would be more than willing to pay for the operation out of pocket. To imply that they're deliberately leeching tax dollars...I'm sorry, but that crosses into SO many more worlds of offensive implications. Welfare, for example. If you chose to argue in such a manner, you could imply that all people who are on welfare are trying to skate by with as little work as possible. It's not true of course, but certainly closer to the truth than saying that all trans people are leeching tax dollars.

I did not intend to sound as though I was grouping all transsexual people into that demographic. I apologize that it did.

Trans people have jobs, and they pay taxes just like anybody else. In a single lifetime, an average trans person will likely pay in taxes enough money to cover three such operations. And yet you want to call them leechers? I have nothing more to say to you.

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.

--

Perhaps I'm just interpreting this wrongly, but the bold sends up a red flag. You love somebody for who they are, the way they act, not because you want to have sexual intercourse with them.

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.

But that's a pedantic reading of the dictionary definition of homosexuality. Whether or not they have male genitals is irrelevant; if you love them as a female, and they present themself as female, then it's not homosexuality.

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.

EDIT: I'm not trying to attack you, and I'm sorry if it seems like I am.

You have no need to be sorry; I feel that you phrased everything politely and tactfully, and I have incurred no offense.

EDIT:

If that boner of yours is your only compass, I'm allowed to find that just a LITTLE bit pathetic.

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."

Edited by Ornlu, 09 January 2012 - 07:19 PM.

[Fabbrizio]

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.

It's not irrelevant. My point was that the amount they pay in taxes will cover the operation and then some, so it's not like they're using 'your' money. Taxes exist, in effect, to support what is necessary for the people (not just the common good - what is needed by individuals), and regardless of what YOU may think, this is VERY MUCH a necessity. Like DashSim said, you're really belittling the issue at hand. It's easy for you to say that it's a non-issue if you've never experienced it. But I ask you to tread lightly in an area you have so little first-hand experience in.

EDIT: I do not begrudge you your preferences either - on an individual level, they are very much welcome. Bear that in mind as you read my posts. To say that YOU can't love a sexless person is one thing. To say that it's NOT POSSIBLE TO is something else entirely.

Just noting - you seem to get upset a lot whenever I take one of your opinions and I remind you that it's very much subjective.

Edited by DavidReinold, 09 January 2012 - 07:33 PM.

[Aslion]

[Jared]

This is what this entire thread has become...

[Geoffrey]

It's not irrelevant. My point was that the amount they pay in taxes will cover the operation and then some, so it's not like they're using 'your' money. Taxes exist, in effect, to support what is necessary for the people (not just the common good - what is needed by individuals), and regardless of what YOU may think, this is VERY MUCH a necessity. Like DashSim said, you're really belittling the issue at hand. It's easy for you to say that it's a non-issue if you've never experienced it. But I ask you to tread lightly in an area you have so little first-hand experience in.

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.

EDIT: I do not begrudge you your preferences either - on an individual level, they are very much welcome. Bear that in mind as you read my posts. To say that YOU can't love a sexless person is one thing. To say that it's NOT POSSIBLE TO is something else entirely.

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.

--

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.

...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.

[Fabbrizio]

You still continue to misinterpret me.

I think we're talking past each other. You seem to be missing a great portion of my argument as well, and I'll take responsibility for that.

Edited by DavidReinold, 09 January 2012 - 07:48 PM.

[Aslion]

You still continue to misinterpret me.

I think we're talking past each other. You seem to be missing a great portion of my argument as well, and I'll take responsibility for that.

I think you guys both missed the point I made earlier.

[Fabbrizio]

I think you guys both missed the point I made earlier.

I didn't miss your point. I took it to heart and decided to stop arguing.

[Rover]

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.

also trainwreck.gif