Follow Dan
Savage Love Podcast
Got a question for Dan Savage?
Call the Savage Love Podcast at 206-201-2720
or email Dan at mail@savagelove.net.
Savage Love Archives
-
Oct 8
Friends in Need -
Oct 1
Friend in Need -
Sep 24
Making a Move -
Sep 17
Get It Together -
Sep 10
Quick and Dirty
More from Dan Savage
-
SL Letters of the Day: Tears For Gears
-
SL Letter of the Day: The End Is Near
-
SL Letter of the Day: Why Are All My Straight Boyfriends Fucking Dudes?
-
Some Words of Comfort for the Hurting Members of Mars Hill
-
Savage Love: Polyproblema
Books by Dan Savage
American Savage
It Gets Better: Coming Out, Overcoming Bullying, and Creating a Life Worth Living
The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage, and My Family
Things I've Learned from Women Who've Dumped Me
Skipping Towards Gomorrah
The Kid: What Happened After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Go Get Pregnant
Savage Links
- Babeland
- Fleshbot
- Good Vibrations
- Joe Newton/Savage Illustrations
- Planned Parenthood
- Spreading Santorum
- Kinsey Confidential
- Carnal Nation
- Tiny Nibbles
Want a Second Opinion?
Contact Dan Savage
Savage on YouTube
Loading...
Ciscontent
November 23, 2011
+ Enlarge this Image
Joe Newton
I'm 26, straight, and male. I consider myself a socially progressive person, have been a vocal supporter of LGBT issues since high school, and was president of my college Gay-Straight Alliance. Here's my issue: I fully support the trans community. I have numerous friends in varying states of transition and I'm 100 percent behind them. But in my own dating life, I wouldn't feel comfortable dating/having sex with a woman who had at one point in her life been a man. I realize I wouldn't be fucking a dude, but it's a mental hurdle I can't clear. All my LGBTQA friends—be they trans, gay, bi—call me a transphobe, because if I were truly on their side, if I truly "understood," then sex with a MTF straight woman would be no different than sex with a cisgender straight woman. Do I have the right to not feel comfortable with the idea (or reality) of having sex with these women and still consider myself a supporter of the trans community? Are my friends being unreasonable? Or am I a hypocrite?
Fears Real Activism Undermined [by] Dick
"He's not transphobic—not in my book," says Kate Bornstein, author, performer, "advocate for teens, freaks, and other outlaws," and herself a trans woman. "One more thing he's not is straight. Sex-positive, supportive of trans folk, and heterosexual? Cool! He's a queer heterosexual—and some of my best friends are queer heterosexuals."
As for your specific issue—you're not attracted to trans women—Bornstein says that by itself isn't evidence of transphobia.
"A queer heterosexual is just as entitled to the fulfillment of their sex and gender desires as anyone else," says Bornstein. "Sometimes those desires depend on the nature of their lover's body. Well, trans people have bodies that are different than cis people's bodies. We're two (or more) mints in one—a physical blend that attracts a lot of people. FRAUD just doesn't happen to be one of them. The fact that he's sensitive to that blending of genders in our bodies does not make him transphobic."
What can you do about it?
"Go have good sex with cis women," says Bornstein. (Don't know what "cis" means in this context? See: tinyurl.com/cisdefine.)
Whatever else you do, FRAUD, Bornstein wants you to stop identifying as straight.
"He's part of our queer tribe," she says. "And who knows? One day, he might meet the right trans person."
And who knows? One day, your cranky LGBTQA friends might accept who you are just as you've accepted them. Make an effort to use "attracted to cis women" in place of "wouldn't feel comfortable dating" trans women, and you'll hasten that day's arrival.
Kate Bornstein's new memoir, A Queer and Pleasant Danger (Beacon Press), will be published in the spring. Follow her on Twitter @katebornstein. (Follow me @fakedansavage.)
I'm a 26-year-old guy in a polyamorous relationship. As this is my first kick at the poly can, I wasn't dying to tell my family, "Hey, I'm dating a married woman!" However, through the magic of Facebook, my brother found out that the girl I'm seeing has a husband. Once I was "busted," I discussed the situation with my sister-in-law. The issue is that my GF and her husband have a 10-year-old son. My brother has compared the poly community to drug addicts and stated that CPS should remove my girlfriend's child from her home, etc. My brother and his wife are now threatening to cut me out of their lives—as well as their children's lives, whom I care for a great deal—if I don't dump the girlfriend. Thoughts?
Forced To Pick
Right off the top of my head: Your brother is a shit-smeared asshole, your sister-in-law is an ass-smeared shithole, and they'd be doing you a huge favor if they cut you out of their lives.
Pick the GF, FTP. That might mean you won't see your nieces/nephews for a while, which would be sad for you and bad for those kids (children with crazy, controlling parents need to spend quality time with saner family members). But if you dump your girlfriend at their insistence—if you fail to stand up to them—you will have established a dangerous precedent: Your love life isn't yours to manage, it's theirs, and all your future partners will be subject to their batshittery/scrutiny and, if they disapprove of any future girlfriends (concurrent or subsequent), they will attempt to exercise the veto power you ceded to them during this conflict.
Your brother and sister-in-law are bullies, FTP, and you've got to defend yourself. So long as your GF and her husband aren't doing anything inappropriate in front of their son and they're not placing unfair burdens on their son (they don't expect him to keep secrets, if they're not out about being poly; they don't expect him to be out about his parents being poly, if they are out and he's not comfortable sharing that info with his friends), you need to come to their defense, too. And you might want to consult a lawyer now, just in case your brother and sister-in-law call CPS.
I am a 29-year-old male with a fetish for snapping pictures of women's legs and feet in nylons. I look for women online who will allow me to pay them to take these pictures. I recently posted an ad and received a reply from a coworker. I find her very attractive and would like to photograph her legs and feet. How should I handle this?
Sent From My Mobile Device
Here's a relevant story from the files: Vanilla Gay pays a social call on Kinky Gay. KG informs VG that there's a Hot Dude tied up in his playroom. KG invites VG to view HD. KG is right: HD is hot. HD is also, as it turns out, one of VG's coworkers—one of VG's straight coworkers.
It was an unexpected twist of fate—HD didn't know that VG and KG were friends—that resulted in VG discovering something about HD that HD didn't choose to reveal to VG. (A twist of fate and the rules HD agreed to when he played with KG: HD had consented to KG showing him off.) While it's possible that HD wouldn't have cared that VG knew his secret, it was likelier that HD, if he knew VG knew his bi-for-bondage secret, would've felt embarrassed around his coworker—not to mention compromised during any routine workplace conflicts with VG.
I urged VG to keep his mouth shut.
In your case, SFMMD, while it's possible that your coworker doesn't care who knows that she does fetish modeling on the side for extra money and/or thrills, it's likelier that she would be embarrassed to learn that someone she knows professionally discovered what she's doing. There are plenty of other women out there, and plenty of other legs and feet to photograph. Keep your mouth shut.
I was reading a letter in your archives from a woman who didn't have much libido. I was disappointed that you didn't mention that decreased libido is a common side effect of almost every form of hormonal birth control. The first thing a woman with low libido should do, if she's been on the same pill for years, is to switch methods. I would love it if you'd mention this in your column.
Spread The Word
Done and done.
2
While we're spreading the word about pharmaceutically induced sexual dysfucntion . . . Low libido (and/or diminished orgasmic capacity) is also a very common side effect of SSRI antidepressants. Sometimes the problem persists indefinitely after antidepressants have been discontinued. I'm not saying antidepressants are bad and no one should take them, but if you're considering starting an antidepressant, the likely sexual side effects are definitely something to bear in mind.
3
Kate Bornstein made one of the best It Gets Better videos ever. I felt like I was really plucking that "Get Out of Hell Free Card" right from her hands.
5
@2: Here, here. Not to mention that most therapists out there either don't mention these side effects before prescribing the drugs, or tend to treat them as relatively inconsequential (as if being able to enjoy one's own sexuality could be parceled out from enjoying life as a whole!)
6
Yay, I'm a queer het!
I'm not going to go around unpacking this to everyone though, I'll just keep walking the walk and talking the same talk I've been talking all along, m'kay?
I'm not going to go around unpacking this to everyone though, I'll just keep walking the walk and talking the same talk I've been talking all along, m'kay?
7
This makes about 538 GSA presidents running about whom I've heard who are openly straight. It's almost enough to make one long for the old quota system of co-presidents, 1 straight-identified maximum (ideally, one any-identified maximum).
During my only venture to Europe (for the Gay Games in Amsterdam), I did encounter several queer-heterosexual-identified individuals. It is something of a useful distinction, but here it almost seems as if FRAUD's relabeling himself is some sort of litmus test, a shade pushy.
As for, "And who knows? One day, he might meet the right trans person." - I can only hope there's a lot of tone we aren't hearing. Given how often I was told during those attempts at enforced conversion I ultimately defeated that I just hadn't met The Right Woman, I don't think that sentence as phrased is at all helpful. Now I shall never sleep tonight from remembering those ghastly sessions, but I am still sufficiently myself to wonder if Mr Ank will see my point by suggesting that "a trans person who attracts him" would be much better phrasing than "the right trans person". That definite article carries such an air of authority about such a person definitely existing. Sigh.
During my only venture to Europe (for the Gay Games in Amsterdam), I did encounter several queer-heterosexual-identified individuals. It is something of a useful distinction, but here it almost seems as if FRAUD's relabeling himself is some sort of litmus test, a shade pushy.
As for, "And who knows? One day, he might meet the right trans person." - I can only hope there's a lot of tone we aren't hearing. Given how often I was told during those attempts at enforced conversion I ultimately defeated that I just hadn't met The Right Woman, I don't think that sentence as phrased is at all helpful. Now I shall never sleep tonight from remembering those ghastly sessions, but I am still sufficiently myself to wonder if Mr Ank will see my point by suggesting that "a trans person who attracts him" would be much better phrasing than "the right trans person". That definite article carries such an air of authority about such a person definitely existing. Sigh.
8
Hmm. I'd like to examine the assertion that a sex-positive, queer-allied, gay-loving, trans-supportive heterosexual cis-gendered individual is granted queerhood and is no longer straight.
That's sort of redefining his sexual identity from the outside, and redefining the concept of "queer" and "straight". Now maybe challenging that line is what the guest is going for, but to what end?
It sounds like Ms. Kate is saying that a cis-het-dude isn't "straight" simply because he acknowledges and supports the full humanity of his fellows without exceptions for sexual identity or orientation. This is, of course, a fantastic social/moral position for him to take, but it doesn't change his sexuality, nor should it. They are unrelated.
He is still straight. He just isn't a bigot.
That's sort of redefining his sexual identity from the outside, and redefining the concept of "queer" and "straight". Now maybe challenging that line is what the guest is going for, but to what end?
It sounds like Ms. Kate is saying that a cis-het-dude isn't "straight" simply because he acknowledges and supports the full humanity of his fellows without exceptions for sexual identity or orientation. This is, of course, a fantastic social/moral position for him to take, but it doesn't change his sexuality, nor should it. They are unrelated.
He is still straight. He just isn't a bigot.
9
If not being attracted to transsexuals makes FRAUD "trans - phobic", then that makes all his gay friends that aren't attracted to women are "misogynist, woman-hating pigs".
10
@8, I have issues with the term "queer heterosexual" for FRAUD, too. If I understand correctly, part of the point of saying "I'm queer" is that you're claiming membership in a group of sexual minorities who are oppressed or at least "othered" by the larger society, and FRAUD isn't claiming any such thing. Admittedly, I'm not well-informed about the confusing world of LGBTQXYZ terminology, but offhand I'd say cis-gendered, woman-loving dudes who are into trans women (for example) might be better candidates for the "queer heterosexual" label.
12
(Last comment for now, I promise.) I resent the implication that we're now supposed to equate being "straight" with being a bigot. I thought "straight" was supposed to be a valueless, literal descriptor of someone's sexual orientation, like "gay." It's a useful word, and I hope we don't have to start using the term "queer het" because people like Kate Bornstein ruined "straight" for us.
I would also really question the wisdom of bringing everyone who isn't a bigot under the "queer" umbrella. I thought the whole point of organizations like GSA's was that people from all over the spectrum of gender and sexual orientation can get along just dandy despite being different from one another. Saying, "if you're okay with queer people you are queer" sort of undermines that message in my view.
I would also really question the wisdom of bringing everyone who isn't a bigot under the "queer" umbrella. I thought the whole point of organizations like GSA's was that people from all over the spectrum of gender and sexual orientation can get along just dandy despite being different from one another. Saying, "if you're okay with queer people you are queer" sort of undermines that message in my view.
13
That first response was a bit confusing. I'm a straight dude who fully supports LGBTQ equality and acceptance. If "straight" and "queer" are opposites, does my allegiance to equality make me queer?
It shouldn't. Queer means, more or less, atypical: something other than the most common state. Homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals are and always will be queer. That's not an insult; it's just a simple fact that most people are heterosexual and cisgendered, and LGBTQ people are always going to be minorities. What SHOULDN'T be a minority is the subset of people who believe that LGBTQ folks should get the same respect as everyone else. It shouldn't be queer to support gay and trans rights; it should be the norm.
And for the record, I would feel uncomfortable going out with a MTF transsexual, even a postoperative one. I chalk this up to my attention to bone structure allowing me to quickly spot the telltale signs of masculine sexual dimorphism in a person who otherwise passes well. Bit of an uncanny valley effect.
It shouldn't. Queer means, more or less, atypical: something other than the most common state. Homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals are and always will be queer. That's not an insult; it's just a simple fact that most people are heterosexual and cisgendered, and LGBTQ people are always going to be minorities. What SHOULDN'T be a minority is the subset of people who believe that LGBTQ folks should get the same respect as everyone else. It shouldn't be queer to support gay and trans rights; it should be the norm.
And for the record, I would feel uncomfortable going out with a MTF transsexual, even a postoperative one. I chalk this up to my attention to bone structure allowing me to quickly spot the telltale signs of masculine sexual dimorphism in a person who otherwise passes well. Bit of an uncanny valley effect.
14
Dan: Kate Bornstein is fucking awesome and should be featured all the time!! Can't wait to read her book! (hope it's on audible :P)
15
FRAUD's misunderstanding of his own situation is understandable, in the climate in which some activists demand some sort of 'ideological purity' that, as always, is only a dream (and wouldn't mean a thing even if it were attainable). It would be like saying that the only way to be a true advocate of gay's rights is to be gay, or a woman to be a true advocate of women's rights, or Black to be a true advocate of the advancement of Black people, etc.
From the misguided activist's viewpoint, this is also understandable -- after suffering under the bigotry of mostly straight-identified people, one is often too quick to conclude that otheer similarly straight-identified people are similarly bigotted, even if they claim they aren't. (A Brazilian proverb says that gato escaldado tem medo de agua fria, i.e. a scalded cat is afraid even of cold water.
Understandable, however, doesn't mean right. Consequently, overzealousness, no matter how understandable, is simply this: overzealousness. Let us, like Dan, hope that overzealous activists will eventually grow up and accept their comrades-in-arms as they are, instead of insisting in some ultimately misguided (because irrelevant) ideal.
From the misguided activist's viewpoint, this is also understandable -- after suffering under the bigotry of mostly straight-identified people, one is often too quick to conclude that otheer similarly straight-identified people are similarly bigotted, even if they claim they aren't. (A Brazilian proverb says that gato escaldado tem medo de agua fria, i.e. a scalded cat is afraid even of cold water.
Understandable, however, doesn't mean right. Consequently, overzealousness, no matter how understandable, is simply this: overzealousness. Let us, like Dan, hope that overzealous activists will eventually grow up and accept their comrades-in-arms as they are, instead of insisting in some ultimately misguided (because irrelevant) ideal.
16
Direct bullseye to FTP, Dan!
Thanks, STW!! I KNEW there was yet another good reason for getting off the pill!
@9: I second that!
@12: for the win!!!!
Thanks, STW!! I KNEW there was yet another good reason for getting off the pill!
@9: I second that!
@12: for the win!!!!
17
@9:
I think FRAUD's friends are ridiculous for accusing him of transphobia, but I imagine they're making that accusation because they think he's making an unfair distinction between transwomen and "real" women.
. . . actually, the more that I think about it, the FRAUD strikes me as being a tiny bit transphobic. I can see him being legitimately non-attracted to pre-op transwomen, or even to post-op transwomen who don't fit his preferred physical type (and, let's face it, a lot of post-op transwomen still have noticeably masculine bone structure). However, FRAUD's basic objection to the possibility of dating a transwoman seems to be something along of the lines of "ewww, I'd be fucking a dude."
Judging from FRAUD's letter, if he happened to meet someone who seemed like his absolute dream woman, and he was incredibly physically attracted to her and they got along wonderfully, he'd still dump her like a sack of diseased rats if it turned out she was born biologically male. Granted, the odds of any of this happening are ridiculously low, but still. I'd expect the president of the GSA to be a little less paranoid about catching Teh Gay from having sex with somebody who, at some point in her life, used to have a penis.
I think FRAUD's friends are ridiculous for accusing him of transphobia, but I imagine they're making that accusation because they think he's making an unfair distinction between transwomen and "real" women.
. . . actually, the more that I think about it, the FRAUD strikes me as being a tiny bit transphobic. I can see him being legitimately non-attracted to pre-op transwomen, or even to post-op transwomen who don't fit his preferred physical type (and, let's face it, a lot of post-op transwomen still have noticeably masculine bone structure). However, FRAUD's basic objection to the possibility of dating a transwoman seems to be something along of the lines of "ewww, I'd be fucking a dude."
Judging from FRAUD's letter, if he happened to meet someone who seemed like his absolute dream woman, and he was incredibly physically attracted to her and they got along wonderfully, he'd still dump her like a sack of diseased rats if it turned out she was born biologically male. Granted, the odds of any of this happening are ridiculously low, but still. I'd expect the president of the GSA to be a little less paranoid about catching Teh Gay from having sex with somebody who, at some point in her life, used to have a penis.
18
@17, I'm not sure about the dumping-like-a-sack-of-diseased-rats scenario, but I feel like everyone should be granted amnesty regarding who they want to fuck, or don't want to fuck. Who you do or don't want to fuck is somewhat beyond your conscious control, while how you treat people is very much within your conscious control. Those are separate issues and should not be conflated.
19
I'm a supporter of gay and trans rights, and I won't say I get all my terminology perfect all the time, but my understanding is that a transwoman didn't "used to be a man", she used to present as a man. So I tentatively agree with echizen_kurage: FRAUD may indeed be a bit transphobic.
Like, I can understand not being attracted to women with penises. I really can. I can also understand not being attracted to a woman with a certain body type or bone structure. These are just physical preferences. But the fact that FRAUD says he wouldn't want to be with a woman "...who at one point in her life had been a man" bugs me. At the very least, it indicates that he doesn't quite understand how trans-ness works.
Like, I can understand not being attracted to women with penises. I really can. I can also understand not being attracted to a woman with a certain body type or bone structure. These are just physical preferences. But the fact that FRAUD says he wouldn't want to be with a woman "...who at one point in her life had been a man" bugs me. At the very least, it indicates that he doesn't quite understand how trans-ness works.
20
Hey, on the subject of birth control and low libido, does anyone have any info/experience with non-hormone birth control (IUDs) being associated with low libido?
21
On the subject of birth control and low libido, does anyone have any info/experience with IUDs causing low libido?
22
Man-made pussy looks like a blown-out truck tire that's driven through the mud. I've seen this up-close and personal.
I'd have serious issues having sex with anyone trans for the above issue.
I'd have serious issues having sex with anyone trans for the above issue.
23
@Strangedanger:
Hormonal IUDs can definitely fuck with your libido (and your weight and mood). They rely on synthetic progestogens, which are a major (or sole) ingredient in other forms of hormonal birth control, and have a host of potential side effects that don't really get enough press.
Copper IUDs, on the other hand, come with their own set of risks, but they don't affect libido.
Hormonal IUDs can definitely fuck with your libido (and your weight and mood). They rely on synthetic progestogens, which are a major (or sole) ingredient in other forms of hormonal birth control, and have a host of potential side effects that don't really get enough press.
Copper IUDs, on the other hand, come with their own set of risks, but they don't affect libido.
24
I suspect that the 99 percent of gay men who would prefer NOT to have sex with female-to-male transgenders can be considered bigots as well, at least by the currently fanatical and whining standards of the transgender community, which seems hellbent on taking the whole gay, bi, and lesbian community down.
Sorry, transgenders, but being transgender comes with certain inherent limitations that are really nobody's fault. Get used to it.
Sorry, transgenders, but being transgender comes with certain inherent limitations that are really nobody's fault. Get used to it.
25
I'd say the issue in the first letter is 'the idea'. Not being interested in having sex with a given trans woman in particular- not transphobic. Who you fancy is who you fancy. Expressing a feeling it's unlikely you'd be into any trans woman given your experience so far- still not transphobic. Ruling out being attracted to any trans woman on principle, not because of their individual characteristics now but because of their history- maybe a little bit transphobic. Or nervous, or self-conscious, or something. That said, I take Kate Bornstein's larger point- best not to be too angry with someone like this. If he even has this concern, then I'm sure his heart is in the right place. Better to be welcoming and wait for him to relax a bit. Don't say: 'You're a transphobe!' Do say: 'Relax honey, I don't want to fuck you either.'
26
Hormones: I wish this had not been offered up as unchallenged truth! I am an NP who works at Planned Parenthood and counsels re: hormonal contraception. Though some women do find a clear link between hormonal contraception and low libido, this is far from common. Female libido is complicated. Worry, stress, relationship issues are far more likely culprits. I am always amazed that a woman happily using a birth control pill for years will come in to complain that it is causing low libido -- oh and her boyfriend lost his job and she just started community college while working full-time and her dad had a heart attack... hmmm... it's always the fault of the birth control!
Also Mirena IUDs do have progesterone-- which acts locally in the uterus. The effects are NOT systemic. A very small amount of progesterone hormone is absorbed into the rest of the body -- about 1/30th of the amount from a progesterone only pill. That's like taking a progesterone only pill and cutting it into 30 pieces and taking one piece a day. This is not enough to stop your own cycling and your own natural hormone production. You will ovulate on either IUD.
Dan: there are many causes for low female libido. Some are physical (e.g., hypothyroid, fatigue) but life stress/emotional/psychological issues are a huge contributor. I wish you hadn't accepted the claim at face value that hormonal birth control is a major factor in low libido.
Also Mirena IUDs do have progesterone-- which acts locally in the uterus. The effects are NOT systemic. A very small amount of progesterone hormone is absorbed into the rest of the body -- about 1/30th of the amount from a progesterone only pill. That's like taking a progesterone only pill and cutting it into 30 pieces and taking one piece a day. This is not enough to stop your own cycling and your own natural hormone production. You will ovulate on either IUD.
Dan: there are many causes for low female libido. Some are physical (e.g., hypothyroid, fatigue) but life stress/emotional/psychological issues are a huge contributor. I wish you hadn't accepted the claim at face value that hormonal birth control is a major factor in low libido.
27
Justdiane,
I was on hormonal bcps from the ages of 19-24. At 24 I wondered why I didn't have any libido. I happened to see an Oprah episode about hormonal bcps and libido and decided to go off and try condoms for a while. Within 3 weeks my libido was back. Honestly, I was pissed. I wasted 5 good years feeling like something was wrong with me. Over the years I went on and off various forms of bcps, even nuvaring and Mirena, and experienced the same side effect with each. I now have a copper IUD and love it. I have a middle of my cycle peak libido each month. It is noticeable. In my experience, hormonal bcps definitely affected my sex drive.
I was on hormonal bcps from the ages of 19-24. At 24 I wondered why I didn't have any libido. I happened to see an Oprah episode about hormonal bcps and libido and decided to go off and try condoms for a while. Within 3 weeks my libido was back. Honestly, I was pissed. I wasted 5 good years feeling like something was wrong with me. Over the years I went on and off various forms of bcps, even nuvaring and Mirena, and experienced the same side effect with each. I now have a copper IUD and love it. I have a middle of my cycle peak libido each month. It is noticeable. In my experience, hormonal bcps definitely affected my sex drive.
28
Add my voice to the chorus of those who think the answer to FRAUD was off the mark. We cut people slack who are only attracted to fat people or skinny people or ones who like oral sex or who don't care for vaginal penetration. We think it ordinary if someone said s/he is only interested in others who share their love of classical music, Mediterranean cooking, or Colonial indigo dyeing techniques. So what's wrong with only being attracted to people who were born and remain physically, emotionally, and mentally female?
Bornstein's answer is in 2 parts. There's the part that says, as I and others have, that we're all welcome to be attracted to whatever we please. Then it goes on to say that if we're accepting of others, we're queer. Is this a play on words, an example of how words change meaning over time? If so, send out the memo, and we'll need a new word to convey what queer used to mean.
Bornstein's answer is in 2 parts. There's the part that says, as I and others have, that we're all welcome to be attracted to whatever we please. Then it goes on to say that if we're accepting of others, we're queer. Is this a play on words, an example of how words change meaning over time? If so, send out the memo, and we'll need a new word to convey what queer used to mean.
29
@8 -- Agreed. Last thing we need is to get the meme out there that any LGBT support is inherently queer. That's just what the 'think of the children' fundies want to be able to quote to get their allies riled up: "You see? These people aren't straight any more once they start hanging out with the gays!"
That line of thinking is, at best, going to scare away guys who might've been on the fence about helping us out but for some insecurities they're still working on.
It's okay to have a sympathetic ally who considers himself straight. It's even okay to have one who actually is straight, last I checked.
That line of thinking is, at best, going to scare away guys who might've been on the fence about helping us out but for some insecurities they're still working on.
It's okay to have a sympathetic ally who considers himself straight. It's even okay to have one who actually is straight, last I checked.
30
Justdiane:
Actually, a significant number of women do not ovulate with the Mirena IUD. Maybe not most, but a lot, and I'm one of them. (This fact is readily available and clearly stated on the Mirena site as well as many other reputable sources, online and otherwise.) I've been using a Mirena for the past 8 years, and I love it. I am sensitive to hormones and had a hard time with the pill (which I took for about 10 years). The localized nature of the hormones in the Mirena IUD have not affected my libido, but it did stop my ovulation. (And yay, no periods!) Your point about the complex nature of female libido is sound, though.
Actually, a significant number of women do not ovulate with the Mirena IUD. Maybe not most, but a lot, and I'm one of them. (This fact is readily available and clearly stated on the Mirena site as well as many other reputable sources, online and otherwise.) I've been using a Mirena for the past 8 years, and I love it. I am sensitive to hormones and had a hard time with the pill (which I took for about 10 years). The localized nature of the hormones in the Mirena IUD have not affected my libido, but it did stop my ovulation. (And yay, no periods!) Your point about the complex nature of female libido is sound, though.
31
Re: FRAUD. What I'm hearing is that if you're not queer you're ignorant. Semantics? Splitting hairs? Super-progressive? The idea seems a little ahead of its time but I actually like it.
Everybody has at least a little inner-queer that the right circumstances would bring out, once the dust of ignorance is brushed off, or the thick sludge of denial-- in some cases-- is dissolved.
Ahead of its time, but I feel it.
Everybody has at least a little inner-queer that the right circumstances would bring out, once the dust of ignorance is brushed off, or the thick sludge of denial-- in some cases-- is dissolved.
Ahead of its time, but I feel it.
32
A work friend of mine is a lesbian and we chat about sex and relationships sometimes. One time she asked me if I met the perfect man and then found out that he was born female, how would I feel about it.
I'm not transphobic, but I told her there were two problems with that.
1. To the best of my knowledge, we have done a lot worse at FTM surgery so far and creating a convincing penis that passes for a real one just hasn't happened yet.
But say they magically could make a believable fake that was just like the real thing?
2. Babies. Two women can't make one together. (As in one that shares both of their DNA)
Yes, there's some men that can't either, but I'll take my chances on that, especially since part 1 isn't going to change any time soon.
I'm not transphobic, but I told her there were two problems with that.
1. To the best of my knowledge, we have done a lot worse at FTM surgery so far and creating a convincing penis that passes for a real one just hasn't happened yet.
But say they magically could make a believable fake that was just like the real thing?
2. Babies. Two women can't make one together. (As in one that shares both of their DNA)
Yes, there's some men that can't either, but I'll take my chances on that, especially since part 1 isn't going to change any time soon.
33
@26:
Yes, Bayer claims that the progesterone released by Mirena rings somehow acts "only in the uterus" and has no systemic effects. Unfortunately, they're probably lying.
Yes, Bayer claims that the progesterone released by Mirena rings somehow acts "only in the uterus" and has no systemic effects. Unfortunately, they're probably lying.
34
P.S. I identify as straight but have been tempted to claim 'queerness'. I think that's just a holdover from being a teenager with lots of friends who were gay/bi.
Just like not all heterosexual people are bigots, not all homosexual (etc etc etc) people are tolerant. Look at all those Republican men trying to score some nice nice from their strapping young interns. Equating queer with tolerant is not at all accurate.
Just like not all heterosexual people are bigots, not all homosexual (etc etc etc) people are tolerant. Look at all those Republican men trying to score some nice nice from their strapping young interns. Equating queer with tolerant is not at all accurate.
35
@33
Actually, if they used a synthetic progesterone receptor agonist it's possible that it's selective for certain cell types. That's what they're doing now with hormone replacement therapy now in order to avoid the unpleasant and/or dangerous side effects.
I don't really know much about those fancy birth control things since they kind of wig me out but I could totally look into that,
Actually, if they used a synthetic progesterone receptor agonist it's possible that it's selective for certain cell types. That's what they're doing now with hormone replacement therapy now in order to avoid the unpleasant and/or dangerous side effects.
I don't really know much about those fancy birth control things since they kind of wig me out but I could totally look into that,
36
*edit, oh no, they're just lying.
Bummer, because what they're describing is certainly theoretically possible, and is done with estrogen receptor agonists all the time!
Bummer, because what they're describing is certainly theoretically possible, and is done with estrogen receptor agonists all the time!
37
Are we really calling us cisgender now? You mean those organic chemistry classes paid off? Love it!
BTW, awesome advice to FTP, Dan.
BTW, awesome advice to FTP, Dan.
38
I was on hormonal birth control for years (yes I switched types of hormonal birth control a few times) and it had a definite effect on my libido that really screwed me up when I went OFF the birth control. I've been off hormonal birth control for 2 years now and I finally have my libido back. I am NOT advocating that women shouldn't take birth control, but people need to be informed of the facts, and pharmaceutical companies need to do a better job of being truthful.
39
I actually think FRAUD and a lot of the commenters are coming from a place of transphobia. The base issue with transgenderism is that you just ARE a woman. I'm looking at comment #9, for example, which says, '
If not being attracted to transsexuals makes FRAUD "trans - phobic", then that makes all his gay friends that aren't attracted to women are "misogynist, woman-hating pigs".'
But that isn't right at all. Not being attracted to women obviously makes you GAY. Being attracted to women makes you straight. Transwomen are just women. Not being attracted to a certain subset of women because of a quirk of birth that they can't help that you might not know about unless they told you is a little phobic.
Imagine if one of your friends said they just weren't attracted to black people. It's certainly their right not to date people for whatever reason, but I'd probably feel like they were being a little racist regardless. That's how I feel here.
If not being attracted to transsexuals makes FRAUD "trans - phobic", then that makes all his gay friends that aren't attracted to women are "misogynist, woman-hating pigs".'
But that isn't right at all. Not being attracted to women obviously makes you GAY. Being attracted to women makes you straight. Transwomen are just women. Not being attracted to a certain subset of women because of a quirk of birth that they can't help that you might not know about unless they told you is a little phobic.
Imagine if one of your friends said they just weren't attracted to black people. It's certainly their right not to date people for whatever reason, but I'd probably feel like they were being a little racist regardless. That's how I feel here.
40
Really enjoying the debate on "queer het."
For me to claim "queer" seems unnecessary and confusing to most. We have: open, tolerant, and ally among other words, that seem to fit the variety of statuses out there. I'm not sure how queer adds to my (or anyone's) identity when it isn't part of the subject's sexuality. If this is the "word of the week," then I'll use it, but I'm not convinced yet.
For me to claim "queer" seems unnecessary and confusing to most. We have: open, tolerant, and ally among other words, that seem to fit the variety of statuses out there. I'm not sure how queer adds to my (or anyone's) identity when it isn't part of the subject's sexuality. If this is the "word of the week," then I'll use it, but I'm not convinced yet.
41
Maybe the word that's changing over time isn't "queer" so much as "straight." I used to think of it as meaning primarily attracted to members of the opposite sex, but perhaps the point is that we all fall somewhere on a continuum from attracted only to same sex to attracted only to opposite sex such that completely gay and completely straight don't exist.
That may be the case (or not), but I can't see that just because words don't have exact definitions the concept of any definition is negated. Words still have meaning; definitions are still useful even if a little fuzzy around the edges.
I wonder if values have shifted to the point where "queer" is associated so much with "good" that it's a compliment to confer honorary queerdom.
Next, I ask myself if there's something transphobic about admitting to not being attracted to transgendered individuals. I ask myself the hypothetical question: If surgery had advanced to the point where a post-operative transexual really couldn't be distinguished from a cisexual, could I be attracted to both men equally?
Answer: We are all of us the sum total of our physical selves, our emotional selves, and our past experiences. We're not just attracted to physical types-- at least, I'm not. I need the whole package. So it makes sense to me that I'm attracted to a man who was once a boy. It's all part and parcel of who he is. And if he didn't let me know about that important part of his past until after the 5th date, well, I tend not to be attracted to liars either.
That may be the case (or not), but I can't see that just because words don't have exact definitions the concept of any definition is negated. Words still have meaning; definitions are still useful even if a little fuzzy around the edges.
I wonder if values have shifted to the point where "queer" is associated so much with "good" that it's a compliment to confer honorary queerdom.
Next, I ask myself if there's something transphobic about admitting to not being attracted to transgendered individuals. I ask myself the hypothetical question: If surgery had advanced to the point where a post-operative transexual really couldn't be distinguished from a cisexual, could I be attracted to both men equally?
Answer: We are all of us the sum total of our physical selves, our emotional selves, and our past experiences. We're not just attracted to physical types-- at least, I'm not. I need the whole package. So it makes sense to me that I'm attracted to a man who was once a boy. It's all part and parcel of who he is. And if he didn't let me know about that important part of his past until after the 5th date, well, I tend not to be attracted to liars either.
42
Kaliann @8:
To our friends in the queer communities: if you look at us hets and straights and arbitrarily decide what our identity is to be based on your measurements then you have become the enemy. Seriously. You spent decades rightly arguing that the cis community had no right to impose its characterizations of your sexuality on you, so what the hell gives you the right to characterize us? And to equate my self identity with bigotry, for that matter? It's arrogant and insulting and counterproductive.
Then again, it does fit the progressive activists' handbook: piss off your friends and supporters ... they're easier to upset and it's so much fun!. The douchebags on the right never seem to enjoy that ... they'd ratehr attack their enemies.
It sounds like Ms. Kate is saying that a cis-het-dude isn't "straight" simply because he acknowledges and supports the full humanity of his fellows without exceptions for sexual identity or orientation. This is, of course, a fantastic social/moral position for him to take, but it doesn't change his sexuality, nor should it. They are unrelated. He is still straight. He just isn't a bigot.Sea Otter @12:
I resent the implication that we're now supposed to equate being "straight" with being a bigot. I thought "straight" was supposed to be a valueless, literal descriptor of someone's sexual orientation, like "gay." It's a useful word, and I hope we don't have to start using the term "queer het" because people like Kate Bornstein ruined "straight" for us.These, a thousand times.
To our friends in the queer communities: if you look at us hets and straights and arbitrarily decide what our identity is to be based on your measurements then you have become the enemy. Seriously. You spent decades rightly arguing that the cis community had no right to impose its characterizations of your sexuality on you, so what the hell gives you the right to characterize us? And to equate my self identity with bigotry, for that matter? It's arrogant and insulting and counterproductive.
Then again, it does fit the progressive activists' handbook: piss off your friends and supporters ... they're easier to upset and it's so much fun!. The douchebags on the right never seem to enjoy that ... they'd ratehr attack their enemies.
44
I'd like to give a shout-out and thank you to Dan for having a column that is utterly free of rehashes of a previous SLLOTD. That's not sarcasm, I do genuinely appreciate it.
45
The more I ponder the "who you support must be who you want to fuck" notion the less I like it.
Let's compare it to race. If you're the CEO of a company and you ensure that, say, black women get their fair shake and get promoted commensurate with their talents, do you magically become a bigot if you're not turned on by them?
Let's compare it to race. If you're the CEO of a company and you ensure that, say, black women get their fair shake and get promoted commensurate with their talents, do you magically become a bigot if you're not turned on by them?
46
@26 I use the Mirena, and I'm very happy with it. When I got it, I spotted heavily for a couple months and then stopped menstruating entirely, so I'm skeptical of your claim that neither type of IUD will impact ovulation.
47
Yay Kate! I love you!
@19: That all depends on how one is defining "man". As someone who views gender (social and biological) as social constructions, I take the position that any of us aren't "really", intrinsically, essentially any gender, man, woman, or otherwise. That position requires a rejection of the woman in a man's/man in a woman's body narrative and all of the framing that goes with it (e.g. "really" a man who previously "presented" as a woman), since there isn't a "real" subject in the first place, nor any concept of gender without the discursive construction that's predicated on social interaction with external signifiers. One "is" a man if one functions as a man in a cultural discourse, one "is" a woman if one functions as a woman. My view was very heavily influenced by Kate Bornstein's book Gender Outlaw, which is, in part, a deconstruction of the trans-normative narrative of "trapped in the wrong body" from a Queer Theory perspective (at one point she points out that the idea that one who has never lived as a woman could have any idea what it means to "feel like a woman" is absurd, and for that matter, so is someone who HAS lived as a woman claiming to "feel like a woman", as this universalizes and essentializes what it means to be or feel like a woman, despite the fact that any two given people who might be overwhelmingly recognized as "women" could very well share no common experiences or emotional responses to various experiences).
Gender Outlaw was the first trans narrative that made any sort of sense to me, given my gender non-essentialism. My previous exposure to trans narratives were all in the form of "X in a Y body," which struck me as flatly delusional: if we, as a culture, define "male" based on exclusively physical/genetic characteristics (I was aware of the sex/gender/sexuality divisions established by Second Wave feminist theory), then to say "I am not a male" when one clearly embodies all of the only factors we use to define the category "male" in the first place, then one is rejecting the reality that one's body does, in fact, exhibit those features that are classified as "male". Kate's book helped me re-conceptualize this as a rejection not of physical reality but instead of the socially-constructed sex and gender categories: it's not that my body isn't actually like X, it's that the social category ascribed to my body is not something with which I identify.
@29: In a culture that is at best ambivalent toward LGBTQetc. persons, and more hostile than accepting of especially the Ts, I don't think that an argument that active, visible/vocal support of LGBTQetc. people and issues represents a queer challenge to cultural norms is unreasonable. "Straight" doesn't just mean men and women (and women and men) having any sort of sex, it embodies a whole constellation of prescriptions (e.g. PIV sex, oral sex, male sexual agency/privilege, female sexual pliancy, assumed communal/care-giving roles for women in shared households, gendered clothing and other appearance norms) and proscriptions (e.g. no sex with someone outside The Relationship, sometimes extended even to porn and masturbation; no kink, mostly; no receptive male sexual behavior; no penetrative female sexual behavior; no anonymous sex; no public sex). Some of these may or may not be embodied by any given person who IDs as "straight", but this is the general discursive functioning.
That the definition of "straight" is becoming more open and flexible in some ways is directly a result of the challenge leveled at sexual norms by queer sexuality activism. Queer is and has (for a very long time) been deployed not just to refer to sexualities/genders but to social roles and norms, and the same goes for straight. In this context, straight/queer is being used in the more general sense of normal/strange
More...
@19: That all depends on how one is defining "man". As someone who views gender (social and biological) as social constructions, I take the position that any of us aren't "really", intrinsically, essentially any gender, man, woman, or otherwise. That position requires a rejection of the woman in a man's/man in a woman's body narrative and all of the framing that goes with it (e.g. "really" a man who previously "presented" as a woman), since there isn't a "real" subject in the first place, nor any concept of gender without the discursive construction that's predicated on social interaction with external signifiers. One "is" a man if one functions as a man in a cultural discourse, one "is" a woman if one functions as a woman. My view was very heavily influenced by Kate Bornstein's book Gender Outlaw, which is, in part, a deconstruction of the trans-normative narrative of "trapped in the wrong body" from a Queer Theory perspective (at one point she points out that the idea that one who has never lived as a woman could have any idea what it means to "feel like a woman" is absurd, and for that matter, so is someone who HAS lived as a woman claiming to "feel like a woman", as this universalizes and essentializes what it means to be or feel like a woman, despite the fact that any two given people who might be overwhelmingly recognized as "women" could very well share no common experiences or emotional responses to various experiences).
Gender Outlaw was the first trans narrative that made any sort of sense to me, given my gender non-essentialism. My previous exposure to trans narratives were all in the form of "X in a Y body," which struck me as flatly delusional: if we, as a culture, define "male" based on exclusively physical/genetic characteristics (I was aware of the sex/gender/sexuality divisions established by Second Wave feminist theory), then to say "I am not a male" when one clearly embodies all of the only factors we use to define the category "male" in the first place, then one is rejecting the reality that one's body does, in fact, exhibit those features that are classified as "male". Kate's book helped me re-conceptualize this as a rejection not of physical reality but instead of the socially-constructed sex and gender categories: it's not that my body isn't actually like X, it's that the social category ascribed to my body is not something with which I identify.
@29: In a culture that is at best ambivalent toward LGBTQetc. persons, and more hostile than accepting of especially the Ts, I don't think that an argument that active, visible/vocal support of LGBTQetc. people and issues represents a queer challenge to cultural norms is unreasonable. "Straight" doesn't just mean men and women (and women and men) having any sort of sex, it embodies a whole constellation of prescriptions (e.g. PIV sex, oral sex, male sexual agency/privilege, female sexual pliancy, assumed communal/care-giving roles for women in shared households, gendered clothing and other appearance norms) and proscriptions (e.g. no sex with someone outside The Relationship, sometimes extended even to porn and masturbation; no kink, mostly; no receptive male sexual behavior; no penetrative female sexual behavior; no anonymous sex; no public sex). Some of these may or may not be embodied by any given person who IDs as "straight", but this is the general discursive functioning.
That the definition of "straight" is becoming more open and flexible in some ways is directly a result of the challenge leveled at sexual norms by queer sexuality activism. Queer is and has (for a very long time) been deployed not just to refer to sexualities/genders but to social roles and norms, and the same goes for straight. In this context, straight/queer is being used in the more general sense of normal/strange
48
I'm fully supportive of gay men, but I don't want to have sex with them. I'm also pretty sure they don't want to have sex with me. Ditto lesbians. It's okay to be attracted to who you're attracted too. "Phobic" enters the equation when someone makes disparaging remarks or treats others poorly because of their sexual identity or preferences.
Also, I'm on both hormonal birth control and SSRI anti-depressants, and my libido is just fine.
Also, I'm on both hormonal birth control and SSRI anti-depressants, and my libido is just fine.
49
I too found my libidio dropped like a rock on hormonal contraception. It also made me moody as all get out, this was from the very start on a couple different kinds. Fortunately for me I recognized the cause quickly (and this was back in the Eighties) and switched to a diaphragm, which worked well for me.
I also found the same effects when I was pregnant, and I know women vary in how their libidio is affected by pregnancy. Since the idea of hormonal BC is that it mimics pregnancy, that makes me think that it too can vary in how it affects women.
I believe there is also evidence that some women have lowered libidio for a long time after going off hormonal BC.
I also found the same effects when I was pregnant, and I know women vary in how their libidio is affected by pregnancy. Since the idea of hormonal BC is that it mimics pregnancy, that makes me think that it too can vary in how it affects women.
I believe there is also evidence that some women have lowered libidio for a long time after going off hormonal BC.
50
justdiane @ 26
I completely agree with you about stress. Women are stupid when it comes to the role stress plays in their lives and tend to ignore the medical side-effects of that stress. (BTW, I am a woman, so people don't bag on me about calling women stupid ABOUT STRESS. We think we can handle anything (because we usually do) and we think stress is such a normal part of our lives that it doesn't affect us.)
However justdiane,
As a NP who works at Planned Parenthood, ESPECIALLY one who councils women, you should really refresh your knowledge about the side-effects of Mirena.
On the Mirena website itself, it says that not only do a majority of women have lighter, shorter periods, but 20% of women STOP having periods altogether, and won't start having them again until the IUD is removed.
20% is not a small number. This means that for TWENTY PERCENT of women, there is more hormone than necessary, and its presence causes such a drastic change in normal hormone levels that it often necessitates removal.
Granted, this means that for the majority of women it works beautifully. But if you are going to provide accurate medical advice, you cannot actually say that "it is not enough to change your cycle."
Clearly, it is.
I completely agree with you about stress. Women are stupid when it comes to the role stress plays in their lives and tend to ignore the medical side-effects of that stress. (BTW, I am a woman, so people don't bag on me about calling women stupid ABOUT STRESS. We think we can handle anything (because we usually do) and we think stress is such a normal part of our lives that it doesn't affect us.)
However justdiane,
As a NP who works at Planned Parenthood, ESPECIALLY one who councils women, you should really refresh your knowledge about the side-effects of Mirena.
On the Mirena website itself, it says that not only do a majority of women have lighter, shorter periods, but 20% of women STOP having periods altogether, and won't start having them again until the IUD is removed.
20% is not a small number. This means that for TWENTY PERCENT of women, there is more hormone than necessary, and its presence causes such a drastic change in normal hormone levels that it often necessitates removal.
Granted, this means that for the majority of women it works beautifully. But if you are going to provide accurate medical advice, you cannot actually say that "it is not enough to change your cycle."
Clearly, it is.
51
John Horstman's @47 reminds me of a debate when I was still in school between a teacher who insisted that the only way to enjoy Shakespeare's sonnets was to deconstruct them to death, and a classmate of mine who insisted that the real joy in them was listening to the music of the words and messages. The latter won the debate when he described the teacher's argument as "the equivalent of saying that one can only truly love a woman after he has performed an autopsy on her".
Dude, there is a point where the explanatory process gets so detailed and convoluted that one's allies want to go over to the Dark Side just so they won't have to listen to something being parsed down to subatomic levels.
I don't know why the CIA bothers with waterboarding. Hours of intensive lectures on gender theory would have anybody who isn't majoring in that field weeping for mercy in very short order indeed, eager to say anything, do anything, to please, please, just make it stop!
Dude, there is a point where the explanatory process gets so detailed and convoluted that one's allies want to go over to the Dark Side just so they won't have to listen to something being parsed down to subatomic levels.
I don't know why the CIA bothers with waterboarding. Hours of intensive lectures on gender theory would have anybody who isn't majoring in that field weeping for mercy in very short order indeed, eager to say anything, do anything, to please, please, just make it stop!
52
Thank you, justdiane, 26, for answering the question I was going to ask. When I saw "common side effect of almost every form of hormonal birth control," alarm bells went off in my head. It makes sense to me that desire is connected to hormones. That's obvious to me since I'm a woman who always used to (peri-menopause now) be aware of how the hormones were washing over my body. I'd feel one spike of horniness at ovulation, another before my period, and they felt different in a hard to explain way, different fantasies or preferences. But I was aware of being unusual in that. Most of my friends just seemed to ovulate, menstruate, and like sex. In 30 years, I never heard anyone volunteer that the Pill affected her libido, then suddenly I was hearing that it was common.
I never took birth control pills to alleviate the horrendous cramps and have wondered on and off if I should have. I did eventually try the Pill to help with peri-menopause symptoms. I found that it had side effects in the sore breasts but didn't affect my desire except that it made me somewhat more horny when I first started on it, not less. In fact, I'm not taking it regularly now, but I've been known to take a single pill now and then as a boost when my mood is low. I like the way estrogen makes me feel.
Antidepressants are another story. 2-Echizan's message is the one I wish were advertised. I can't see that the removal of one's entire sexual desire is just another side effect along with "might cause slight nausea" or "do not operate heavy machinery". I did find out when I freaked out and did research. I was lucky enough to get off that stupid drug before any long lasting damage was done. I'm still furious with my doctor for not mentioning it to me. I never took drugs for depression though I do have a history of it. I did go to a doctor for help with pain. She recommended prozac with the reasoning that people who take it for depression report a lessening of all-over pain. I tried it. I couldn't come. I didn't fantasize. I didn't have the advantage of the one thing that made me feel good about my body when I was hurting.
Obviously an antidepressant is called for when someone's life is in danger. You don't worry about sexuality when someone is suicidal. I call that priorities. But I wonder about the teenagers who are taking antidepressants because they're feeling sad or stressed. I at least knew what was normal for me so I knew when something was terribly wrong, but a teenager might not know that. I worry that the formative years are missed and the the kids won't find out that they've been robbed of something important until later.
I also wonder if there's something in the wholesale prescription of antidepressants for teenagers that hearkens to the way adults often fear budding sexuality even as we purport to love our children. The culture seems to think that leaving young people to discover their sexuality on their own is akin to child abuse and aren't we lucky to have this new drug that suppresses their desire altogether.
It's especially awful when applied to girls. Boys at least know they're supposed to get hard, but girls might have trouble coming at the beginning anyway. I could go on and on (and have), but I'll step off the soap box for now.
More...
I never took birth control pills to alleviate the horrendous cramps and have wondered on and off if I should have. I did eventually try the Pill to help with peri-menopause symptoms. I found that it had side effects in the sore breasts but didn't affect my desire except that it made me somewhat more horny when I first started on it, not less. In fact, I'm not taking it regularly now, but I've been known to take a single pill now and then as a boost when my mood is low. I like the way estrogen makes me feel.
Antidepressants are another story. 2-Echizan's message is the one I wish were advertised. I can't see that the removal of one's entire sexual desire is just another side effect along with "might cause slight nausea" or "do not operate heavy machinery". I did find out when I freaked out and did research. I was lucky enough to get off that stupid drug before any long lasting damage was done. I'm still furious with my doctor for not mentioning it to me. I never took drugs for depression though I do have a history of it. I did go to a doctor for help with pain. She recommended prozac with the reasoning that people who take it for depression report a lessening of all-over pain. I tried it. I couldn't come. I didn't fantasize. I didn't have the advantage of the one thing that made me feel good about my body when I was hurting.
Obviously an antidepressant is called for when someone's life is in danger. You don't worry about sexuality when someone is suicidal. I call that priorities. But I wonder about the teenagers who are taking antidepressants because they're feeling sad or stressed. I at least knew what was normal for me so I knew when something was terribly wrong, but a teenager might not know that. I worry that the formative years are missed and the the kids won't find out that they've been robbed of something important until later.
I also wonder if there's something in the wholesale prescription of antidepressants for teenagers that hearkens to the way adults often fear budding sexuality even as we purport to love our children. The culture seems to think that leaving young people to discover their sexuality on their own is akin to child abuse and aren't we lucky to have this new drug that suppresses their desire altogether.
It's especially awful when applied to girls. Boys at least know they're supposed to get hard, but girls might have trouble coming at the beginning anyway. I could go on and on (and have), but I'll step off the soap box for now.
53
Kate Bornstein is a fucking idiot, and Dan makes giant missteps when he includes her misguided opinions in his columnn. She should NEVER call ANYONE queer; some people find that even more offensive than faggot. And to tell a straight guy who's 100% gay-friendly that he's NOT straight sends a message of confusion and worry that's completely unwarranted. So to all you straight folks who are put off by her stupid bullshit, worry not: we appreciate your support, and please pay no attention to brainless self-righteous whackjobs like her.
54
@42: Bingo!
I'm a heterosexual male who believes in equality for ALL. I am GLBT-friendly, but I am NOT queer. (And no one has the right to tell me otherwise.) I'm what Bornstein would call queer, but I object to the term and refuse to personally recognize the validity of the word based purely on the arbitrary sillyness of it. Because reassigning definitions to words and using words arbitrarily stinks of postmodern, political doublespeak. It's curious that a guest commenter illustrates the very problem with the word "queer" that Dan has so eloquently railed against in the Lovecast on more than one occasion.
Naturally, I don't think the LW is phobic of anything--phobic means fear, not a lack of physcial attraction--he just isn't attracted to women who used to be biologically men. A MTF person may identify as a woman, but his-to-her body most certainly wasn't. Trans folks are keen on the subjective experience of being trans, but should objective realities (i.e. biology and physiology) be ignored when considering who we're attracted to?
I'm a heterosexual male who believes in equality for ALL. I am GLBT-friendly, but I am NOT queer. (And no one has the right to tell me otherwise.) I'm what Bornstein would call queer, but I object to the term and refuse to personally recognize the validity of the word based purely on the arbitrary sillyness of it. Because reassigning definitions to words and using words arbitrarily stinks of postmodern, political doublespeak. It's curious that a guest commenter illustrates the very problem with the word "queer" that Dan has so eloquently railed against in the Lovecast on more than one occasion.
Naturally, I don't think the LW is phobic of anything--phobic means fear, not a lack of physcial attraction--he just isn't attracted to women who used to be biologically men. A MTF person may identify as a woman, but his-to-her body most certainly wasn't. Trans folks are keen on the subjective experience of being trans, but should objective realities (i.e. biology and physiology) be ignored when considering who we're attracted to?
55
@ 12 and others -- very well and eloquently put. I came out as bi (ok, then I had to say lesbian then as bi was not accepted by the community) about 25 years ago. I had to deal with brutal rejection from my family which took years to repair, all the time insisting on my right to be me and love whomever I wanted. I did not give in until they accepted my girlfriend, about 15 years ago. Then I felt free to openly date men, with their knowledge, as I had "won".
A "queer het man" (whatever THAT is?) would NEVER have to go through that. There is no such thing as a queer het. FRAUD is straight, and a good one at that. Why would people accuse him of trans-phobia? It's unfair to assume to know what's in his head when he's simply not attracted to trans people. He never said he was repulsed, just not attracted.
Totally agree with 53. Kate B's comments about "the right one" is scarily reminiscent of my family's attempts to "convert" me in the 80s by showing me pictures of Pierce Brosnan. She's a little too eager to have everyone join the tribe.
A "queer het man" (whatever THAT is?) would NEVER have to go through that. There is no such thing as a queer het. FRAUD is straight, and a good one at that. Why would people accuse him of trans-phobia? It's unfair to assume to know what's in his head when he's simply not attracted to trans people. He never said he was repulsed, just not attracted.
Totally agree with 53. Kate B's comments about "the right one" is scarily reminiscent of my family's attempts to "convert" me in the 80s by showing me pictures of Pierce Brosnan. She's a little too eager to have everyone join the tribe.
56
@20 I used to use BC pills and it really killed my libido. I use the copper IUD now and it came back. However, there are all kinds of horrible down sides to the copper IUD. MUCH longer periods, painful cramping, and I can feel it during sex. My doctor says I have a tiny uterus and that most women can't feel it. I guess I'm lucky... However, I wouldn't trade any of the side effects for zero libido. :)
57
That first question and answer is very strange, and quite frankly, is a set back for equal rights.
We have this desire to be equal, but why people so hung up on categorizing people and putting labels on them? We will NEVER achieve equality with these labels. Queer heterosexual? Cis women? Am I the only one that does not see the point in micro analyzing every fucking person in this world? When did these terms get invented, because I've never heard them until now. Why can't we all just be known as "people"?
Also, how dare his friends chastise him for not wanting a fuck a girl who was born a man (see what I did there avoiding labels?). This kid clearly has a good head on his shoulders, has been involved in equal rights causes, takes into consideration the feelings of others, but just because he is only attracted to women that were born with a vagina he is now being called a "transphobe" by his "friends"? I'm sorry, but "-phobe" should be reserved for the true homophobes in this country, the people that call others "faggots" or go on Fox News and talk about the sanctity of marriage. This kid isn't a "phobe".
We will never achieve equality if the ones fighting for it are still stuck in neutral because they feel that being progressive is making up different labels for each person's unique situation.
I am not cis. I am not trans. I am not a straight homo. I am not a queer hetero. I am me.
We have this desire to be equal, but why people so hung up on categorizing people and putting labels on them? We will NEVER achieve equality with these labels. Queer heterosexual? Cis women? Am I the only one that does not see the point in micro analyzing every fucking person in this world? When did these terms get invented, because I've never heard them until now. Why can't we all just be known as "people"?
Also, how dare his friends chastise him for not wanting a fuck a girl who was born a man (see what I did there avoiding labels?). This kid clearly has a good head on his shoulders, has been involved in equal rights causes, takes into consideration the feelings of others, but just because he is only attracted to women that were born with a vagina he is now being called a "transphobe" by his "friends"? I'm sorry, but "-phobe" should be reserved for the true homophobes in this country, the people that call others "faggots" or go on Fox News and talk about the sanctity of marriage. This kid isn't a "phobe".
We will never achieve equality if the ones fighting for it are still stuck in neutral because they feel that being progressive is making up different labels for each person's unique situation.
I am not cis. I am not trans. I am not a straight homo. I am not a queer hetero. I am me.
58
@7 This makes about 538 GSA presidents running about whom I've heard who are openly straight. It's almost enough to make one long for the old quota system of co-presidents, 1 straight-identified maximum (ideally, one any-identified maximum).
vennominon, perhaps we have different understandings of the purpose of a GSA, especially in high schools and below, but I totally fail to see what is wrong with "openly straight" people presiding over one.
I certainly would hope that removing the bigots, the cowards and the disinterested from the "straight" majority would not reduce their numbers to the point that they match the numbers of out homosexuals in those schools. Again, unless if you are arguing that "straight" people are somehow deficient or incapable of having the qualities necessary to preside over a GSA, why wouldn't they account for a higher precentage of presidents?
vennominon, perhaps we have different understandings of the purpose of a GSA, especially in high schools and below, but I totally fail to see what is wrong with "openly straight" people presiding over one.
I certainly would hope that removing the bigots, the cowards and the disinterested from the "straight" majority would not reduce their numbers to the point that they match the numbers of out homosexuals in those schools. Again, unless if you are arguing that "straight" people are somehow deficient or incapable of having the qualities necessary to preside over a GSA, why wouldn't they account for a higher precentage of presidents?
59
To FTP: Please do not take lightly the advice to seek an attorney's advice NOW in the face of a CPS threat over your lifestyle. I did not take the threat seriously, assuming that the judicial system had some sense of social justice, and a four-year battle for my children ensued. Some of this is part of public record, Internet searchable; but more importantly, you can never get back the time lost with a child.
60
Abe @57. I saw what you did: "Also, how dare his friends chastise him for not wanting a fuck a girl who was born a man (see what I did there avoiding labels?)."
But if you read some of the comments, some will still say you have failed. "born a man" vs. "born presenting male". I'm not saying you are wrong and they are right, but you have to know that confidense in the labels we use is clearly going to be challenges(and this both frustrates and inspires me).
But if you read some of the comments, some will still say you have failed. "born a man" vs. "born presenting male". I'm not saying you are wrong and they are right, but you have to know that confidense in the labels we use is clearly going to be challenges(and this both frustrates and inspires me).
61
Thx for the birth control comment. That is a VERY real side effect!
@53 - www.cyclebeads.com - check 'em out. If your cycle is within range, it's a pretty good hormone free option. I used them in a relationship for 2 years w/ no surprises. :)
And Fraud is straight - what's up w/ the LGBTQ author having to be a middle schooler - you have to have a label just like me. :(
@53 - www.cyclebeads.com - check 'em out. If your cycle is within range, it's a pretty good hormone free option. I used them in a relationship for 2 years w/ no surprises. :)
And Fraud is straight - what's up w/ the LGBTQ author having to be a middle schooler - you have to have a label just like me. :(
62
I would like to think that my problem with "cis" is not that it attacks my privilege, but that it is uncommon, unnecessary and unknown; basically the opposite of useful for communication. In the pretty much never that I need to describe myself or others as "not trans", I have found that "not trans" worked adequately.
As I brought it up, while there is something to the wrongness of the assumed "white", "straight" or what have you, I think the bigger issue is the otherizing nature of the unnecessary labeling.
Perhaps this is problematic in ways I don't fully grasp, but I would think that common terms like "people" adequately describes trans people, except when we are discussing ways in which that is actually a distinct group.
Ultimately, I don't see how trying to build a word that segregates out trans people is a step forward for their acceptance and equality.
As I brought it up, while there is something to the wrongness of the assumed "white", "straight" or what have you, I think the bigger issue is the otherizing nature of the unnecessary labeling.
Perhaps this is problematic in ways I don't fully grasp, but I would think that common terms like "people" adequately describes trans people, except when we are discussing ways in which that is actually a distinct group.
Ultimately, I don't see how trying to build a word that segregates out trans people is a step forward for their acceptance and equality.
63
Straight people sympathetic to LGBTQ issues are just advocates for social equality. I fail to see what civil rights has to do with my sexuality.
Because isn't that the essence of the fight, that it is not about sexuality at all, it is about all citizens having equal rights under law, no exceptions. It used to be about skin color, now it's about gender/sexual identity, and it's just the same amount of wrong.
Just as you wouldn't say that my desire for equality meant I should identify as cis-caucasian, don't label me cis-het.
Because isn't that the essence of the fight, that it is not about sexuality at all, it is about all citizens having equal rights under law, no exceptions. It used to be about skin color, now it's about gender/sexual identity, and it's just the same amount of wrong.
Just as you wouldn't say that my desire for equality meant I should identify as cis-caucasian, don't label me cis-het.
64
Ms Forward @58 - There is nothing wrong with AN openly straight person presiding over A GSA. There is nothing particularly wrong with the majority of presidents reflecting the majority of the memberships. But when one after one becomes dozens after dozens becomes hundreds after hundreds, it rather suggests that the presidency over what is after all an alliance has become the prerogative of one particular group. Because one is dealing with orientation and self-identification, it does not quite reach the same areas as racial or sexual balance, but that just makes a somewhat more disparate proportion acceptable.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of co-presidents as peculiarly apposite for an alliance. I've seen imposed balance tend to provide more improvement than detriment.
(It might be possible to make the case that alliance leadership is if anything more valuable training for young non-straights, as building alliances is much more likely to be their daily bread ad infinitum. Even the most dedicated straight people are likely to find that their lives just fill up with things that have nothing to do with such issues - not a fault.)
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of co-presidents as peculiarly apposite for an alliance. I've seen imposed balance tend to provide more improvement than detriment.
(It might be possible to make the case that alliance leadership is if anything more valuable training for young non-straights, as building alliances is much more likely to be their daily bread ad infinitum. Even the most dedicated straight people are likely to find that their lives just fill up with things that have nothing to do with such issues - not a fault.)
65
If FRAUD is a queer Het (which phrase I totally dislike, why can't we just be straight folk with common decency), then what is a Straight Homosexual? A gay person who has no tolerance for others? So, then, straight will come to mean intolerance? There is already a word fo that, or words: asshole, bigot, phobic, Rick Santorum, etc.
66
Re bc pills, put me in the camp of women whose libido is not affected by the hormones. No weight gain either. And my periods when off hormones are awful. I love my pills.
As far as the transphobe issue, I think @39 has it right.
I recommend the following:
"I've never been sexually attracted to someone I knew was trans. Wonder if that shows something going on in my subconscious."
Similarly, a white person can say:
"I've never been attracted to someone who was black. Wonder if that shows something going on in my subconscious."
I'd even go so far as to recommend that straight people try saying:
"I've never been attracted to someone of my gender. Wonder if that shows something going on in my subconscious."
That leaves the door open for the possibility that one might, someday, be attracted to someone trans, or black, or of the same gender. And it shows that you are aware of your position of privilege as straight and/or white, and open to people questioning you about it.
As far as the transphobe issue, I think @39 has it right.
I recommend the following:
"I've never been sexually attracted to someone I knew was trans. Wonder if that shows something going on in my subconscious."
Similarly, a white person can say:
"I've never been attracted to someone who was black. Wonder if that shows something going on in my subconscious."
I'd even go so far as to recommend that straight people try saying:
"I've never been attracted to someone of my gender. Wonder if that shows something going on in my subconscious."
That leaves the door open for the possibility that one might, someday, be attracted to someone trans, or black, or of the same gender. And it shows that you are aware of your position of privilege as straight and/or white, and open to people questioning you about it.
67
I'm a 32 yr old "queer" (Not "straight queer") woman (not that who I am or what I am really matters on this subject). I would like to point out that regardless of changing from a man to a woman physically... with advanced procedures, even if there are absolutely zero male qualities of any kind left (bone structure or other details), male born and woman born individuals VIBRATE differently (and no, I'm not talking about toys), brains are wired differently, scent is a factor... It's not just physical differences. The FRAUD dude just might not be able to have %100 of the connection or chemistry required to go all the way with a male-to-female individual. It’s just as likely for a %110 GAY individual to fall in love with and go all the way with (because falling in love and going all the way can be two separate issues here) a person of the opposite gender. He should be allowed to feel that way if he cannot help how he feels sexually any differently than GLBTQ feel. Sexuality is a very intricate. FRAUDS friends should indeed respect his preferences. Seems a little hypocritical of them not to.
68
@62, "I don't see how trying to build a word that segregates out trans people is a step forward for their acceptance and equality."
I think most transwomen prefer to be seen as women. But in situations where one is talking about them being trans (saying they don't get to use the women's bathroom, or saying that their medical situations should be seen as cosmetic rather than necessary surgery, or whatever), then it has proven helpful to have language that denormalizes the cis-gendered. Like affirmative action, it's a stop-gap measure, and when everyone agrees to treat all women as women, then the terminology can change. But for now, I think the cisgendered should focus less on maintaining their own comfort at all costs and work a little harder at sympathizing with the difficult life transgendered people face.
I think most transwomen prefer to be seen as women. But in situations where one is talking about them being trans (saying they don't get to use the women's bathroom, or saying that their medical situations should be seen as cosmetic rather than necessary surgery, or whatever), then it has proven helpful to have language that denormalizes the cis-gendered. Like affirmative action, it's a stop-gap measure, and when everyone agrees to treat all women as women, then the terminology can change. But for now, I think the cisgendered should focus less on maintaining their own comfort at all costs and work a little harder at sympathizing with the difficult life transgendered people face.
69
He's not Queer, he's just a decent, conscientious and energetic human being. His should be the default position.
70
Throwing more and more labels into the social-acceptance-of-sexuality pot seems like a really messy idea.
71
I'm a 32 yr old "queer" (Not "straight queer") woman (not that who I am or what I am really matters for this subject). I would like to point out that regardless of changing from a man to a woman physically with advanced procedures, even if there are absolutely zero male qualities of any kind left (bone structure or other details), male born and woman born individuals vibrate differently, brains are wired differently, scent is a factor... It's not just physical differences. The FRAUD dude just might not be able to have %100 of the connection or chemistry match required to go all the way with a male-to-female individual. It’s just as likely for a %110 GAY individual to fall in love with and go all the way with a person of the opposite gender. He should be allowed to feel that way if he cannot help how he feels sexually any differently than GLBTQ feel. Sexuality is a very intricate. FRAUDS friends should indeed respect his preferences. Seems a little hypocritical of them not to.
72
@57 "how dare his friends chastise him for not wanting a fuck a girl who was born a man"
LOL. How about rephrasing that as "not wanting to fuck a woman who was born a boy."
LOL. How about rephrasing that as "not wanting to fuck a woman who was born a boy."
73
I've just reread FRAUD's letter and see that it's his own friends who are calling him a transphobe. This isn't a general discussion about what you believe and whom you're attracted to. These are people hitting on their friend, then calling him names when their advances are rejected. Sexual manipulation at its nastiest.
Count me as a transphobe because I don't buy the idea that sexual identity is entirely a subjective matter. I believe that the way a person "presents" counts for something.
By analogy: A boy is born to John and Mary Quackenbush. They name him Jim. He grows up, but as he gets older, he becomes more and more convinced that he's not really Jim Quackenbush, he's the lost Lindbergh baby-- or Jesus or Napoleon or Anastasia. We don't decide that he really is Charles Jr. because he thinks he is. We decide he's schizophrenic with a distorted view of reality and give appropriate treatment. He doesn't get to decide who he is. The society does.
Why is trans-sexuality different? Why can't I decide that I was born rich in a poor person's body and demand that you all give me money so the outer reality matches my inner one?
I have the feeling that I'm about to get in a lot of trouble.
Count me as a transphobe because I don't buy the idea that sexual identity is entirely a subjective matter. I believe that the way a person "presents" counts for something.
By analogy: A boy is born to John and Mary Quackenbush. They name him Jim. He grows up, but as he gets older, he becomes more and more convinced that he's not really Jim Quackenbush, he's the lost Lindbergh baby-- or Jesus or Napoleon or Anastasia. We don't decide that he really is Charles Jr. because he thinks he is. We decide he's schizophrenic with a distorted view of reality and give appropriate treatment. He doesn't get to decide who he is. The society does.
Why is trans-sexuality different? Why can't I decide that I was born rich in a poor person's body and demand that you all give me money so the outer reality matches my inner one?
I have the feeling that I'm about to get in a lot of trouble.
74
@64 Thank you, vennominon.
I guess I view these more a discrete selections of the perceived best candidates than as a trend, but I can understand your concern.
Still, I think you may be undervaluing the benefit of that leadership training in the hands of "out" allies, who go on to exert influence in other spheres. While direct advocacy is vital, I think indirect influence brings converts.
I don't dislike co-presidencies of GSAs, so much as I worry that it is much more suggestive of detente than unity.
I guess I view these more a discrete selections of the perceived best candidates than as a trend, but I can understand your concern.
Still, I think you may be undervaluing the benefit of that leadership training in the hands of "out" allies, who go on to exert influence in other spheres. While direct advocacy is vital, I think indirect influence brings converts.
I don't dislike co-presidencies of GSAs, so much as I worry that it is much more suggestive of detente than unity.
76
I regards to the podcast, your new co-host Lucy is terrible. Glad you like her, I can see why, she's a suck-up, defers to your opinion, acts stupid but is also bubbly and upbeat.
Good for her for talking about being abused, but most of time she comes off as such a little girl. Any woman who won't tell a guy she's on her period, is an idiot.
Anyway, no more listening to the podcast for me.
Why don't you get a real woman, like Susie Bright or just have Mistriss Matisse back on? If your going to have a co-host, get a grown-up.
It might be harder for your ego, but it would make a better show.
Good for her for talking about being abused, but most of time she comes off as such a little girl. Any woman who won't tell a guy she's on her period, is an idiot.
Anyway, no more listening to the podcast for me.
Why don't you get a real woman, like Susie Bright or just have Mistriss Matisse back on? If your going to have a co-host, get a grown-up.
It might be harder for your ego, but it would make a better show.
77
@68 EricaP, I think what we're saying is much more closely aligned than your response implies, but we certainly do disagree on whether cis is a stop-gap or as I said, a step in the wrong direction.
I think that your "comfort" may be a more accessible term than my "privilege", for starting to get at the kinds of issues around "normal" this sort of conversation necessitates, but I think your statement may have been a bit more inflammatory than illuminating at this point in the conversation.
I think that your "comfort" may be a more accessible term than my "privilege", for starting to get at the kinds of issues around "normal" this sort of conversation necessitates, but I think your statement may have been a bit more inflammatory than illuminating at this point in the conversation.
78
@73: The subjective "because that's how I FEEL" vs. the objective "this is how you ARE physically whether you like it or not" is what I was hinting at in #54.
If someone born with man bits feels she's really a female lesbian AND female sexuality is as fluid as Dan says, is there a possibility that she will be a straight woman once she cycles out of her rebellious, experimental college phase? I'm kidding, but...
If someone born with man bits feels she's really a female lesbian AND female sexuality is as fluid as Dan says, is there a possibility that she will be a straight woman once she cycles out of her rebellious, experimental college phase? I'm kidding, but...
79
I really have to take issue with Bornstein’s coining “queer heterosexual” to describe a non-bigoted straight person. By abandoning the perfectly adequate “straight,” she signals that “straight” sexual orientation goes hand-in-hand with bigotry, which is patently false. In fact, it borders on heterophobic. Yeah, I went there.
Also, Bornstein seems to forget that queer people can be bigots too, often against other stripes of queer people. Having a queer sexual orientation does not automatically confer enlightenment any more than a straight sexual orientation automatically confers prejudice.
Also, Bornstein seems to forget that queer people can be bigots too, often against other stripes of queer people. Having a queer sexual orientation does not automatically confer enlightenment any more than a straight sexual orientation automatically confers prejudice.
80
@8: I totally agree. To the extent that sex and political beliefs are different things, I think calling a GLBTA ally "queer" pointlessly muddles the distinction.
81
Am i the only one here that thinks FRAUD's letter is a FRAUD!!!
After all the recent accusations of Dan alleged transphobia, this letter reads like its baiting Dan to say something insulting towards the trans community to justify their anti-Dan Savage glitter bombing ways.
People read the letter again... first how many straight men are there that would even worry about the possibility of dating a transwomen? And then said person, would then take up his fears with his trans friends. I find the whole situation very very unlikely.
I call BS on this letter. However, Dan you answered it well, got advise from a trans expert and handled it all very open mindedly. So the next time you get glitter bombed, let's see what this tiny minority of anti-Dan activists will bitch about then.
After all the recent accusations of Dan alleged transphobia, this letter reads like its baiting Dan to say something insulting towards the trans community to justify their anti-Dan Savage glitter bombing ways.
People read the letter again... first how many straight men are there that would even worry about the possibility of dating a transwomen? And then said person, would then take up his fears with his trans friends. I find the whole situation very very unlikely.
I call BS on this letter. However, Dan you answered it well, got advise from a trans expert and handled it all very open mindedly. So the next time you get glitter bombed, let's see what this tiny minority of anti-Dan activists will bitch about then.
82
I'm with you, Crinoline (73). But yes, tomatoes (and more) may be lobbed at you for saying it. ;)
And seeker6079 (#51) on John Horstman's #47, I love it! And I'm saying that as a former Women's Studies major!!
ARGH! Words have meaning and refer to REAL things people. Not everything we see or refer to is a complete product of the social imagination for pete's sake. Do cats, dogs, giraffes, elephants, lizards, frogs, birds, etc. NOT have a biological sex too, or is that just a social construction too?? I wonder if my male cat thinks he's a girl? Would he be right if he thought that?
OK, here's the thing. Yes, we live in a world in which meaning is attached to stuff and, perhaps, that meaning doesn't actually *belong* to that stuff. But sex (biological reproduction) DOES belong to bodies. Males make sperm, females make eggs. That is REAL! And further, we have different social experiences based on the bodies we live in. So you can't disentangle the body from our experience of the world. Mind-body dualism is a farce.
#47, indeed, no two women's (or men's) lives are exactly the same, BUT across individuals there are stochastic propensities associated with experience. E.g., as a female-bodied person, I was more likely to grow up being concerned about having accidents with my period (getting blood on white trousers), whereas male-bodied teens might have been more worried about nighttime emissions (esp if mom did the laundry). And people treated me differently (expecting physical weakness) in me b/c of my body, etc. etc. I got whistled at just minding my own business walking down the street. These are experiences that happened to me BECAUSE of my body and experiences have consequences for who you are/become.
Also, why is it that trans people get to decide what the defining feature of being 'male' or 'female' is and not the 'cisgendered' who make up 90%++++ of the population of male and female people? I.e., why is being male or female reduced ONLY to a particular belief in the brain, regardless of ANYTHING else that may or may not be present to indicate that one is this or that gender?
Back to the questioner, declaring you aren't sexually interested in someone who once had a male body but now presents as female is NOT an ism or a phobia. You have the right to believe that that person isn't female in the way you prefer females to be just as much as that individual has the right to think she is female even if her body wasn't originally constructed that way. I.e., the trans-person's beliefs about him/herself do not trump your beliefs about him/her.
More...
And seeker6079 (#51) on John Horstman's #47, I love it! And I'm saying that as a former Women's Studies major!!
ARGH! Words have meaning and refer to REAL things people. Not everything we see or refer to is a complete product of the social imagination for pete's sake. Do cats, dogs, giraffes, elephants, lizards, frogs, birds, etc. NOT have a biological sex too, or is that just a social construction too?? I wonder if my male cat thinks he's a girl? Would he be right if he thought that?
OK, here's the thing. Yes, we live in a world in which meaning is attached to stuff and, perhaps, that meaning doesn't actually *belong* to that stuff. But sex (biological reproduction) DOES belong to bodies. Males make sperm, females make eggs. That is REAL! And further, we have different social experiences based on the bodies we live in. So you can't disentangle the body from our experience of the world. Mind-body dualism is a farce.
#47, indeed, no two women's (or men's) lives are exactly the same, BUT across individuals there are stochastic propensities associated with experience. E.g., as a female-bodied person, I was more likely to grow up being concerned about having accidents with my period (getting blood on white trousers), whereas male-bodied teens might have been more worried about nighttime emissions (esp if mom did the laundry). And people treated me differently (expecting physical weakness) in me b/c of my body, etc. etc. I got whistled at just minding my own business walking down the street. These are experiences that happened to me BECAUSE of my body and experiences have consequences for who you are/become.
Also, why is it that trans people get to decide what the defining feature of being 'male' or 'female' is and not the 'cisgendered' who make up 90%++++ of the population of male and female people? I.e., why is being male or female reduced ONLY to a particular belief in the brain, regardless of ANYTHING else that may or may not be present to indicate that one is this or that gender?
Back to the questioner, declaring you aren't sexually interested in someone who once had a male body but now presents as female is NOT an ism or a phobia. You have the right to believe that that person isn't female in the way you prefer females to be just as much as that individual has the right to think she is female even if her body wasn't originally constructed that way. I.e., the trans-person's beliefs about him/herself do not trump your beliefs about him/her.
83
I'm with you, Crinoline (73). But yes, tomatoes (and more) may be lobbed at you for saying it. ;)
And seeker6079 (#51) on John Horstman's #47, I love it! And I'm saying that as a former Women's Studies major!!
ARGH! Words have meaning and refer to REAL things people. Not everything we see or refer to is a complete product of the social imagination for pete's sake. Do cats, dogs, giraffes, elephants, lizards, frogs, birds, etc. NOT have a biological sex, or is that just a social construction too?? I wonder if my male cat thinks he's a girl? Would he be right if he thought that?
OK, here's the thing. Yes, we live in a world in which meaning is attached to stuff and, perhaps sometimes, that meaning doesn't actually *belong* to that stuff. But sex (biological reproduction) DOES belong to bodies. Males make sperm, females make eggs. That is REAL. And further, we have different social experiences based on the bodies we live in. So you can't disentangle the body from our experience of the world. Mind-body dualism is a farce.
#47, indeed, no two women's (or men's) lives are exactly the same, BUT across individuals there are stochastic propensities associated with bodies. E.g., as a female-bodied person, I was more likely to grow up being concerned about having accidents with my period (getting blood on white trousers), whereas male-bodied teens might have been more worried about nighttime emissions (esp if mom did the laundry). And people treated me differently (expecting physical weakness) in me b/c of my body. As another example, b/c of my body, I got whistled (or rude things said to me) by men in cars while I was just minding my own business walking down the street (age 13!). These are experiences that happened to me BECAUSE of my body; and experiences have consequences for who you are/become. Bodies and experiences are not wholly separable.
Also, why is it that trans people -- a tremendous numerical minority -- get to decide what the defining feature of being 'male' or 'female' is? I.e., why is being male or female reduced ONLY to a particular belief in the brain, regardless of ANYTHING else that may or may not be present to indicate that one is this or that gender?
Back to the questioner, declaring you aren't sexually interested in someone who once had a male body but now presents as female is NOT an -ism or a -phobia. You have the right to believe that that person isn't female in the way you prefer females to be just as much as that individual has the right to think she is female even if her body wasn't originally constructed that way. To each her/his own, right? So long as you treat others with dignity and kindness, you don't have to f*ck 'em too.
More...
And seeker6079 (#51) on John Horstman's #47, I love it! And I'm saying that as a former Women's Studies major!!
ARGH! Words have meaning and refer to REAL things people. Not everything we see or refer to is a complete product of the social imagination for pete's sake. Do cats, dogs, giraffes, elephants, lizards, frogs, birds, etc. NOT have a biological sex, or is that just a social construction too?? I wonder if my male cat thinks he's a girl? Would he be right if he thought that?
OK, here's the thing. Yes, we live in a world in which meaning is attached to stuff and, perhaps sometimes, that meaning doesn't actually *belong* to that stuff. But sex (biological reproduction) DOES belong to bodies. Males make sperm, females make eggs. That is REAL. And further, we have different social experiences based on the bodies we live in. So you can't disentangle the body from our experience of the world. Mind-body dualism is a farce.
#47, indeed, no two women's (or men's) lives are exactly the same, BUT across individuals there are stochastic propensities associated with bodies. E.g., as a female-bodied person, I was more likely to grow up being concerned about having accidents with my period (getting blood on white trousers), whereas male-bodied teens might have been more worried about nighttime emissions (esp if mom did the laundry). And people treated me differently (expecting physical weakness) in me b/c of my body. As another example, b/c of my body, I got whistled (or rude things said to me) by men in cars while I was just minding my own business walking down the street (age 13!). These are experiences that happened to me BECAUSE of my body; and experiences have consequences for who you are/become. Bodies and experiences are not wholly separable.
Also, why is it that trans people -- a tremendous numerical minority -- get to decide what the defining feature of being 'male' or 'female' is? I.e., why is being male or female reduced ONLY to a particular belief in the brain, regardless of ANYTHING else that may or may not be present to indicate that one is this or that gender?
Back to the questioner, declaring you aren't sexually interested in someone who once had a male body but now presents as female is NOT an -ism or a -phobia. You have the right to believe that that person isn't female in the way you prefer females to be just as much as that individual has the right to think she is female even if her body wasn't originally constructed that way. To each her/his own, right? So long as you treat others with dignity and kindness, you don't have to f*ck 'em too.
84
@50 and @56
Glad this is a slow day at work so I can address your important questions/concerns!
Mirena hormones work very differently than systemic hormones (e.g., birth control pills.)
Mirena hormones are LOCAL to the uterus as I stated previously (#26). The Mirena IUD will not stop ovulation or natural cycling. So then why do some women have NO periods on the Mirena? That is because the local effect on the uterus is to thin the uterine lining.
(BTW it also triggers the uterus to create a cerical mucus that blocks sperm -- that's the main way it works as contraception. Copper IUDs work b/c copper is toxic to sperm.)
With a Mirena IUD nothing needs to come out. However all the ovarian stimulation from the brain and ovarian hormones throughout the body -- that will continue on the Mirena. Natural hormones! If a woman has PMS, bloating, breast tenderness, even cramping -- any menstrual cycle symptoms -- these will all continue on the Mirena. Everuthing except the bleeding that is. Bleeding will be very light or not at all. Not because the Mirena stops your natural hormones but because it thins the uterine lining so that there is no lining to come out.
@56 Coper IUD does cause painful heavy periods for some women. Perhaps try a Mirena??
Re: Cycle beads are OK but be careful! Too long to go into here -- but you must know what you are doing and how your natural cycles work to use these effectively. Also 12 days out of the month you must abstain or use a back up method, such as condoms. Your risk of pregnancy is much higher then if a condom breaks during the possible fertile days. Chcek out "Taking Charge of Your Fertility" website www.tcoyf.com
More...
Glad this is a slow day at work so I can address your important questions/concerns!
Mirena hormones work very differently than systemic hormones (e.g., birth control pills.)
Mirena hormones are LOCAL to the uterus as I stated previously (#26). The Mirena IUD will not stop ovulation or natural cycling. So then why do some women have NO periods on the Mirena? That is because the local effect on the uterus is to thin the uterine lining.
(BTW it also triggers the uterus to create a cerical mucus that blocks sperm -- that's the main way it works as contraception. Copper IUDs work b/c copper is toxic to sperm.)
With a Mirena IUD nothing needs to come out. However all the ovarian stimulation from the brain and ovarian hormones throughout the body -- that will continue on the Mirena. Natural hormones! If a woman has PMS, bloating, breast tenderness, even cramping -- any menstrual cycle symptoms -- these will all continue on the Mirena. Everuthing except the bleeding that is. Bleeding will be very light or not at all. Not because the Mirena stops your natural hormones but because it thins the uterine lining so that there is no lining to come out.
@56 Coper IUD does cause painful heavy periods for some women. Perhaps try a Mirena??
Re: Cycle beads are OK but be careful! Too long to go into here -- but you must know what you are doing and how your natural cycles work to use these effectively. Also 12 days out of the month you must abstain or use a back up method, such as condoms. Your risk of pregnancy is much higher then if a condom breaks during the possible fertile days. Chcek out "Taking Charge of Your Fertility" website www.tcoyf.com
85
@76 Thank you!! I hate her. She has no idea what she is talking about and she does just defer to Dan in everything!! She never says anything in support of the callers or calls Dan out on his bullshit (which does happen at times). I also feel like it is very sex negative to refer to her as his wife because they don't have sex. Really Dan? I know it's a joke, but you get letters everyday from people about their lack of sex and it's not just women. You shouldn't be reinforcing these negative stereotypes that woman don't enjoy sex, or just stop after they get themselves a husband! Fuck Lucy, she makes me never not want to listen to the podcast.
86
When I find out a guy is gay, no matter how insanely hot, I lose any urge to fuck him.
I also lose the urge to fuck people who tick the following boxes- stupid, married/partnered, children, shorter than me, high pitched voices, are women.
I'm sure there's exceptions to that rule. As I experience more, I'm open to more things. But my general orientation for attraction stays pretty much the same from day to day. I'm not a bigot. I don't feel hatred or repulsion towards people who don't fall into my sphere of attraction. I just know who I do and don't want to fuck. That's my right as a human being. Isn't that what LBGT rights are about?
As for being 'queer hetro'. My boyfriend is a big supporter of women's rights, I don't consider him a 'female man'.
I also lose the urge to fuck people who tick the following boxes- stupid, married/partnered, children, shorter than me, high pitched voices, are women.
I'm sure there's exceptions to that rule. As I experience more, I'm open to more things. But my general orientation for attraction stays pretty much the same from day to day. I'm not a bigot. I don't feel hatred or repulsion towards people who don't fall into my sphere of attraction. I just know who I do and don't want to fuck. That's my right as a human being. Isn't that what LBGT rights are about?
As for being 'queer hetro'. My boyfriend is a big supporter of women's rights, I don't consider him a 'female man'.
87
Oh I meant to say 'people who HAVE children'! Not the...not the other thing. That's sort of a given, right?
88
I am with those who find declaring FRAUD 'queer' to be a bit offensive. Not that he might call himself queer. If he wants to think of himself as queer that's fine by me. But telling him that he is not straight but queer, regardless of how he sees himself, is arrogant, insensitive, and rude.
It's one thing to suggest to someone who's self identify is pretty clearly at odds with their behaviors that they might want to consider re-evaluating their identity. Like, if a man identifies as straight, but never shows any interest in women and goes off every night to pick up guys to suck their dicks, it might not be out of place for someone close to them to suggest that possibly, just maybe, they might want to consider that they aren't completely straight, what with all the cock sucking and all.
It's no one's place to tell them they are gay.
It's no one's place to tell FRAUD that he is queer.
I'm gay but I don't indentify as queer. If others want to use the term fine, but I don't identify with it. If someone wants to think of me as 'queer' in their heads that is their deal. But if someone tells me I AM queer and need to identify that way I will tell them they can kiss by gay, not queer, ass.
As for FRAUDS question, although I am loath to chime in on anything having to do with transgendered issues, my advice is lie.
When someone asks if he has a problem with the idea of getting involved with a transgendered person he should just say no, he simply hasn't been attracted to any transgendered people yet who were attracted to him as well. That he isn't attracted to any doesn't have to come in to it.
As far as I am concerned it is no one else's business who I am attracted to or why. If I don't find myself with a desire to get involved with someone else no one has a right to know why. Not even the person I am not attracted to.
Who we are attracted to and who we want to, or not want to fuck is the one area in our lives where we have the right to absolute latitude to choose or acknowledge what we want without having to explain or justify to anyone else. Not that we have the right to fuck who we want, but we have the right to not be attracted to those we are not attracted to for whatever reason.
More...
It's one thing to suggest to someone who's self identify is pretty clearly at odds with their behaviors that they might want to consider re-evaluating their identity. Like, if a man identifies as straight, but never shows any interest in women and goes off every night to pick up guys to suck their dicks, it might not be out of place for someone close to them to suggest that possibly, just maybe, they might want to consider that they aren't completely straight, what with all the cock sucking and all.
It's no one's place to tell them they are gay.
It's no one's place to tell FRAUD that he is queer.
I'm gay but I don't indentify as queer. If others want to use the term fine, but I don't identify with it. If someone wants to think of me as 'queer' in their heads that is their deal. But if someone tells me I AM queer and need to identify that way I will tell them they can kiss by gay, not queer, ass.
As for FRAUDS question, although I am loath to chime in on anything having to do with transgendered issues, my advice is lie.
When someone asks if he has a problem with the idea of getting involved with a transgendered person he should just say no, he simply hasn't been attracted to any transgendered people yet who were attracted to him as well. That he isn't attracted to any doesn't have to come in to it.
As far as I am concerned it is no one else's business who I am attracted to or why. If I don't find myself with a desire to get involved with someone else no one has a right to know why. Not even the person I am not attracted to.
Who we are attracted to and who we want to, or not want to fuck is the one area in our lives where we have the right to absolute latitude to choose or acknowledge what we want without having to explain or justify to anyone else. Not that we have the right to fuck who we want, but we have the right to not be attracted to those we are not attracted to for whatever reason.
89
"Straight" is just fine as a neutral term for heterosexual. Don't burden it with judgmental garbage suggesting it includes homophobia in its meaning. We don't need "queer heterosexual". We already have "straight" for that.
Likewise, "gay" doesn't mean "heterophobic".
Likewise, "gay" doesn't mean "heterophobic".
90
"Right off the top of my head: Your brother is a shit-smeared asshole, your sister-in-law is an ass-smeared shithole,"
Surely we can do better than speak about other human beings like this, whatever they do,however they behave.
Surely we can do better than speak about other human beings like this, whatever they do,however they behave.
91
@seeker6079, Manzana, Crinoline et alii, I quite agree with you. It seems that gender is not just social construction, and that, despite Freud's famous perverse polymorphy hypothesis, there indeed are features that are more likely to develop in females (or males) than the other way round, in body and spirit -- to say nothing of the common experiences one may have with those who share the same sex one has and how they can influence who one is (in the latter there's a social component, but also a purely physical one -- the experience of having this or that hormone, or having a period, for instance).
It is interesting that people like Mr Horstman, however, do propose to see everything as the result of social construction. I think this comes from the -- quite human -- desire to see simplicity eveywhere. A theory that explains everything on the basis of a neat system is more enjoyable: it offers a story that can be told about all the cases and situations (in this case, relating to sex and gender), it offers a clear vision of things, a framework against which to make moral and ethical choices. It offers the comfort of calculus when dealing with physical reality.
There is a reason, however, why physicists, even though they are all taught to be proficient at calculus (and linear algebra, and), are also taught numerical methods. One often has to deal with the fact that the model is never a perfect fit for the data.
When the genome project showed how full of junk the human DNA actually is, this was supposedly a surprise; but then everybody started saying -- of course! it is, after all, a result of billions of years of basically chaotic evolution (in the sense that organisms had to adapt to environments that changed in ways nobody could predict). It had to be a mess. If we saw an underlying system that wasd beautiful, harmonious and ruled by symmetry, that would have been quite a surprise.
The same thing with purely social-constructionist explanation of... well, of pretty much anything in human cognition. To put it bluntly, they are too simple, too modular, too "blank slate" to be actually a true result of messy, chaotic biological evolution.
It's the beauty of the theory, the 'freedom' it gives us (in that, since everything is socially constructed, then everything can be changed by changing society) that attracts, I think, people like Mr Horstman.
And indeed it is a beautiful theory. Too beautiful for our ugly and ultimately messy reality.
More...
It is interesting that people like Mr Horstman, however, do propose to see everything as the result of social construction. I think this comes from the -- quite human -- desire to see simplicity eveywhere. A theory that explains everything on the basis of a neat system is more enjoyable: it offers a story that can be told about all the cases and situations (in this case, relating to sex and gender), it offers a clear vision of things, a framework against which to make moral and ethical choices. It offers the comfort of calculus when dealing with physical reality.
There is a reason, however, why physicists, even though they are all taught to be proficient at calculus (and linear algebra, and), are also taught numerical methods. One often has to deal with the fact that the model is never a perfect fit for the data.
When the genome project showed how full of junk the human DNA actually is, this was supposedly a surprise; but then everybody started saying -- of course! it is, after all, a result of billions of years of basically chaotic evolution (in the sense that organisms had to adapt to environments that changed in ways nobody could predict). It had to be a mess. If we saw an underlying system that wasd beautiful, harmonious and ruled by symmetry, that would have been quite a surprise.
The same thing with purely social-constructionist explanation of... well, of pretty much anything in human cognition. To put it bluntly, they are too simple, too modular, too "blank slate" to be actually a true result of messy, chaotic biological evolution.
It's the beauty of the theory, the 'freedom' it gives us (in that, since everything is socially constructed, then everything can be changed by changing society) that attracts, I think, people like Mr Horstman.
And indeed it is a beautiful theory. Too beautiful for our ugly and ultimately messy reality.
92
As far as the young poly man, he should tell his girlfriend about his family's threats. While he may be willing to cut ties with his family, she may not be willing to deal with a visit from family services or the possibility that she could lose her child. He should give his girlfriend the choice about whether or not to continue the relationship. If she breaks-up with him. He can tell his batshit crazy family that his girlfriend broke-up with him because of their threat and he was is cutting off all contact and they will not have any knowledge about any of his future relationships. If she stays with him. He can consult an attorney and make sure she is legally protected and he, his girlfriend and her husband can talk to the batshit crazy relatives and let them know that they are not cowering to their threats and they are losing a relative.
As far as women having a low sex drive, many health problems affect the sexual health of both men and women. If either has a drop from their normal sex drive, they should consult a doctor. It could be a prescription or the first indicator of a serious health problem.
As far as women having a low sex drive, many health problems affect the sexual health of both men and women. If either has a drop from their normal sex drive, they should consult a doctor. It could be a prescription or the first indicator of a serious health problem.
93
@75, That was an awesome comment. Johnny Carson, FTW!
@73 & 82, I'm unclear on your goals here. Are you saying that trans isn't a real thing? Are you conflating a psychotic disorder with being trans?
There really is a difference between me saying "I'm the Queen of Romania" and my buddy Jake saying, "Yeah, don't call me Jen--I feel more like a guy."
@73 & 82, I'm unclear on your goals here. Are you saying that trans isn't a real thing? Are you conflating a psychotic disorder with being trans?
There really is a difference between me saying "I'm the Queen of Romania" and my buddy Jake saying, "Yeah, don't call me Jen--I feel more like a guy."
94
Hi Clashfan (#93). No, I'm not saying that trans isn't a 'real' thing. I'm refuting the argument that *nothing* is real and, in particular, that there is nothing real about sex/gender. There *is* something real (no less real than what this distinction means for *other* animals), but - being that we are social animals with the capacity for language, self-related memories, emotions, etc. - there are also *real* experiences tied to the sexed/gendered bodies that our minds inhabit.
I personally think that reducing gender to a "belief in the head" is vastly more essentialist/reductionist than is saying that gender/sex has something to do with the bodies into which we are born and which we experience both physically and socially. I realise that many trans people will reject my approach to thinking about gender. But equally, I have the right to reject their defining my gender for me.
I don't think being TG is a mental disorder. Mind you, it is in the DSM (the psych guidelines for what is/isn't a mental disorder), but so are lots of other 'variations' that are just 'different' ways of thinking/being (ways that, perhaps, are out there on the ends of the normal distribution, but still within the confines of the distribution).
I personally think that reducing gender to a "belief in the head" is vastly more essentialist/reductionist than is saying that gender/sex has something to do with the bodies into which we are born and which we experience both physically and socially. I realise that many trans people will reject my approach to thinking about gender. But equally, I have the right to reject their defining my gender for me.
I don't think being TG is a mental disorder. Mind you, it is in the DSM (the psych guidelines for what is/isn't a mental disorder), but so are lots of other 'variations' that are just 'different' ways of thinking/being (ways that, perhaps, are out there on the ends of the normal distribution, but still within the confines of the distribution).
95
I really can't buy into the BS that there are "queer heterosexuals" unless by "queer heterosexual" you mean that they date a lot of gender queer individuals but prefer the gender of the person (not sex necessarily, mind you) to be the opposite of their own. What does "queer" actually mean then, if people who aren't actually homosexual, trans or genderqueer can identify as "queer?" Kate Bornstein really has opened up this larger and more important question of definition if she is going to so broadly define anyone and everyone as "queer." Is queer the new normal then?
97
93-Clashfan-- I'm with Manzana on this. It's said well in 94.
The way the discussion was going, we had 2 extreme possibilities.
One was that one's reality on sexual identity was entirely subjective. A person was only what s/he felt s/he was regardless of the DNA and genitals.
The other was that a person's sex was entirely objective regardless of how that person felt. Penises = men. Vaginas = women. No other questions accepted.
I'm rejecting the binary assumption that it has to be one of the above.
I'm also calling foul on FRAUD's trans friends who get to decide which sex they are based on their personal subjective reality but who also get to tell FRAUD who he should be attracted to based on (surgically altered) genitals. That's what I'm calling crazy.
The way the discussion was going, we had 2 extreme possibilities.
One was that one's reality on sexual identity was entirely subjective. A person was only what s/he felt s/he was regardless of the DNA and genitals.
The other was that a person's sex was entirely objective regardless of how that person felt. Penises = men. Vaginas = women. No other questions accepted.
I'm rejecting the binary assumption that it has to be one of the above.
I'm also calling foul on FRAUD's trans friends who get to decide which sex they are based on their personal subjective reality but who also get to tell FRAUD who he should be attracted to based on (surgically altered) genitals. That's what I'm calling crazy.
98
You have to identify as queer if you're queer-supporting? Whatever happened to "straight but not narrow"?
And, yeah, it sounds to me like it could come off as appropriation.
And, yeah, it sounds to me like it could come off as appropriation.
99
It galls me to say this, but Kate Bornstein's comments to me represent the tyranny of the minority. If straight people have no right to define the social and sexual experiences of LGBTQQ2SA people, Kate Bornstein has no right to define the terms 'straight' or 'heterosexual' as implicitly bigoted.
You're not gonna win over anyone to your 'side'--whatever side you think that is, Ms. Bornstein--by implying that hate underpins the social and sexual experiences of cisgendered people who like to fuck opposite cisgendered people.
Dan, as the kids say, "I am disappoint."
You're not gonna win over anyone to your 'side'--whatever side you think that is, Ms. Bornstein--by implying that hate underpins the social and sexual experiences of cisgendered people who like to fuck opposite cisgendered people.
Dan, as the kids say, "I am disappoint."
100
Cis gendered? How about "heterosexualized"? I think gender-studies' obsessive focus on language is why so many people find gender-studies just slightly ridiculous.
101
FRAUD sounds kind of like a...fraud. I'm sorry but while I know many gay friendly straight men, to go the extra-extra mile that FRAUD does is a bit much (i.e. vocal high school activist, college GSA president, all of these gay, lesbian, AND trans friends)?
But in the case FRAUD is not a fraud, I got news for him when he says "I realize I wouldn't be fucking a dude". Actually yes, you would be. All the hormones and surgeries in the world are not going to change that Y chromosome to an X.
And le'ts please dispense with silly prefixes like "Cis". The number of MTF transsexuals relative to actual female humans does not warrant having to re-label the standard.
But in the case FRAUD is not a fraud, I got news for him when he says "I realize I wouldn't be fucking a dude". Actually yes, you would be. All the hormones and surgeries in the world are not going to change that Y chromosome to an X.
And le'ts please dispense with silly prefixes like "Cis". The number of MTF transsexuals relative to actual female humans does not warrant having to re-label the standard.
102
I work at the child abuse hotline in Texas, *in Texas*, and nowhere in the family code does it say anything about poly being child abuse. I know it's not that simple, and people will exaggerate in all manner of ways to get an investigator out to the house of someone they just want to get in trouble. But if someone called me to report the situation as FTP describes it, I would give them the standard "we will record this information, but it does not meet guidelines for investigation. Have a nice day!" and only be thinking "you shit-smeared asshole" very loudly. To imply that being poly is child abuse shows that these people have no fucking clue what actual child abuse is.
103
@Hunter
Duh? Women are more likely to have low libido.
Meanwhile men worry about their ability to get it up.
Also, bonus tip. Men have penises and women have vaginas.
Since we're in the business of pointing out well-known gender differences.
Yawn.
Duh? Women are more likely to have low libido.
Meanwhile men worry about their ability to get it up.
Also, bonus tip. Men have penises and women have vaginas.
Since we're in the business of pointing out well-known gender differences.
Yawn.
104
All this info and my main wonderment is: How much DOES it pay to have one legs and feet photographed? Cause that sounds like one easy-ass job to me.
jill
http://inbedwithmarriedwomen.blogspot.co…
jill
http://inbedwithmarriedwomen.blogspot.co…
106
I went years without any kind of libido. The thought of sex or kissing my husband physically made me nauseated. Occasionally I would feel guilty enough to let him have sex with me (I was not an active participant) and it always hurt. I was convinced there was something terribly wrong with me, I talked to him about finding sex outside the marriage if he needed to (I don't think he ever did but I won't ask), and overall my quality of life was diminished.
But this spring I ran out of birth control pills and since I had no insurance to visit a doctor I gave them up, and my psychiatrist switched my anti-depressant from citalopram to wellbutrin. Oh my God! I am a completely different person. I think it took a few months to really get out of my system but I have actual desire for my husband again, it feels good to kiss instead of feeling like my mouth is being disgustingly invaded, and today I actually felt close to having an orgasm. I am 29 and have NEVER had an orgasm, by myself or with him (he has been my only partner), and had given up on ever having one and I felt defective.
So, there is hope if you are on birth control or anti-depressants and have lost your libido. My gynecologist just dismissed my concerns but my psychiatrist was ok trying out a different medication after my mood had been stable. wellbutrin can have fewer sexual side effects but may increase anxiety. But having a fun and happy sex life decreases anxiety!
But this spring I ran out of birth control pills and since I had no insurance to visit a doctor I gave them up, and my psychiatrist switched my anti-depressant from citalopram to wellbutrin. Oh my God! I am a completely different person. I think it took a few months to really get out of my system but I have actual desire for my husband again, it feels good to kiss instead of feeling like my mouth is being disgustingly invaded, and today I actually felt close to having an orgasm. I am 29 and have NEVER had an orgasm, by myself or with him (he has been my only partner), and had given up on ever having one and I felt defective.
So, there is hope if you are on birth control or anti-depressants and have lost your libido. My gynecologist just dismissed my concerns but my psychiatrist was ok trying out a different medication after my mood had been stable. wellbutrin can have fewer sexual side effects but may increase anxiety. But having a fun and happy sex life decreases anxiety!
107
102-Stacy-- I'm glad for your input. I was going to say something about the chaos that would result if children were taken away from every woman who was having a flagrant affair, but I didn't know how to word it. You said it better. The way FTP described it, the bottom line is that the brother discovered on facebook that his brother was having an affair with a married woman. That has got to be a common story even amongst folks who pretend it's not. I've heard that scenario called a lot of things but not child abuse.
108
@91 and @97 - I agree with you. Almost nothing about being human is purely physical or purely psychological/social - those two parts of us interact in extremely intricate ways.
Do post-transition people give off the pheromones of their genetic gender or their psychological gender? Pheromones are a big part of sexual attraction. Maybe FRAUD is just sensitive to the male pheromones given off by MTFs and his body doesn't respond sexually to that, no matter what the person looks like. No one can fault him for that.
Do post-transition people give off the pheromones of their genetic gender or their psychological gender? Pheromones are a big part of sexual attraction. Maybe FRAUD is just sensitive to the male pheromones given off by MTFs and his body doesn't respond sexually to that, no matter what the person looks like. No one can fault him for that.
109
Kate Bornstein has one thing in common with Republicans: they both think all liberals are queers.
110
I'm a little bit suspicious that FRAUD is a letter by a conservative, trying to show up the absurdity of what he thinks liberalism is.
His friends' argument sounds like the equivalent of saying you're sexist if you're not bisexual.
His friends' argument sounds like the equivalent of saying you're sexist if you're not bisexual.
111
My,
Women seem more obsessed about their libidos than men.
"Duh? Women are more likely to have low libido."
Ok. Could I have said that?
"Meanwhile men worry about their ability to get it up."
You do understand there's a difference between ability and desire?
"Also, bonus tip. Men have penises and women have vaginas."
You are sooooooooooo intelligent!
Women seem more obsessed about their libidos than men.
"Duh? Women are more likely to have low libido."
Ok. Could I have said that?
"Meanwhile men worry about their ability to get it up."
You do understand there's a difference between ability and desire?
"Also, bonus tip. Men have penises and women have vaginas."
You are sooooooooooo intelligent!
112
Re neologisms, I just like to remember that sometimes these politically motivated changes take hold (See "chair", "firefighter", "police officer" and "Ms.") Sometimes it doesn't work (see "womyn"). Neologisms aren't inherently foolish or misguided, though obviously some are.
113
@84:
Mirena doesn't just thin the endometrium; it can and does inhibit ovulation. Check
page fourteen of the FDA clinical review. Also, in case you didn't read this article from Gynecological Endocrinology, you probably should.
Mirena doesn't just thin the endometrium; it can and does inhibit ovulation. Check
page fourteen of the FDA clinical review. Also, in case you didn't read this article from Gynecological Endocrinology, you probably should.
114
91-ankylosaur-- Re: Junk DNA a result of billions of years of adapting to an unpredictable environment.
Yes, but also junk DNA the result of all DNA being good at reproducing itself because that's what it does. Some junk shows up through mutation. It doesn't do anything to the organism. It's not acted on by natural selection. It reproduces. The reproductions are reproduced. It happens for billions of years. There's a lot of it because it builds up for billions of years. No environment, stable or unpredictable needed.
But yes, I agree with you on the messy complicatedness of human reality versus the clean sleek lines of the way humans would rather think about everything. I notice that I often accuse fundamentalists and republicans of appealing to the desire for the simplistic in human nature, but it exists on the left as well.
Yes, but also junk DNA the result of all DNA being good at reproducing itself because that's what it does. Some junk shows up through mutation. It doesn't do anything to the organism. It's not acted on by natural selection. It reproduces. The reproductions are reproduced. It happens for billions of years. There's a lot of it because it builds up for billions of years. No environment, stable or unpredictable needed.
But yes, I agree with you on the messy complicatedness of human reality versus the clean sleek lines of the way humans would rather think about everything. I notice that I often accuse fundamentalists and republicans of appealing to the desire for the simplistic in human nature, but it exists on the left as well.
115
Bornstein wants FRAUD to stop identifying as straight? FRAUD is attracted to people who identify as women and who have womens' bodies. How is that not straight? Is Bornstein trying to play some cute semantic game that involves forcing some new-or-improved definition of "straight" onto an unsuspecting world?
FRAUD is entitled to a preference. Hell, if he's only attracted to healthy girls, his fat friends shouldn't be able to call him a bad person for not fucking them. Sure the unfucked can feel rejected, because they're being rejected. But they can't hold it against the rejector.
That said, he said "wouldn't feel comfortable" having sex with a trans woman, not "don't find them attractive". So maybe he could choose to push his boundaries and see what exactly breaks, if he found an attractive trans woman who was willing to take that risk on him.
FRAUD is entitled to a preference. Hell, if he's only attracted to healthy girls, his fat friends shouldn't be able to call him a bad person for not fucking them. Sure the unfucked can feel rejected, because they're being rejected. But they can't hold it against the rejector.
That said, he said "wouldn't feel comfortable" having sex with a trans woman, not "don't find them attractive". So maybe he could choose to push his boundaries and see what exactly breaks, if he found an attractive trans woman who was willing to take that risk on him.
116
@94 & 97, I have a few responses to that. First, you kinda did equate trans to psychosis. You might want to try a different analogy--maybe some other sort of body dysmorphia? And being more clear about your intentions?
Also, I think there is value in separating sex and gender. If you do not agree on this, there is not much point to your reading further.
For most people, they're pretty much the same, but sex is biological and gender is a social construction. I am female, was born female, and identify as such--but I present as fairly 'butch' and that has its own issues. My buddy Jake was born female but feels and presents as male. What that means is that he feels more comfortable in the roles and trappings that our culture identifies with masculinity--much more so than I do. He hasn't begun formal transitioning, but most people treat him as a man. How do you explain that, if there isn't some way in which sex and gender differ?
Manzana, you brought up other animals. I'm not sure how to respond to that, because there are two answers. One, we *do* see opposite-sex behavior in other animals; it's not exclusive to humans. Second, our society is much more a part of our beings than any other animals' society is to them.
You also asked how is it that trans people 'get' to decide what it means to be male or female, for other people. I don't see that they are doing so. Most of the ones I know are pretty relaxed, and big into self-identification. I also don't see where in this thread that anyone was delineating such a split as you describe--with the possible exception of #47, John Horstman (my eyes glazed over a little).
I absolutely agree that the trans folks that the LW is talking about have their heads up their arses. He doesn't need to apologize for his attractions. At *worst*, it's a squick. I also dislike someone else labeling him as 'queer', for the reasons others have stated above.
More...
Also, I think there is value in separating sex and gender. If you do not agree on this, there is not much point to your reading further.
For most people, they're pretty much the same, but sex is biological and gender is a social construction. I am female, was born female, and identify as such--but I present as fairly 'butch' and that has its own issues. My buddy Jake was born female but feels and presents as male. What that means is that he feels more comfortable in the roles and trappings that our culture identifies with masculinity--much more so than I do. He hasn't begun formal transitioning, but most people treat him as a man. How do you explain that, if there isn't some way in which sex and gender differ?
Manzana, you brought up other animals. I'm not sure how to respond to that, because there are two answers. One, we *do* see opposite-sex behavior in other animals; it's not exclusive to humans. Second, our society is much more a part of our beings than any other animals' society is to them.
You also asked how is it that trans people 'get' to decide what it means to be male or female, for other people. I don't see that they are doing so. Most of the ones I know are pretty relaxed, and big into self-identification. I also don't see where in this thread that anyone was delineating such a split as you describe--with the possible exception of #47, John Horstman (my eyes glazed over a little).
I absolutely agree that the trans folks that the LW is talking about have their heads up their arses. He doesn't need to apologize for his attractions. At *worst*, it's a squick. I also dislike someone else labeling him as 'queer', for the reasons others have stated above.
117
@ Hunter
Yes I do know there's a difference. That fact was kind of implicit in how I wrote what I wrote.
You statement was trivial. That was my point. That's why I made fun of it. Apparently that went over your head.
Yes I do know there's a difference. That fact was kind of implicit in how I wrote what I wrote.
You statement was trivial. That was my point. That's why I made fun of it. Apparently that went over your head.
118
echizen@113 This response is no so much directed to you, but rather to any reader who may still be following this conversation thread re: Mirena IUD.
I hope that readers will not be afraid to use this effective contraception method due to any misleading information.
The discussion is probably getting more technical than most people will be interested in following. So here's the take home message: Mirena IUD has hormones that work locally in the uterus. A very very small amount of hormone is absorbed systemically. The contraception effect is local (including the occasional ovarian inhibition due to proximity.)This means that while you may not get periods on the Mirena, it will be because it acts in the uterus to thin the uterine lining. Women using the Mirena have the same natural estrogen levels as women not using hormonal birth control. "Hormones" on the Mirena are almost entirely your own natural hormones -- as opposed to "hormones" when using systemic methods such as birth control pills.
Ok now to the details:
"echizen"@113 offered two links and I read both.
Link 1. FDA:
LNG IUS [Mirena] is believed to exert its contraceptive effect locally in the uterus by
a) thickening the cervical mucus
b) inhibiting sperm motility and function
c) preventing the proliferation of the endometrium during the menstrual
cycle
d) inhibiting ovulation is some cycles (seen more often in the first year of use).
I guess the main point "ecizen" was making is that it is possible that ovulation inhibition is sometimes how Mirena works. I realize that I simplified my description of the mechanism of action of the Mirena. But what I said still holds true -- the effect is local! Look at the quote from the FDA above. It states that it exerts a LOCAL uterine effect. Then at the end of the list it also states that it can inhibit ovulation some of the time. Are you wondering then how that can be local? Well it can! That's because the ovaries and uterus are very very close together. The ovaries are sometimes directly affected by the progesterone of the IUD enough to inhibit ovulation. But this doesn't happen most of the time. Most of the time women will ovulate on the Mirena. Remember that with oral contraception the hormone levels must high enough systemically to turn off ovarian stimulation. In the same way that high systemic natural progesterone levels in the luteal phase of the natural menstrual cycle inhibit ovulation. In short -- NOT how the Mirena happens to work.
Link 2. This is so weird! Though it looks like it's trying to imitate one -- this article is not from a peer-reviewed scientific journal at all. It some organization devoted to fighting Bayer Inc., called "The Coalition Against Bayer-dangers". The author of this "review article" is clear that he's fighting against the general medical/scientific consensus that Mirena contraception is local to the uterus, it has very low systemic hormones and little systemic hormonal side effects. This review article is a biased distortion and misrepresentation. They have other articles too, such as "Bayer sold AIDs infected bood" and "Bayer promoted heroin for children". I don't know why they are so fixated on Bayer, but like Chemtrail conspiracy theories I really have no interest in treading through that murky weirdness :-)
More...
I hope that readers will not be afraid to use this effective contraception method due to any misleading information.
The discussion is probably getting more technical than most people will be interested in following. So here's the take home message: Mirena IUD has hormones that work locally in the uterus. A very very small amount of hormone is absorbed systemically. The contraception effect is local (including the occasional ovarian inhibition due to proximity.)This means that while you may not get periods on the Mirena, it will be because it acts in the uterus to thin the uterine lining. Women using the Mirena have the same natural estrogen levels as women not using hormonal birth control. "Hormones" on the Mirena are almost entirely your own natural hormones -- as opposed to "hormones" when using systemic methods such as birth control pills.
Ok now to the details:
"echizen"@113 offered two links and I read both.
Link 1. FDA:
LNG IUS [Mirena] is believed to exert its contraceptive effect locally in the uterus by
a) thickening the cervical mucus
b) inhibiting sperm motility and function
c) preventing the proliferation of the endometrium during the menstrual
cycle
d) inhibiting ovulation is some cycles (seen more often in the first year of use).
I guess the main point "ecizen" was making is that it is possible that ovulation inhibition is sometimes how Mirena works. I realize that I simplified my description of the mechanism of action of the Mirena. But what I said still holds true -- the effect is local! Look at the quote from the FDA above. It states that it exerts a LOCAL uterine effect. Then at the end of the list it also states that it can inhibit ovulation some of the time. Are you wondering then how that can be local? Well it can! That's because the ovaries and uterus are very very close together. The ovaries are sometimes directly affected by the progesterone of the IUD enough to inhibit ovulation. But this doesn't happen most of the time. Most of the time women will ovulate on the Mirena. Remember that with oral contraception the hormone levels must high enough systemically to turn off ovarian stimulation. In the same way that high systemic natural progesterone levels in the luteal phase of the natural menstrual cycle inhibit ovulation. In short -- NOT how the Mirena happens to work.
Link 2. This is so weird! Though it looks like it's trying to imitate one -- this article is not from a peer-reviewed scientific journal at all. It some organization devoted to fighting Bayer Inc., called "The Coalition Against Bayer-dangers". The author of this "review article" is clear that he's fighting against the general medical/scientific consensus that Mirena contraception is local to the uterus, it has very low systemic hormones and little systemic hormonal side effects. This review article is a biased distortion and misrepresentation. They have other articles too, such as "Bayer sold AIDs infected bood" and "Bayer promoted heroin for children". I don't know why they are so fixated on Bayer, but like Chemtrail conspiracy theories I really have no interest in treading through that murky weirdness :-)
119
I'm confused by the idea that queer ally straight people should also call themselves queer. I am a straight woman who supports lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, transgender, two-spirit, asexual, and intersex causes. I'm even a sexual minority myself. (I'm poly.) I truly want to see all people treated with dignity.
That said, if I went around calling myself queer, I'm sure that I'm likely to annoy those people who will see my actions as mislabelling myself. I would not be surprised if it was seen as a form of cultural appropriation.
That said, if I went around calling myself queer, I'm sure that I'm likely to annoy those people who will see my actions as mislabelling myself. I would not be surprised if it was seen as a form of cultural appropriation.
120
Just my 2c.
Please don't call me a queer. I'm a straight guy (married, even) with a lot of LGBTQABC Tennessee Valley Authority alphabet soup acronym kind of friends, and I support them as much as I can. They're good people, and I love them. That doesn't make me queer. There's nothing wrong with being queer, but in my (WTF is this new word) cis-hetero-male state of existence, it is just factually inaccurate. I am not queer. I am just a straight guy. But fags, lesbos, and trannies are cool by me. Feel free to argue about terminology (that's all gender studies seem to be anyway), but straight people who are cool with queers don't need to be queerified. It's just not the proper nomenclature, dude.
Please don't call me a queer. I'm a straight guy (married, even) with a lot of LGBTQABC Tennessee Valley Authority alphabet soup acronym kind of friends, and I support them as much as I can. They're good people, and I love them. That doesn't make me queer. There's nothing wrong with being queer, but in my (WTF is this new word) cis-hetero-male state of existence, it is just factually inaccurate. I am not queer. I am just a straight guy. But fags, lesbos, and trannies are cool by me. Feel free to argue about terminology (that's all gender studies seem to be anyway), but straight people who are cool with queers don't need to be queerified. It's just not the proper nomenclature, dude.
121
I hate people who threaten CPS or say someone "should" be turned into CPS. If they should, then pick up the fucking phone and turn them in. Otherwise it's just bullshit and the threatener knows it.
123
@122, since when does "straight" imply monogamous? It's my understanding that "straight" denotes a person who is only attracted to members of the opposite sex, nothing more nor less. If you're poly and only fuck members of the opposite sex, why shouldn't you be able to call yourself straight?
124
@118:
No, it is from a peer-reviewed scientific jo…. The anti-Bayer site reposted the article in its entirety (probably illegally, but hey, that's the internet for you). I posted the link to the repost on the anti-Bayer site rather than the original journal because I figured people who didn't have an institutional subscription to Gynecological Endocrinology probably didn't want to pay fifty bucks for the article. Sorry about any confusion -- but yeah, it's legit.
No, it is from a peer-reviewed scientific jo…. The anti-Bayer site reposted the article in its entirety (probably illegally, but hey, that's the internet for you). I posted the link to the repost on the anti-Bayer site rather than the original journal because I figured people who didn't have an institutional subscription to Gynecological Endocrinology probably didn't want to pay fifty bucks for the article. Sorry about any confusion -- but yeah, it's legit.
125
@103 I had to giggle when I saw that because some days I WANT it, but I can't get my vag to cooperate and it just becomes progressively more ridiculous to the point that if someone saw me they would think I was committing some kind of self induced genital mutilation. Luckily I haven't had this problem with a partner. I do worry more about libido overall, after all no one wants to be known as "frigid" and I've been on the receiving end of a partner's disinterest. Both roles in that situation really suck.
126
In my opinion, if not being attracted to trans people means you're transphobic, then does that mean being attracted to a certain ethnicity makes you racist, or to a certain sex sexist?
And similarly, if you can't be straight and support queer rights at the same time, does that mean a white person who isn't a racist isn't white anymore?
Let's face it: trans people aren't the same as cis people, because we're a long way from perfect operation/hormones, because the later you start the process the less effective it will be, and because a lot of people never go through surgery. And I can absolutely understand why people might, for instance, not be attracted to a woman if she has a penis.
Personally, I identify as a straight woman. I've only ever been attracted to males. While I don't really see myself with a transperson of any gender, I can picture it better with a woman who has a penis than a man who has a vagina.
@4 I disagree with the idea that there are only trans or cisgendered people. I don't think you have to be one or the other, and I don't identify as either. My sex is female but I don't believe my gender is male or female, I feel it is just me. I think that's why I'd be more likely to end up with a trans woman than a trans man: I don't really understand the concept of gender, how it's quantify, how you can tell it, and therefore I can't say I'm attracted to people's gender anymore than, say, to people's auras. Sure, most people might divide everyone between orange and green auras but if I can't see colours I doubt it affects my attraction very much.
Considering how many people transition after building a family, I would say their unsuspecting partners are like me, too.
And similarly, if you can't be straight and support queer rights at the same time, does that mean a white person who isn't a racist isn't white anymore?
Let's face it: trans people aren't the same as cis people, because we're a long way from perfect operation/hormones, because the later you start the process the less effective it will be, and because a lot of people never go through surgery. And I can absolutely understand why people might, for instance, not be attracted to a woman if she has a penis.
Personally, I identify as a straight woman. I've only ever been attracted to males. While I don't really see myself with a transperson of any gender, I can picture it better with a woman who has a penis than a man who has a vagina.
@4 I disagree with the idea that there are only trans or cisgendered people. I don't think you have to be one or the other, and I don't identify as either. My sex is female but I don't believe my gender is male or female, I feel it is just me. I think that's why I'd be more likely to end up with a trans woman than a trans man: I don't really understand the concept of gender, how it's quantify, how you can tell it, and therefore I can't say I'm attracted to people's gender anymore than, say, to people's auras. Sure, most people might divide everyone between orange and green auras but if I can't see colours I doubt it affects my attraction very much.
Considering how many people transition after building a family, I would say their unsuspecting partners are like me, too.
127
Could part of FRAUD's "problem" be that his trans friends may want to date him?
I have long considered myself queer, in the original sense of the word. That has more to do with my nerdisms than sexuality, though my lack of discrimination towards LGB people back in the day might've earned me that label from others. I love how Erika Moen, author of the DAR comic puts it in terms of "I'm attracted to whom I'm attracted to" when she identifies as a lesbian, but married a man. I am sitting here, in our home, exactly where I want to be, in love with my wife. I wish and hope that everyone can have that chance to be with the one(s?) they want and need.
Happy Tday! Don't forget to get someone to register to vote if they haven't already, and don't use inflammatory language in explaining the Occupy movement and marriage equality (get out there and win some hearts and minds!).
Peace.
I have long considered myself queer, in the original sense of the word. That has more to do with my nerdisms than sexuality, though my lack of discrimination towards LGB people back in the day might've earned me that label from others. I love how Erika Moen, author of the DAR comic puts it in terms of "I'm attracted to whom I'm attracted to" when she identifies as a lesbian, but married a man. I am sitting here, in our home, exactly where I want to be, in love with my wife. I wish and hope that everyone can have that chance to be with the one(s?) they want and need.
Happy Tday! Don't forget to get someone to register to vote if they haven't already, and don't use inflammatory language in explaining the Occupy movement and marriage equality (get out there and win some hearts and minds!).
Peace.
128
@Crinoline, who wrote:
I've often noticed the same thing -- in fact, some liberals can be downright conservative in the way they can push their liberal beliefs. Which is why I end up thinking that moderates on both sides (and on many other sides -- it's not only a two-way discussion) have actually more in common with each other than with the extremists of whatever party/school of thought they happen to identify with.
The reason why moderates are usually in one side is that they are appalled at the exaggerated/extremist versions of the other side, and may have to some extent succombed to the temptation of seeing said extremists as the voice of the opposing party. (It certainly doesn't help that said voices get a lot of, if not most, media attention.)
Extremes attract for a similar reason: simplicity. The enemy becomes clear-cut (it's "the other extreme"), the solution to all problems is reduced to some simple formula ("the market will decide!" "god knows better!" "gender is all in the mind!" "cultural relativism!"); we can all concentrate on simple activism (or the inevitable revolution, or death threats against abortion doctors, or burning crosses, or purging the "allies" who don't think like us, or...).
I frankly wish life were simple. Alas, it isn't.
But yes, I agree with you on the messy complicatedness of human reality versus the clean sleek lines of the way humans would rather think about everything. I notice that I often accuse fundamentalists and republicans of appealing to the desire for the simplistic in human nature, but it exists on the left as well.
I've often noticed the same thing -- in fact, some liberals can be downright conservative in the way they can push their liberal beliefs. Which is why I end up thinking that moderates on both sides (and on many other sides -- it's not only a two-way discussion) have actually more in common with each other than with the extremists of whatever party/school of thought they happen to identify with.
The reason why moderates are usually in one side is that they are appalled at the exaggerated/extremist versions of the other side, and may have to some extent succombed to the temptation of seeing said extremists as the voice of the opposing party. (It certainly doesn't help that said voices get a lot of, if not most, media attention.)
Extremes attract for a similar reason: simplicity. The enemy becomes clear-cut (it's "the other extreme"), the solution to all problems is reduced to some simple formula ("the market will decide!" "god knows better!" "gender is all in the mind!" "cultural relativism!"); we can all concentrate on simple activism (or the inevitable revolution, or death threats against abortion doctors, or burning crosses, or purging the "allies" who don't think like us, or...).
I frankly wish life were simple. Alas, it isn't.
129
@Crinoline, you also asked about the difference between transgendered people and economically challenged (aka. poor) people who think they should have been born rich, or people who were born thinking they are Napoleon, etc. Are transgendered people different?
In theory there is no difference, if you think that gender is as socially constructed as a person's name or economic status. But if gender does have something to do with the brain, then there is a difference: some physical structure of your brain would be different from what it would be in others. If seen from this prism, being born with the wrong sex would be more like being born with a malformed organ -- something for which treatments can be recommended, since such malformations can span the whole range from simply ugly to uncomfortable to dangerous to even life-threatening. The point is where on this range a sex-change operation would fall.
(Of course, considering how the brain evolves by itself in a Darwinian way in its own process of maturation -- how life experiences can have consequences for brain structure -- this may end up being a difference of degree rather than kind. The jury is still out on that one.)
And how about thinking you're a rich person who was born in a poor body? Well, leaving aside the above biological considerations, I think there is one answer: you are entitled to think so, and to do something about it, by namely becoming rich. (There is the social philosophy that thinks we all should have the same economical status, that economical differences are unfair -- property is theft! -- and shouldn't be allowed in a civilized society, but I'm not entering this question).
I'd say the same about transgendered (or gender-dysphoric) people: to me, they are entitled to doing something about their belief that theirs is the wrong body. Just as Blacks (à la Michael Jackson) are entitled to changing their skin color if it is feasible, or like blondes are entitled to die their hair red or black. Or...
Because indeed I do think that we should have power over our bodies. To repair what we feel is wrong about them, or what we don't like about them, or simply what we wished were more beautiful about them -- as long as we don't endanger our lives in the process. (I understand there is a spectrum here, and no clear-cut rules, and a lot of space to do the wrong thing -- but hey, this is life, isn't it? In what arena don't we have these possibilities?)
So ultimately it doesn't matter to me whether or not transgendered people are ultimately right about 'being in the wrong body' or not. They want to transition; it's their bodies; they're not endangering their lives, nor anybody else's; so I say, they're entitled to it.
Call me a trans-agnostic if you will. :-)
More...
In theory there is no difference, if you think that gender is as socially constructed as a person's name or economic status. But if gender does have something to do with the brain, then there is a difference: some physical structure of your brain would be different from what it would be in others. If seen from this prism, being born with the wrong sex would be more like being born with a malformed organ -- something for which treatments can be recommended, since such malformations can span the whole range from simply ugly to uncomfortable to dangerous to even life-threatening. The point is where on this range a sex-change operation would fall.
(Of course, considering how the brain evolves by itself in a Darwinian way in its own process of maturation -- how life experiences can have consequences for brain structure -- this may end up being a difference of degree rather than kind. The jury is still out on that one.)
And how about thinking you're a rich person who was born in a poor body? Well, leaving aside the above biological considerations, I think there is one answer: you are entitled to think so, and to do something about it, by namely becoming rich. (There is the social philosophy that thinks we all should have the same economical status, that economical differences are unfair -- property is theft! -- and shouldn't be allowed in a civilized society, but I'm not entering this question).
I'd say the same about transgendered (or gender-dysphoric) people: to me, they are entitled to doing something about their belief that theirs is the wrong body. Just as Blacks (à la Michael Jackson) are entitled to changing their skin color if it is feasible, or like blondes are entitled to die their hair red or black. Or...
Because indeed I do think that we should have power over our bodies. To repair what we feel is wrong about them, or what we don't like about them, or simply what we wished were more beautiful about them -- as long as we don't endanger our lives in the process. (I understand there is a spectrum here, and no clear-cut rules, and a lot of space to do the wrong thing -- but hey, this is life, isn't it? In what arena don't we have these possibilities?)
So ultimately it doesn't matter to me whether or not transgendered people are ultimately right about 'being in the wrong body' or not. They want to transition; it's their bodies; they're not endangering their lives, nor anybody else's; so I say, they're entitled to it.
Call me a trans-agnostic if you will. :-)
130
I just don't get the advice to SFMMD.
These are two consenting adults, why shouldn't they hook up?
They both have secrets they might not want to be outed at work. So what? SF is going to blab that the woman does erotic modeling, when he wants her to model? She's going to blab that he's a photographic stocking fetishist, when she wants to earn money that way?
There are, of course, all the usual pitfalls of sex at work, but there is so much sex at work and it rarely really becomes a problem, that we have to consider it normal and effective, despite the rules.
They both are who they are. They both risk exposure when they follow these avenues. But neither is at risk from the other.
He should forget the sex with coworkers stuff, and go for it. She may not want to change the dynamics of their relationship. The risk of rejection is the price for the possibility of improvement.
Dan's Vanilla, Kinky, and Hot example is not highly analogous, and I'm not sure his advice was correct. Hot is into humiliation. Vanilla should be ggg enough to humiliate him by mentioning it.
These are two consenting adults, why shouldn't they hook up?
They both have secrets they might not want to be outed at work. So what? SF is going to blab that the woman does erotic modeling, when he wants her to model? She's going to blab that he's a photographic stocking fetishist, when she wants to earn money that way?
There are, of course, all the usual pitfalls of sex at work, but there is so much sex at work and it rarely really becomes a problem, that we have to consider it normal and effective, despite the rules.
They both are who they are. They both risk exposure when they follow these avenues. But neither is at risk from the other.
He should forget the sex with coworkers stuff, and go for it. She may not want to change the dynamics of their relationship. The risk of rejection is the price for the possibility of improvement.
Dan's Vanilla, Kinky, and Hot example is not highly analogous, and I'm not sure his advice was correct. Hot is into humiliation. Vanilla should be ggg enough to humiliate him by mentioning it.
132
Wait, so a person can't be supportive of homosexuals and transgenders AND be straight? Objection!
It makes no sense for people to make up their own definitions of words. If FRAUD says "I'm not straight" everyone will figure that he means that he is gay. If he says "I'm a queer heterosexual," everyone will figure that he's out of his mind (see "So open-minded that your brains fall out.") FRAUD should identify as what he is, "straight" or "heterosexual."
"Straight" doesn't mean "heterosexual person who doesn't support the homosexual and/or transgender community." Bornstein just WISHES that that's what it meant.
It makes no sense for people to make up their own definitions of words. If FRAUD says "I'm not straight" everyone will figure that he means that he is gay. If he says "I'm a queer heterosexual," everyone will figure that he's out of his mind (see "So open-minded that your brains fall out.") FRAUD should identify as what he is, "straight" or "heterosexual."
"Straight" doesn't mean "heterosexual person who doesn't support the homosexual and/or transgender community." Bornstein just WISHES that that's what it meant.
133
EDIT: I mean that it makes no sense for people to make up their own definitions of words that already have clear definitions. "Pegging" and "Santorum" work because there was no existing definition to override.
It's kind of like how McDonalds wanted Webster et al. to change the definition of "McJob" to "a great job with lots of opportunity." That's just not what the word means and no one who wants to communicate effectively should use it that way.
It's kind of like how McDonalds wanted Webster et al. to change the definition of "McJob" to "a great job with lots of opportunity." That's just not what the word means and no one who wants to communicate effectively should use it that way.
134
Mr Ank - Are you stating that the extremists never actually become the voice of the opposing party, suggesting that the concept of there ever being "the" voice of any party is a black hole in the first place, or something else? I was tempted to ask what happens when the extremists DO become the voice of a party, but thought that perhaps you could not engage what you considered an impossibility.
I'm not sure why, but your framing the issue as a matter of temptation came across as unusually superiour of you, though I agree with you in part (just can't settle on the proportion yet).
I'm not sure why, but your framing the issue as a matter of temptation came across as unusually superiour of you, though I agree with you in part (just can't settle on the proportion yet).
135
I call BS on those who claim FRAUD is a transphobe.
Sexual attraction isn't simply a matter of conscious gender identification. A transwoman, even a post-op transwoman, still has a Y chromosome. The effects of that Y chromosome may not be immediately apparent, but could still affect sexual attraction. As far as I know, pheremone secretion is not affected by sexual re-assignment surgery.
There is a lot we don't know about sexual attraction, but biology plays a pretty big role. (Otherwise it would be possible to "cure" homosexuality, right?) Like it or not, a transwoman will never be biologically identical with a ciswoman.
Sexual attraction isn't simply a matter of conscious gender identification. A transwoman, even a post-op transwoman, still has a Y chromosome. The effects of that Y chromosome may not be immediately apparent, but could still affect sexual attraction. As far as I know, pheremone secretion is not affected by sexual re-assignment surgery.
There is a lot we don't know about sexual attraction, but biology plays a pretty big role. (Otherwise it would be possible to "cure" homosexuality, right?) Like it or not, a transwoman will never be biologically identical with a ciswoman.
136
re the debate between Crinoline and ankylosaur:
I think it's fair to say that making things far more complicated than they need be is often a progressive vice, and asserting that things are far more simple than they actually are is often a conservative vice.
I think it's fair to say that making things far more complicated than they need be is often a progressive vice, and asserting that things are far more simple than they actually are is often a conservative vice.
137
Oh Lord, 135, and others: 'Like it or not, a transwoman will never be biologically identical with a ciswoman'. As if it were that simple, as if all cis women were the same, or something. Human gender is bimodal not dimorphic- there are not two distinct categories, but only two distinct tendencies. There is more variation within the categories 'man' and 'woman' in almost all features which show co-ordinated variation, than there is between them. So, men are generally taller than women, but some men are smaller than the vast majority of women, and some women are taller than the vast majority of men. The main genuinely dimorphic feature, the xx/xy chromosome split, is only tangentially related to phenotype: the x chromosome acts as a trigger for male gonad development (gonads are also pretty dimorphic) which in turn acts as a trigger for testosterone production, which then tends given features towards the 'male' end of the scale. XY individuals with complete androgen insensitivity develop as completely phenologically female, except that they have testes where most women have ovaries. Most trans women will have at least some features which are in the 'normal' range for males and the 'unusual' range for females. So will a lot of cis women. Some cis women will look so masculine they regularly get taken for men. If they choose to present as feminine, they will frequently get read as cross-dressers. Some trans women will have no perceptible features, mental, physical, whatever, that are anything other than 'normal' for females. (except in genatalia, of course, since this is the constitutive item which we use to separate 'trans' from 'intersex'). To not be attracted to any given trans women, or even to generally find you don't fancy trans women, and note this, is fine, of course. It might even be that the nature of surgically constructed vaginas turns out, should you get that far, to be such that that you actually aren't in to getting it on with any trans woman at all, no matter how much you might like her otherwise. But to be freaked out, not by the reality of the woman in front of you, but by your concept of the kind of thing you think she is, is almost a textbook definition of prejudice.
More...
138
Let’s do a thought experiment here. Let’s say I believe I was born into the wrong body: I was born looking white, but inside, I am really black. So I dye my skin, have plastic surgery done on my nose, and do whatever I have to do to my hair to make it look like I have African ancestry. I start talking differently and acting differently, according to my idea of what an african-american me would be like. Do you think african-americans would accept me as one of their own, assuming that I was not realistic enough for them to be able to tell that I wasn’t born african-american? No, they would not. And nobody would accuse them of being bigoted for not accepting me. Nobody would ask them to adopt a new language to describe themselves, saying “african-american identified” or “black-identified” instead of “african american” or “black”.
Nobody is born into the wrong body. There isn’t some assembly room in heaven which occasionally screws up and puts the wrong body and soul together before sending us down to earth. I’m fine with people dressing however they want, or even surgically modifying themselves however they want. It’s your body, dude. But I am a woman, not a “cisgender woman” or “female-identified person”. You are a man who is imitating both biological femaleness and our society’s sexist constructs around womanhood. Frankly, I find it a little offensive. But I will accept your right to do what you want with yourself, and I’ll keep my commentary to myself IRL for fear of being called a bigot. But asking me to change how I identify myself is just going too far.
And equating “straight” with “bigoted” and “queer” with “accepting”? There’s a word for that...oh yeah, “bigoted”.
Nobody is born into the wrong body. There isn’t some assembly room in heaven which occasionally screws up and puts the wrong body and soul together before sending us down to earth. I’m fine with people dressing however they want, or even surgically modifying themselves however they want. It’s your body, dude. But I am a woman, not a “cisgender woman” or “female-identified person”. You are a man who is imitating both biological femaleness and our society’s sexist constructs around womanhood. Frankly, I find it a little offensive. But I will accept your right to do what you want with yourself, and I’ll keep my commentary to myself IRL for fear of being called a bigot. But asking me to change how I identify myself is just going too far.
And equating “straight” with “bigoted” and “queer” with “accepting”? There’s a word for that...oh yeah, “bigoted”.
139
Several issues at play here, at least two of which involve neologisms and word definitions, and who gets to determine and assign them and to whom they apply
Maybe at the most literal level, # 137 (intermittentcat)’s assessment of FRAUD is correct, and your definition of “transphobic” accurate, too:
“To not be attracted to any given trans women, or even to generally find you don't fancy trans women, and note this, is fine, of course. It might even be that the nature of surgically constructed vaginas turns out, should you get that far, to be such that that you actually aren't in to getting it on with any trans woman at all, no matter how much you might like her otherwise. But to be freaked out, not by the reality of the woman in front of you, but by your concept of the kind of thing you think she is, is almost a textbook definition of prejudice.”
But it seems to me that the problem FRAUD is describing, labels aside, is that all his support is nullified in the eyes of his co-workers if he doesn’t want to fuck a trans woman. Not only is that a ridiculous opinion, but a dangerous one as well. It’s a stupid idea to alienate allies by insisting that they share all of your characteristics. There are far more straight people than LGBT ones in the world, and the battle for civil rights and equality depends on the backing of the majority.
So words’ meanings have changed over time, but old meanings linger long after the new ones have been adopted, and some people are quicker than others to adopt the newer usage or neologisms. FRAUD is now accused of being transphobic, even though he seems to have no fear of the companionship of trans people, even though he works to secure their rights. Since when did “phobic” come to mean, “not sexually attracted to?” Along comes Kate Bornstein (who, I guess, gets to be the arbiter of nomenclature and identity for the world) and tells him he’s not “straight,” but “queer het” (maybe he should be “queer-cis-het” since he is still the same gender he was born as , and that way we can stick an extra label on for further . . . um . . . it is clarity we’re seeking, right?), and now a lot of us are objecting to being called “queer” if we’re heterosexual. I am one of these. Some of these objections come from an idea of autonomy (I want to decide what to call myself, not have someone else tell me what I should be called) and some from an older sense of the meaning of “queer” as a synonym for “homosexual,” or someone who has “alternative sexual interests.” This is legitimate, as to many people, the word still has that denotation. And by the way, what better way to feed the idiotic paranoia of the religious bigots who fear that any exposure to homosexuality, including the acknowledgment that same-sex marriage exists, than to insist that supporting the rights of gay people makes you “queer,” where “queer” still means “gay?” Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! Way to never get conservatives to change their views, Ms. Bornstein.
As for me, I remember when “straight” wasn’t a synonym for “heterosexual,” but meant, “conservative,” or “not hip, not cool, not okay with taking recreational drugs or having recreational heterosexual sex.” “Straight” was used sometimes a synonym for “square” (boy, do I sound old now). So using that definition—which I doubt FRAUD is—FRAUD is indeed not “straight,” nor am I, or virtually anyone else on this thread, trolls aside. But neither is he “queer,” in the sense that to many people “queer” still suggests a same-sex attraction, which he doesn’t have. He is heterosexual. I guess we could drop “straight,” “gay,” and “queer” and go back (or forwards) to “het,” “homo,” and “bi,” for orientation, and “trans” for presentation (and I’m not even going to get into the “cis” conundrum here), and simply let our actions, not labels, define our sympathies or lack of them to others.
Because in the quest to pin people’s beliefs and behavior down by giving them descriptors of increasing specificity, we end up creating more ambiguity and confusion. And we can then fight over the labels’ correctness and accuracy rather than focus on the real work that needs to be done by a cohesive movement. We can splinter ourselves into so many factions, consumed by so much in-fighting,, that the big issues go unrectified.
Happy Thanksgiving. One of the things I’m thankful for is this blog, where people have thoughtful, generally intelligent conversations about interesting subjects.
More...
Maybe at the most literal level, # 137 (intermittentcat)’s assessment of FRAUD is correct, and your definition of “transphobic” accurate, too:
“To not be attracted to any given trans women, or even to generally find you don't fancy trans women, and note this, is fine, of course. It might even be that the nature of surgically constructed vaginas turns out, should you get that far, to be such that that you actually aren't in to getting it on with any trans woman at all, no matter how much you might like her otherwise. But to be freaked out, not by the reality of the woman in front of you, but by your concept of the kind of thing you think she is, is almost a textbook definition of prejudice.”
But it seems to me that the problem FRAUD is describing, labels aside, is that all his support is nullified in the eyes of his co-workers if he doesn’t want to fuck a trans woman. Not only is that a ridiculous opinion, but a dangerous one as well. It’s a stupid idea to alienate allies by insisting that they share all of your characteristics. There are far more straight people than LGBT ones in the world, and the battle for civil rights and equality depends on the backing of the majority.
So words’ meanings have changed over time, but old meanings linger long after the new ones have been adopted, and some people are quicker than others to adopt the newer usage or neologisms. FRAUD is now accused of being transphobic, even though he seems to have no fear of the companionship of trans people, even though he works to secure their rights. Since when did “phobic” come to mean, “not sexually attracted to?” Along comes Kate Bornstein (who, I guess, gets to be the arbiter of nomenclature and identity for the world) and tells him he’s not “straight,” but “queer het” (maybe he should be “queer-cis-het” since he is still the same gender he was born as , and that way we can stick an extra label on for further . . . um . . . it is clarity we’re seeking, right?), and now a lot of us are objecting to being called “queer” if we’re heterosexual. I am one of these. Some of these objections come from an idea of autonomy (I want to decide what to call myself, not have someone else tell me what I should be called) and some from an older sense of the meaning of “queer” as a synonym for “homosexual,” or someone who has “alternative sexual interests.” This is legitimate, as to many people, the word still has that denotation. And by the way, what better way to feed the idiotic paranoia of the religious bigots who fear that any exposure to homosexuality, including the acknowledgment that same-sex marriage exists, than to insist that supporting the rights of gay people makes you “queer,” where “queer” still means “gay?” Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! Way to never get conservatives to change their views, Ms. Bornstein.
As for me, I remember when “straight” wasn’t a synonym for “heterosexual,” but meant, “conservative,” or “not hip, not cool, not okay with taking recreational drugs or having recreational heterosexual sex.” “Straight” was used sometimes a synonym for “square” (boy, do I sound old now). So using that definition—which I doubt FRAUD is—FRAUD is indeed not “straight,” nor am I, or virtually anyone else on this thread, trolls aside. But neither is he “queer,” in the sense that to many people “queer” still suggests a same-sex attraction, which he doesn’t have. He is heterosexual. I guess we could drop “straight,” “gay,” and “queer” and go back (or forwards) to “het,” “homo,” and “bi,” for orientation, and “trans” for presentation (and I’m not even going to get into the “cis” conundrum here), and simply let our actions, not labels, define our sympathies or lack of them to others.
Because in the quest to pin people’s beliefs and behavior down by giving them descriptors of increasing specificity, we end up creating more ambiguity and confusion. And we can then fight over the labels’ correctness and accuracy rather than focus on the real work that needs to be done by a cohesive movement. We can splinter ourselves into so many factions, consumed by so much in-fighting,, that the big issues go unrectified.
Happy Thanksgiving. One of the things I’m thankful for is this blog, where people have thoughtful, generally intelligent conversations about interesting subjects.
140
First, I forgot to give kudos to 51-seeker for the comment on gender theory and waterboarding. Brilliant.
Next, the last 3 posters-- A little more white space, please, in your comments, maybe a paragraph break every 6 lines or so. Some of us have trouble reading big blocks of text. (Said with love. I want to read every word.)
Speculation-- Transitions so far have centered on genital surgery and hormones. Some have pointed out that nothing yet can be done to change skeletal structure. Others point out that a transsexual wouldn't send off the right pheromones as not enough is known about them yet but they're known to be a part of sexual attraction.
What if artificial pheromones went on the market? What if someone could buy in a bottle something that could make him/her more attractive to the person s/he wanted to attract? It would be like the ultimate in cosmetic surgery, but might we not feel tricked if it were used at the beginning of a relationship? What if it were used to keep a failing relationship alive?
133-On the sense of trying to change the meanings of words-- You're right that it rarely works and when it does work, it's to assign a word to something new that needs a word(spam) or to something old that never had one (santorum). People with political agendas try to change the meanings of words when they want to change the connotation without changing the denotation-- as with your McJob example. (I'd never heard of that and love it.)
The denotation is the fast food job itself. No one ever wants to argue about that. The connotation is the part about low-pay, unskilled, deadend, boring, maybe also demeaning. When you try to make the definition include great opportunity, you're trying to change how people feel about the denoted job. They feel manipulated.
Same goes for the changes in what we call someone who can't walk. Crippled, handicapped, physically disabled, physically challenged. Each word in turn starts to take on the connotation of something worse than someone bright and accomplished who merely needs a cane or wheelchair.
I think this is what's going on with straight and queer. We're all talking about what the words mean in their strictest denotative sense, but the words have tons of connotative baggage attached. We're arguing about the baggage, whether it's there, what it is if it is there, if the baggage is positive or negative or somewhere in between.
Perhaps this is what Bornstein was trying to get at. "Straight" may automatically mean bigoted to some. It doesn't to me, but if it does to her, then it follows that honorary queerdom follows.
More...
Next, the last 3 posters-- A little more white space, please, in your comments, maybe a paragraph break every 6 lines or so. Some of us have trouble reading big blocks of text. (Said with love. I want to read every word.)
Speculation-- Transitions so far have centered on genital surgery and hormones. Some have pointed out that nothing yet can be done to change skeletal structure. Others point out that a transsexual wouldn't send off the right pheromones as not enough is known about them yet but they're known to be a part of sexual attraction.
What if artificial pheromones went on the market? What if someone could buy in a bottle something that could make him/her more attractive to the person s/he wanted to attract? It would be like the ultimate in cosmetic surgery, but might we not feel tricked if it were used at the beginning of a relationship? What if it were used to keep a failing relationship alive?
133-On the sense of trying to change the meanings of words-- You're right that it rarely works and when it does work, it's to assign a word to something new that needs a word(spam) or to something old that never had one (santorum). People with political agendas try to change the meanings of words when they want to change the connotation without changing the denotation-- as with your McJob example. (I'd never heard of that and love it.)
The denotation is the fast food job itself. No one ever wants to argue about that. The connotation is the part about low-pay, unskilled, deadend, boring, maybe also demeaning. When you try to make the definition include great opportunity, you're trying to change how people feel about the denoted job. They feel manipulated.
Same goes for the changes in what we call someone who can't walk. Crippled, handicapped, physically disabled, physically challenged. Each word in turn starts to take on the connotation of something worse than someone bright and accomplished who merely needs a cane or wheelchair.
I think this is what's going on with straight and queer. We're all talking about what the words mean in their strictest denotative sense, but the words have tons of connotative baggage attached. We're arguing about the baggage, whether it's there, what it is if it is there, if the baggage is positive or negative or somewhere in between.
Perhaps this is what Bornstein was trying to get at. "Straight" may automatically mean bigoted to some. It doesn't to me, but if it does to her, then it follows that honorary queerdom follows.
141
Clashfan (#116)-- Again, I don't believe being trans is a mental illness as such (e.g., bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, panic disorder, etc.). It is, undeniably, a rather rare belief amongst the population and, thus, from that perspective it is a relatively 'unusual' way of thinking/being. But 'unusual-ness' does not by itself = mental disorder (which is part of what I was trying to say in my previous post, #94).
Reducing gender to merely a belief in one's head is problematic though. It leads to absurdist deductions such as that which Crinoline (#73) was proposing. I.e., we'd have to take at face value anything that people said they believed. This is where my cat example came in (do animals have to 'believe' they are this or that sex in order to BE this or that sex?).
I posit that reproductive sexual categories are a real thing. Men can't produce babies with men, women can't produce babies with women (without borrowing eggs or sperm from somewhere else at least).
I get the sex vs gender thing. That is basic gender theory 101 and I got it in women's studies. It isn't a very nuanced/realistic argument though. It is an undeniable fact, is it not (?), that people are treated in different ways based on their perceived gender, and this differential treatment often starts even before the fetus emerges from the womb (parents start planning different colour schemes, different toys, imagining different futures, etc, etc.).
On this basis, not only do some people come into the world with male reproductive characteristics (which usually also go along with male secondary sex characteristics), but they come into a different 'world' altogether in some senses (socialization, cultural, not to mention hormonal) than do those who pop out w/ female reproductive characteristics. You pretty much made my point when you wrote "Second, our society is much more a part of our beings than any other animals' society is to them." Indeed, we don't live in a vaccuum.
"My buddy Jake was born female but feels and presents as male. What that means is that he feels more comfortable in the roles and trappings that our culture identifies with masculinity--much more so than I do."
I honestly don't know what it feels like to 'be a woman', I just know what it feels like to be me (someone who happens to have female bits and was raised/treated female). So I find it absolutely befuddling that someone born with male bits and raised in a female social/cultural world could be so certain that they "feel like a man" (or vice versa).
You mention "trappings", and I ask: why can't people like/engage in the 'trappings' of the other gender without deducing that this makes them a member of that category? E.g., if I like to skateboard, climbs trees, fix cars, watch sports, wear trousers rather than skirts, etc (all "stereotypical" male things), does that make me a boy/man? Why can't I just be a girl/woman who likes that sh*t? There seems to be an awful lot of gender stereotyping going around in the trans community (and I should say that someone very close to me is TG, so I participate/read various messageboards related to the topic).
"You also asked how is it that trans people 'get' to decide what it means to be male or female, for other people....Most of the ones I know are pretty relaxed, and big into self-identification."
Maybe it is just a personal pet-peeve, but I am rubbed the wrong way by this post-modern thing whereby everything and anything is whatever any individual wants it to be. "Nothing is real, words are meaningless and, thus, can be applied to objects in the world willy-nilly." Blech.
Also, when people think gender is something you can put on like a skirt, I find it a bit offensive. I mean, I've had real experiences because of the configuration of my body. I personally feel (rightly or wrongly) that those experiences are essentially being erased when someone who does not share a similar body or similar experiences based on having that body claims to know what it is like to be someone like me; when they claim an identity with me. Um no, you have NO idea what it is like having lived in this body in our society/culture for X number of years.
All of the above being said, and as I stated previously, these are just my personal beliefs. They don't prevent me from treating whomever I'm dealing with (no matter how they 'self-identify') as a human being.
More...
Reducing gender to merely a belief in one's head is problematic though. It leads to absurdist deductions such as that which Crinoline (#73) was proposing. I.e., we'd have to take at face value anything that people said they believed. This is where my cat example came in (do animals have to 'believe' they are this or that sex in order to BE this or that sex?).
I posit that reproductive sexual categories are a real thing. Men can't produce babies with men, women can't produce babies with women (without borrowing eggs or sperm from somewhere else at least).
I get the sex vs gender thing. That is basic gender theory 101 and I got it in women's studies. It isn't a very nuanced/realistic argument though. It is an undeniable fact, is it not (?), that people are treated in different ways based on their perceived gender, and this differential treatment often starts even before the fetus emerges from the womb (parents start planning different colour schemes, different toys, imagining different futures, etc, etc.).
On this basis, not only do some people come into the world with male reproductive characteristics (which usually also go along with male secondary sex characteristics), but they come into a different 'world' altogether in some senses (socialization, cultural, not to mention hormonal) than do those who pop out w/ female reproductive characteristics. You pretty much made my point when you wrote "Second, our society is much more a part of our beings than any other animals' society is to them." Indeed, we don't live in a vaccuum.
"My buddy Jake was born female but feels and presents as male. What that means is that he feels more comfortable in the roles and trappings that our culture identifies with masculinity--much more so than I do."
I honestly don't know what it feels like to 'be a woman', I just know what it feels like to be me (someone who happens to have female bits and was raised/treated female). So I find it absolutely befuddling that someone born with male bits and raised in a female social/cultural world could be so certain that they "feel like a man" (or vice versa).
You mention "trappings", and I ask: why can't people like/engage in the 'trappings' of the other gender without deducing that this makes them a member of that category? E.g., if I like to skateboard, climbs trees, fix cars, watch sports, wear trousers rather than skirts, etc (all "stereotypical" male things), does that make me a boy/man? Why can't I just be a girl/woman who likes that sh*t? There seems to be an awful lot of gender stereotyping going around in the trans community (and I should say that someone very close to me is TG, so I participate/read various messageboards related to the topic).
"You also asked how is it that trans people 'get' to decide what it means to be male or female, for other people....Most of the ones I know are pretty relaxed, and big into self-identification."
Maybe it is just a personal pet-peeve, but I am rubbed the wrong way by this post-modern thing whereby everything and anything is whatever any individual wants it to be. "Nothing is real, words are meaningless and, thus, can be applied to objects in the world willy-nilly." Blech.
Also, when people think gender is something you can put on like a skirt, I find it a bit offensive. I mean, I've had real experiences because of the configuration of my body. I personally feel (rightly or wrongly) that those experiences are essentially being erased when someone who does not share a similar body or similar experiences based on having that body claims to know what it is like to be someone like me; when they claim an identity with me. Um no, you have NO idea what it is like having lived in this body in our society/culture for X number of years.
All of the above being said, and as I stated previously, these are just my personal beliefs. They don't prevent me from treating whomever I'm dealing with (no matter how they 'self-identify') as a human being.
142
Ms Cute - What's getting tricky here is that it's very difficult to tell with many posters whether their objections stop at Ms Bornstein labeling FRAUD instead of suggesting he identify by a particular label, or extend to not wanting others to self-label (to whatever extent they'll own it; many people will say it isn't their place to police others but will have a different opinion) as queer if they're "really" straight.
I nearly went looking through Orlando for a passage that would Woolfsplain this letter, but unfortunately I have my first Woolfsplaining passage all picked out, and are now merely waiting for another letter to come along that suits it. I feel a little like a figure skater who has an ideal costume for a program but is just waiting to come across the right music.
I nearly went looking through Orlando for a passage that would Woolfsplain this letter, but unfortunately I have my first Woolfsplaining passage all picked out, and are now merely waiting for another letter to come along that suits it. I feel a little like a figure skater who has an ideal costume for a program but is just waiting to come across the right music.
143
Nobody asked me, but here’s my advice to Sent From My Mobile Device, the guy with “a fetish for snapping pictures of women’s legs and feet”:
Office kinkiness can still bloom just like office romance. I would advise you to send an anonymous email (open an account just for this purpose if need be) to the lovely woman who replied to your post. Tell her you’re an interested coworker who will never mention her initial reply to anyone in case she chooses not to proceed. If she doesn’t reply within three days chances are she got cold feet, pun intended.
But… if she’s ok with it you’ll both share a dirty little fun secret that may even increase your motivation to go to work!
I left some spaces here in order to accommodate Crinoline@140
Office kinkiness can still bloom just like office romance. I would advise you to send an anonymous email (open an account just for this purpose if need be) to the lovely woman who replied to your post. Tell her you’re an interested coworker who will never mention her initial reply to anyone in case she chooses not to proceed. If she doesn’t reply within three days chances are she got cold feet, pun intended.
But… if she’s ok with it you’ll both share a dirty little fun secret that may even increase your motivation to go to work!
I left some spaces here in order to accommodate Crinoline@140
145
@103 mydriasis: You beat me to it---again!
@96 & @111 Hunter78: Um.....are you having a bad day?
Sit back, relax, have some turkey, stuffing, mashed potatoes, cranberry sauce, pumpkin pie, pour yourself some Chardonnay or your favorite beverage and chill, boy.
Happy Thanksgiving.
@96 & @111 Hunter78: Um.....are you having a bad day?
Sit back, relax, have some turkey, stuffing, mashed potatoes, cranberry sauce, pumpkin pie, pour yourself some Chardonnay or your favorite beverage and chill, boy.
Happy Thanksgiving.
146
This has probably already been mentioned but I'm not going to read all of these comments.
If he is ruling out ALL trans women, then yes, he is a bigot. Because there are many women who have had bottom surgery, let's say they've been on hormones since they were 13 or 16 or whatever. And there is just do way to tell if they are cis or trans.
If he is attracted to someone, and would normally love to sleep with them, but then finds out they are trans and changes his mind, EVEN THOUGH THAT CHANGES LITERALLY NOTHING, yeah, you're transphobic.
If he is ruling out ALL trans women, then yes, he is a bigot. Because there are many women who have had bottom surgery, let's say they've been on hormones since they were 13 or 16 or whatever. And there is just do way to tell if they are cis or trans.
If he is attracted to someone, and would normally love to sleep with them, but then finds out they are trans and changes his mind, EVEN THOUGH THAT CHANGES LITERALLY NOTHING, yeah, you're transphobic.
147
Oh, what rubbish. According to #146 and others, a man can take some hormones, get his dick chopped off and pay a surgeon to cobble together some Dr. Moreau-esque flesh apparatus between his legs that looks, externally, like a vagina. Then: hey presto! he gets to be anointed a bona fide card-carrying Woman, with all the personal histories and unique pleasures, limitations and traumas that status may entail. This is ridiculous. Going to such lengths makes a person many things, but a woman? Please.
To be perfectly honest, identifying as trans-whatever seems like a ridiculously self-important gesture that simulaneously belies a frivolous and superficial mis)understanding of the nature of gender.
To be perfectly honest, identifying as trans-whatever seems like a ridiculously self-important gesture that simulaneously belies a frivolous and superficial mis)understanding of the nature of gender.
148
Thanks to those who provided input on the Poly/child abuse question. I was in a poly relationship in which my GF had two children, and though there were a few raised eyebrows, there was never any hostility towards us.
149
@138
The data would tend to disagree with you. At least somewhat.
First off, to equate race with gender is somewhat silly. The difference between white people and black people is quite small and due to a phylogenically recent split. Men and women branched off a lot longer ago, if you follow. In other words.... I'm white and female. The differences between me and a black women are much smaller than the differences between me and a white man.
Second off, you're assuming gender is binary. Unfortunately this is untrue, biologically speaking. Not everyone is XX or XY. Some people have other sex chromosome combinations. Some people are born XY but appear female and are raised that way. The idea that biology makes things simple and people then make things complicated is completely false.
Third I would ask you to look at neurological studies which have shown that people who are biologically male but identify as female have... and I'm dumbing this down somewhat... brains that appear female. Physically. If you want the more detailed info or to be linked to the study I can see what I can do. Or you can google it.
Fourth I would finally say: how about compassion? Even the DSM which is a fairly conservative text (remember how it used to feel about homsexuals?) has decided that the best "treatment" for transgendered individuals is gender reassignment. These people experience an extreme degree of pain. Do you remember the story about the boy who had a botched circumcision and was raised as a girl? He ended up killing himself because he was assigned the wrong gender by a doctor. People who are genetically "male" (XY) but have CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity) are also assigned a "female" gender by the doctor. Difference is, most of them identify as female. Are they "right" or "wrong"? Not so simple, is it.
If you think nature assigns gender "correctly" every time you're living in a dream world. I'm sorry but that's just not true. Nature does a lot of things wrong a lot of the time. Go visit a hospital sometime if you don't believe me.
More...
The data would tend to disagree with you. At least somewhat.
First off, to equate race with gender is somewhat silly. The difference between white people and black people is quite small and due to a phylogenically recent split. Men and women branched off a lot longer ago, if you follow. In other words.... I'm white and female. The differences between me and a black women are much smaller than the differences between me and a white man.
Second off, you're assuming gender is binary. Unfortunately this is untrue, biologically speaking. Not everyone is XX or XY. Some people have other sex chromosome combinations. Some people are born XY but appear female and are raised that way. The idea that biology makes things simple and people then make things complicated is completely false.
Third I would ask you to look at neurological studies which have shown that people who are biologically male but identify as female have... and I'm dumbing this down somewhat... brains that appear female. Physically. If you want the more detailed info or to be linked to the study I can see what I can do. Or you can google it.
Fourth I would finally say: how about compassion? Even the DSM which is a fairly conservative text (remember how it used to feel about homsexuals?) has decided that the best "treatment" for transgendered individuals is gender reassignment. These people experience an extreme degree of pain. Do you remember the story about the boy who had a botched circumcision and was raised as a girl? He ended up killing himself because he was assigned the wrong gender by a doctor. People who are genetically "male" (XY) but have CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity) are also assigned a "female" gender by the doctor. Difference is, most of them identify as female. Are they "right" or "wrong"? Not so simple, is it.
If you think nature assigns gender "correctly" every time you're living in a dream world. I'm sorry but that's just not true. Nature does a lot of things wrong a lot of the time. Go visit a hospital sometime if you don't believe me.
150
"I consider myself a socially progressive person..."
Then you're not. Get over yourself. Being progressive is about changing things, not feeling good about being on the right side.
Then you're not. Get over yourself. Being progressive is about changing things, not feeling good about being on the right side.
151
@146
"EVEN THOUGH THAT CHANGES LITERALLY NOTHING, yeah, you're transphobic. "
It does not change literally nothing.
I refer you to my post above. (32)
@147
I refer you to my post above (the most recent one) and also to this picture.
This person was given no hormones. This person has had no surgery. http://www.carolguze.com/images/Sex/Tfm.…
What's the sex/gender?
"EVEN THOUGH THAT CHANGES LITERALLY NOTHING, yeah, you're transphobic. "
It does not change literally nothing.
I refer you to my post above. (32)
@147
I refer you to my post above (the most recent one) and also to this picture.
This person was given no hormones. This person has had no surgery. http://www.carolguze.com/images/Sex/Tfm.…
What's the sex/gender?
152
Dan, I'm a little surprised you defended the cheater so strongly. After all, he's cheating on someone whose husband has no idea that this is happening. Although it's certainly "edgy" to do that kind of thing, it's not very smart, because the husband could decide to bust his teeth in. As we say in my religious community, "we prize above all living our lives well" - a kind of religiousness with muscle. Slinking around and getting off on secretly cheating on a person's wife isn't living your life well.
154
@134 (Mr Ven), I'm suggesting that a party (or any group of people for that matter) is always more complicated than whoever speaks for it -- even when said speaker does have the support of the majority of his associates.
Of course extremists can become the voice of a party, or even its soul. The clearest example is everybody's boogieman, Adolf Hitler, who clearly was both the voice and the soul of the NSDAP.
And yet, even within the NSDAP, there were moderates and extremists (and opportunists) -- Strasser was not Rosenberg, Heydrich was not Speer, Göth was not Schindler. And, despite what they themselves thought, the moderates in the NSDAP had more in common with other moderates -- say, in the CPSU, their sworn enemies -- than they had with the extremists in their own party.
Going from moderate to extremist necessitates a leap of faith -- namely, that one indeed does have all the answers, and that one's enemies are actually harmful and have evil intentions ('the gay agenda'). What happens when extremists become the voice of the party? They managed to impose their opinions against the moderates, whom they try to scare ('be afraid, be very afraid! the enemy is at the gates!'), or even to drive away with accusations of agnosticism or heresy ('who's a real Republican? who really believes in the wisdom of the market?').
The extent to which people in the party itself, or in society as a whole, will buy an oversimplified presentation of reality and its dangers is the extent to which extremists will manage to become the voice of said party, or of said society. Or so, at least, it seems to me.
Of course extremists can become the voice of a party, or even its soul. The clearest example is everybody's boogieman, Adolf Hitler, who clearly was both the voice and the soul of the NSDAP.
And yet, even within the NSDAP, there were moderates and extremists (and opportunists) -- Strasser was not Rosenberg, Heydrich was not Speer, Göth was not Schindler. And, despite what they themselves thought, the moderates in the NSDAP had more in common with other moderates -- say, in the CPSU, their sworn enemies -- than they had with the extremists in their own party.
Going from moderate to extremist necessitates a leap of faith -- namely, that one indeed does have all the answers, and that one's enemies are actually harmful and have evil intentions ('the gay agenda'). What happens when extremists become the voice of the party? They managed to impose their opinions against the moderates, whom they try to scare ('be afraid, be very afraid! the enemy is at the gates!'), or even to drive away with accusations of agnosticism or heresy ('who's a real Republican? who really believes in the wisdom of the market?').
The extent to which people in the party itself, or in society as a whole, will buy an oversimplified presentation of reality and its dangers is the extent to which extremists will manage to become the voice of said party, or of said society. Or so, at least, it seems to me.
155
@134 (mr Ven), what do you mean by "unusually superio(u)r of me"? I'm not sure I understand. :-|...
156
@intermittentcat, who wrote:
Not entirely, intermittentcat -- because we are allowed preferences, in sex or othewise, because of things that we think or conceptualize in a certain way, regardless of the underlying reality. It's simply up to me to decide what it is that I like to eat, drink, see or listen to in my spare time... and have sex with, on the basis of any reason whatsoever, since what is at stake here is the pleasure I get from it.
I have the right to like classical music and dislike rock music, or the other way round; I have the right to think I'll enjoy people who like my favorite kind of music more than people who don't; people who share my tastes in foreign language, sexual orientation, bodily shape and form, than those who don't.
Of course you could counter that whatever kind of music I don't like is also internally complex and just as full of emotional associations and interpretations -- ultimately, just as aesthetically legitimate -- as the kind of music I like.
And you're right. It is.
And I'm also right -- because I don't like it, and I'm entitled to that.
So: someone who doesn't want to fuck a transgendered person is not transphobic, s/he is simply not attracted to transgendered people. Your claim is that this person is not attracted to the idea of what transgendered people are; but since the point here is this person's pleasure (sexual and otherwise), then the fact s/he is not attracted to an idea rather than to a reality is not really relevant.
I personally would advise this person to try to enter into contact with real transgendered people to see if s/he couldn't find one s/he would actually be attracted to; and if s/he did and was reciprocated, to go ahead and have sex -- it might be a liberating experience to see that one can go beyond what one thought were one's limits.
But then again, this person might say "no thanks" and stick to his/her current sexual preferences for cisgendered people only. And that is also fine, because this person is entitled to pursue his/her personal (including sexual) happiness with whatever limitations s/he wants to have -- even if I myself wouldn't likewise limit my own pool of available partners.
In short: people have the right to decide who they want to have as friends, lovers, etc. on whatever criteria they think are going to bring them closer to happiness -- even if I think these criteria are wrong or wouldn't work for me, it's not my life, it's not my happiness, so it's not my call.
As for whether or not it's prejudice... let me ask you the question: what's the difference between preference and prejudice? Can you have a preference for a certain kind of people without this being prejudice? According to what criteria, and under which circumstances, would you be able to tell the difference? (I have my own answers to these questions, but I'm curious about yours.)
More...
But to be freaked out, not by the reality of the woman in front of you, but by your concept of the kind of thing you think she is, is almost a textbook definition of prejudice.
Not entirely, intermittentcat -- because we are allowed preferences, in sex or othewise, because of things that we think or conceptualize in a certain way, regardless of the underlying reality. It's simply up to me to decide what it is that I like to eat, drink, see or listen to in my spare time... and have sex with, on the basis of any reason whatsoever, since what is at stake here is the pleasure I get from it.
I have the right to like classical music and dislike rock music, or the other way round; I have the right to think I'll enjoy people who like my favorite kind of music more than people who don't; people who share my tastes in foreign language, sexual orientation, bodily shape and form, than those who don't.
Of course you could counter that whatever kind of music I don't like is also internally complex and just as full of emotional associations and interpretations -- ultimately, just as aesthetically legitimate -- as the kind of music I like.
And you're right. It is.
And I'm also right -- because I don't like it, and I'm entitled to that.
So: someone who doesn't want to fuck a transgendered person is not transphobic, s/he is simply not attracted to transgendered people. Your claim is that this person is not attracted to the idea of what transgendered people are; but since the point here is this person's pleasure (sexual and otherwise), then the fact s/he is not attracted to an idea rather than to a reality is not really relevant.
I personally would advise this person to try to enter into contact with real transgendered people to see if s/he couldn't find one s/he would actually be attracted to; and if s/he did and was reciprocated, to go ahead and have sex -- it might be a liberating experience to see that one can go beyond what one thought were one's limits.
But then again, this person might say "no thanks" and stick to his/her current sexual preferences for cisgendered people only. And that is also fine, because this person is entitled to pursue his/her personal (including sexual) happiness with whatever limitations s/he wants to have -- even if I myself wouldn't likewise limit my own pool of available partners.
In short: people have the right to decide who they want to have as friends, lovers, etc. on whatever criteria they think are going to bring them closer to happiness -- even if I think these criteria are wrong or wouldn't work for me, it's not my life, it's not my happiness, so it's not my call.
As for whether or not it's prejudice... let me ask you the question: what's the difference between preference and prejudice? Can you have a preference for a certain kind of people without this being prejudice? According to what criteria, and under which circumstances, would you be able to tell the difference? (I have my own answers to these questions, but I'm curious about yours.)
157
@138 (psst), I, for one, would call the African Americans bigoted who wouldn't accept your right to identify as African American and alter your body to fit theirs. You are indeed entitled to do with your body what you want; and if someone believes that 'Blackness' is so deeply in the blood that coming to it later in life and without the necessary genes is 'just wrong', well then I beg to differ.
Which is what you would yourself do, isn't it?
You see, here's what is wrong when you say that people are never born in the 'wrong body': you aren't really looking around yourself. People are born in the 'wrong body' all the time -- judging at least by how much they hate the body they're born with. I'll bet more than half of the people in the world would change their bodies for a new one without any hesitation if it were as easy as downloading your consciousness into them (as in some SF movies).
Besides, there are lots of bodies that are objectively bad: bodies with genetic diseases, for instance. You're not going to tell people born with genetic defects and who want to change that with therapy that they aren't entitled to it because 'they have to accept the bodies they were born with' now would you?
I think you're offended because you think someone is trying to claim that you don't have the right to be happy as a cisgendered woman. This often happens in activism: fighting against bigotry often becomes (or is perceived) as fighting against the group of people among which most bigots are to be found. This creates a kind of reverse bigotry that, though smaller in terms of actual number of bigots, is still as bad as the original one in terms of how it misrepresents the other group.
So you probably feel trans people are 'forcing' a cisgendered identity onto you because they don't want you to be happy simply as 'a woman'. Indeed I'll bet there are some who are trying to do that. (Dan's glitterbombers are probably among those.)
But not all. Not every person who talks about 'cis' and 'trans' is trying to deny that you're a woman, and that you can be happy with whatever level you apply to yourself. No, pssst -- many people are simply using a useful word to talk about a certain group of people for whom there was as of yet no positive descriptor (only negative ones like "not transgender"), and only in the contexts in which this is necessary: for most intents and purposes "woman" works fine.
More...
Which is what you would yourself do, isn't it?
You see, here's what is wrong when you say that people are never born in the 'wrong body': you aren't really looking around yourself. People are born in the 'wrong body' all the time -- judging at least by how much they hate the body they're born with. I'll bet more than half of the people in the world would change their bodies for a new one without any hesitation if it were as easy as downloading your consciousness into them (as in some SF movies).
Besides, there are lots of bodies that are objectively bad: bodies with genetic diseases, for instance. You're not going to tell people born with genetic defects and who want to change that with therapy that they aren't entitled to it because 'they have to accept the bodies they were born with' now would you?
I think you're offended because you think someone is trying to claim that you don't have the right to be happy as a cisgendered woman. This often happens in activism: fighting against bigotry often becomes (or is perceived) as fighting against the group of people among which most bigots are to be found. This creates a kind of reverse bigotry that, though smaller in terms of actual number of bigots, is still as bad as the original one in terms of how it misrepresents the other group.
So you probably feel trans people are 'forcing' a cisgendered identity onto you because they don't want you to be happy simply as 'a woman'. Indeed I'll bet there are some who are trying to do that. (Dan's glitterbombers are probably among those.)
But not all. Not every person who talks about 'cis' and 'trans' is trying to deny that you're a woman, and that you can be happy with whatever level you apply to yourself. No, pssst -- many people are simply using a useful word to talk about a certain group of people for whom there was as of yet no positive descriptor (only negative ones like "not transgender"), and only in the contexts in which this is necessary: for most intents and purposes "woman" works fine.
158
@138 (psst), I, for one, would call the African Americans bigoted who wouldn't accept your right to identify as African American and alter your body to fit theirs. You are indeed entitled to do with your body what you want; and if someone believes that 'Blackness' is so deeply in the blood that coming to it later in life and without the necessary genes is 'just wrong', well then I beg to differ.
Which is what you would yourself do, isn't it?
You see, here's what is wrong when you say that people are never born in the 'wrong body': you aren't really looking around yourself. People are born in the 'wrong body' all the time -- judging at least by how much they hate the body they're born with. I'll bet more than half of the people in the world would change their bodies for a new one without any hesitation if it were as easy as downloading your consciousness into them (as in some SF movies).
Besides, there are lots of bodies that are objectively bad: bodies with genetic diseases, for instance. You're not going to tell people born with genetic defects and who want to change that with therapy that they aren't entitled to it because 'they have to accept the bodies they were born with' now would you?
I think you're offended because you think someone is trying to claim that you don't have the right to be happy as a cisgendered woman. This often happens in activism: fighting against bigotry often becomes (or is perceived) as fighting against the group of people among which most bigots are to be found. This creates a kind of reverse bigotry that, though smaller in terms of actual number of bigots, is still as bad as the original one in terms of how it misrepresents the other group.
So you probably feel trans people are 'forcing' a cisgendered identity onto you because they don't want you to be happy simply as 'a woman'. Indeed I'll bet there are some who are trying to do that. (Dan's glitterbombers are probably among those.)
But not all. Not every person who talks about 'cis' and 'trans' is trying to deny that you're a woman, and that you can be happy with whatever level you apply to yourself. No, pssst -- many people are simply using a useful word to talk about a certain group of people for whom there was no positive descriptor yet (only negative ones like "not transgender"), and only in the contexts in which this is necessary: for most intents and purposes "woman" works fine.
More...
Which is what you would yourself do, isn't it?
You see, here's what is wrong when you say that people are never born in the 'wrong body': you aren't really looking around yourself. People are born in the 'wrong body' all the time -- judging at least by how much they hate the body they're born with. I'll bet more than half of the people in the world would change their bodies for a new one without any hesitation if it were as easy as downloading your consciousness into them (as in some SF movies).
Besides, there are lots of bodies that are objectively bad: bodies with genetic diseases, for instance. You're not going to tell people born with genetic defects and who want to change that with therapy that they aren't entitled to it because 'they have to accept the bodies they were born with' now would you?
I think you're offended because you think someone is trying to claim that you don't have the right to be happy as a cisgendered woman. This often happens in activism: fighting against bigotry often becomes (or is perceived) as fighting against the group of people among which most bigots are to be found. This creates a kind of reverse bigotry that, though smaller in terms of actual number of bigots, is still as bad as the original one in terms of how it misrepresents the other group.
So you probably feel trans people are 'forcing' a cisgendered identity onto you because they don't want you to be happy simply as 'a woman'. Indeed I'll bet there are some who are trying to do that. (Dan's glitterbombers are probably among those.)
But not all. Not every person who talks about 'cis' and 'trans' is trying to deny that you're a woman, and that you can be happy with whatever level you apply to yourself. No, pssst -- many people are simply using a useful word to talk about a certain group of people for whom there was no positive descriptor yet (only negative ones like "not transgender"), and only in the contexts in which this is necessary: for most intents and purposes "woman" works fine.
159
@152 How do you know the husband doesn’t know and approve of the wife dating another person? Polyamorous relationship usually means that all people involved are fully aware and approving.
The brother and his wife are the problem in the case mentioned because they, just like you, believe that “living our lives well" means your way is the only way and everyone else has to follow. As they say in my religious community: “live and let live”.
The brother and his wife are the problem in the case mentioned because they, just like you, believe that “living our lives well" means your way is the only way and everyone else has to follow. As they say in my religious community: “live and let live”.
160
@Alea, who wrote:
See, here's what I don't like with this kind of definition for transphobic: it's basically regulating my right to define my happiness in the terms I like.
It's as if you were saying that, if I like classical music but not rock music, then I am "rockaphobic". Or if I like vanilla ice-cream but not chocolate ice-cream, then I am "chocophobic".
In some sense this is 'true' (if 'phobic' is taken to mean 'doesn't like', which I guess it sometimes does in colloquial usage), but this trivializes the problem: since we all like certain things and certain people, but not others, we're now all "something-o-phobic". Liberals are "Republicanophobic". Atheists are "religiophobic". Gays are "straightophobic". And on it goes.
The bottom line for me is: prejudice has to affect others to be a problem. If I don't like to sleep with a certain group of people -- to the extent that I would change my mind about sleeping with someone if I suddenly found out that s/he belonged to this group -- but treat them otherwise as normal people, I'm not being prejudiced against them. I simply know what works and doesn't work for me sexually (as I know also in the area of food, music, movies, hobbies, or work, etc.), and I'm entitled to that.
In order for my lack of interest to sleep with a certain group to be seen as prejudiced, it would have to imply some wrong, some harm -- and I frankly am not so arrogant as to think that not being able to sleep with me is going to be harmful to some group of people in such a way that I would be morally wrong in denying them access to my body. :-)
Sexual preference is not prejudice. Sexual preference is simply what does or doesn't make you happy sexually.
More...
If he is attracted to someone, and would normally love to sleep with them, but then finds out they are trans and changes his mind, EVEN THOUGH THAT CHANGES LITERALLY NOTHING, yeah, you're transphobic.
See, here's what I don't like with this kind of definition for transphobic: it's basically regulating my right to define my happiness in the terms I like.
It's as if you were saying that, if I like classical music but not rock music, then I am "rockaphobic". Or if I like vanilla ice-cream but not chocolate ice-cream, then I am "chocophobic".
In some sense this is 'true' (if 'phobic' is taken to mean 'doesn't like', which I guess it sometimes does in colloquial usage), but this trivializes the problem: since we all like certain things and certain people, but not others, we're now all "something-o-phobic". Liberals are "Republicanophobic". Atheists are "religiophobic". Gays are "straightophobic". And on it goes.
The bottom line for me is: prejudice has to affect others to be a problem. If I don't like to sleep with a certain group of people -- to the extent that I would change my mind about sleeping with someone if I suddenly found out that s/he belonged to this group -- but treat them otherwise as normal people, I'm not being prejudiced against them. I simply know what works and doesn't work for me sexually (as I know also in the area of food, music, movies, hobbies, or work, etc.), and I'm entitled to that.
In order for my lack of interest to sleep with a certain group to be seen as prejudiced, it would have to imply some wrong, some harm -- and I frankly am not so arrogant as to think that not being able to sleep with me is going to be harmful to some group of people in such a way that I would be morally wrong in denying them access to my body. :-)
Sexual preference is not prejudice. Sexual preference is simply what does or doesn't make you happy sexually.
161
@159, you may be able to fool yourself into thinking that a disordered relationship like his is healthy, but I'm not fooled. There's a son in the equation, and Forced To Pick, as far as we know, hasn't done anything to raise him, look after him, or pay for his well-being. He seems, from his letter, to be getting pussy without any of the side-effects or responsibilities of getting pussy. I don't see any sign in FTP's letter that the husband knows about him, which led me to think he's sneaking around. I still think that this is what he's doing.
162
@21: I have a copper IUD. About 3-4 months after getting it (and getting off hormones) my sex drive about doubled. If you have been off hormones for a sufficiently long time (say, 6-12 months, though it varies) and haven't seen an improvement, or if your sex drive has noticeably declined since getting off hormones, then there is either something else going on medically (thyroid and depression spring to mind though there are many possibilities) or the hormones were actually boosting your sex drive (entirely conceivable if things can go in the other direction). Find a sex positive doctor-- http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ is a good place to start -- where you can discuss the issue. It took me four years to find a method that didn't suppress my sex drive, so keep trying!! It is *well* worth it. I wish this was an issue more often discussed... way to go Dan!
163
"If he is attracted to someone, and would normally love to sleep with them, but then finds out they are trans and changes his mind, EVEN THOUGH THAT CHANGES LITERALLY NOTHING, yeah, you're transphobic."
I believe this is a true statement. There is no reason for anyone to rule out possibilities for dating any one just because they happen to be trans, black , white or asian.
There is no way anyone can "tell" by bone structure that somoeone is transsexual, you can guess right, but you cant guess right every single time.
I dont think someone who is not turned on by a certain race is a bigot per say, nor do i think someone who is not turned on by someone who happens to be transgender is a bigot, but you have to have a little bias in order to rule out a whole group of people based on one trait.
I believe this is a true statement. There is no reason for anyone to rule out possibilities for dating any one just because they happen to be trans, black , white or asian.
There is no way anyone can "tell" by bone structure that somoeone is transsexual, you can guess right, but you cant guess right every single time.
I dont think someone who is not turned on by a certain race is a bigot per say, nor do i think someone who is not turned on by someone who happens to be transgender is a bigot, but you have to have a little bias in order to rule out a whole group of people based on one trait.
164
By the way, I also think anyone who rules out any possibilities to fall in love with someone because they happen to be overweight,asian black at least on a subconscious level.
I am not saying we cant have our own perference, but there is no justification to rule out the possibility of falling in love with every transgender woman on earth, as i am sure there are transgender women completely live and look like a woman in every possible way.
The only thing that stop a heterosexual man from falling in love with such women is an internal bias against people who are transgender.
I am not saying we cant have our own perference, but there is no justification to rule out the possibility of falling in love with every transgender woman on earth, as i am sure there are transgender women completely live and look like a woman in every possible way.
The only thing that stop a heterosexual man from falling in love with such women is an internal bias against people who are transgender.
165
To not be attracted to any given trans women, or even to generally find you don't fancy trans women, and note this, is fine, of course. It might even be that the nature of surgically constructed vaginas turns out, should you get that far, to be such th...at that you actually aren't in to getting it on with any trans woman at all, no matter how much you might like her otherwise. But to be freaked out, not by the reality of the woman in front of you, but by your concept of the kind of thing you think she is, is almost a textbook definition of prejudice.”
This statement is absolutely bang on. Imagine if you fell in love with a woman (love at first sight) and than you found out about her past, about her DNA, and you suddenly stop loving that person or feeling attraction, than YOU ARE prejudiced against transgender people on an subconscious level at least.
It would be wise to at least admit and explore why you feel this way by digging deep inside your mind and soul, instead of saying you are completely accepting.
This statement is absolutely bang on. Imagine if you fell in love with a woman (love at first sight) and than you found out about her past, about her DNA, and you suddenly stop loving that person or feeling attraction, than YOU ARE prejudiced against transgender people on an subconscious level at least.
It would be wise to at least admit and explore why you feel this way by digging deep inside your mind and soul, instead of saying you are completely accepting.
166
"Even though that changes literally nothing."
It sounds great, but examine the premise. How could finding out something as monumental as a sex change operation change nothing? How could a person's past with different genitals (and the expectations and treatment that goes with those genitals) be inconsequential? We forget all sorts of things, but that?
I'm trying to think of any other major component in a person's life that it would be easy to ignore, or even something that would change literally nothing, and I can't think of anything.
It sounds great, but examine the premise. How could finding out something as monumental as a sex change operation change nothing? How could a person's past with different genitals (and the expectations and treatment that goes with those genitals) be inconsequential? We forget all sorts of things, but that?
I'm trying to think of any other major component in a person's life that it would be easy to ignore, or even something that would change literally nothing, and I can't think of anything.
167
If FRAUD reads all of the comments, I hope he makes it down this far.
Based on the letter you wrote here, you seem to be an awesome person. You're fully aware of who you are and you're supportive of those who are fully aware of themselves as well. That is the best thing that ANYONE can be.
I have hetero friends who have my back 100%. They got issues with certain gay things, but if they approach me with it, I discuss it respectfully, present my points and hold my ground. They may not like it, but they respect it.
Don't let all this activism bullshit make you feel like you don't have a right to your personal preferences. A real friend lets you be you and accepts you for who you are - and JUST because someone is LGBT does NOT mean they aren't a selfish asshole.
Based on the letter you wrote here, you seem to be an awesome person. You're fully aware of who you are and you're supportive of those who are fully aware of themselves as well. That is the best thing that ANYONE can be.
I have hetero friends who have my back 100%. They got issues with certain gay things, but if they approach me with it, I discuss it respectfully, present my points and hold my ground. They may not like it, but they respect it.
Don't let all this activism bullshit make you feel like you don't have a right to your personal preferences. A real friend lets you be you and accepts you for who you are - and JUST because someone is LGBT does NOT mean they aren't a selfish asshole.
168
Ms There - That's a bit flawed. Even if we leave out the question of odds (that FRAUD is capable of love at first sight or on ridiculously slight acquaintance, that a straight person who has known far more trans people than most and some of them probably quite well would come across one he wouldn't guess might be, and that there would be sufficient mutual attraction to allow the relationship to get to such a point), in your scenario the woman involved has permitted him to fall in love with her before making the revelation. Insufficient openness about a plausible dealbreaker has killed many attractions even when the dealbreaker wasn't a dealbreaker.
169
Vennominon, are you saying as a trans woman, I have the power to control when and how someone fall in love with me before I disclose my past history? I am not God and I dont have wear a label on my forehead about what DNA I have. People can fall in love on second or third dates and not have the opportunity to talk about or know the most intimiate details or even personal details about someone, and that doesnt mean that person is lying or witholding information on purpose.
You have the right to not like rap, or enjoy looking at art instead of playing foot ball, but just being against the idea that you can never be with someone because they are not born with the DNA you perferred, thats bias based on gender identity, thats a prejudice , even if you dont admit it , even if you are considered to be an accepting person by almost everyone including trans people.
You have the right to not like rap, or enjoy looking at art instead of playing foot ball, but just being against the idea that you can never be with someone because they are not born with the DNA you perferred, thats bias based on gender identity, thats a prejudice , even if you dont admit it , even if you are considered to be an accepting person by almost everyone including trans people.
170
Crinoline,
It's perfectly fine if someone choose to not be with anyone who ever had life changing surgery or anyone with a really impressive or intense battles with self actualization, but dont tell me thats just a personal perference, not a bias or prejudice..if you love a person, you love them based on who they are and trans women come in all size and shapes, pre op and post op, race and color, backgrounds of all types..
The only reason someone choose to say no to being in an intimiate relation with all transsexuals before ever even meeting them is based on a prejudice. sorry.
It's perfectly fine if someone choose to not be with anyone who ever had life changing surgery or anyone with a really impressive or intense battles with self actualization, but dont tell me thats just a personal perference, not a bias or prejudice..if you love a person, you love them based on who they are and trans women come in all size and shapes, pre op and post op, race and color, backgrounds of all types..
The only reason someone choose to say no to being in an intimiate relation with all transsexuals before ever even meeting them is based on a prejudice. sorry.
171
Mr Ank - Framing a choice of moderates choosing a political side as succumbing to temptation is practically calling it a moral fault to take a side. Calling that more superiour of you than usual was my own attempt at matching your own spotless moderation in all things in a tolerably humourous manner.
By the way, what's so beatified about being a moderate? Haven't we seen quite a few examples of outrageous things lately because somebody wanted to "present both sides fairly"? (I am reminded of Mr Mantegna's short-lived and perhaps rather insufferable television series in which he portrayed the most perfectly impartial Supreme Court Justice who ever existed and week after week was always the swing vote in a 5-4 decision. Superhuman impartiality may be a desirable quality in a Supreme, but do we really want to generalize it to the point of considering it a fault to have a strong and partisan opinion regardless of the issue?)
I could say more, but it's way too late. Sorry if this was incoherent.
By the way, what's so beatified about being a moderate? Haven't we seen quite a few examples of outrageous things lately because somebody wanted to "present both sides fairly"? (I am reminded of Mr Mantegna's short-lived and perhaps rather insufferable television series in which he portrayed the most perfectly impartial Supreme Court Justice who ever existed and week after week was always the swing vote in a 5-4 decision. Superhuman impartiality may be a desirable quality in a Supreme, but do we really want to generalize it to the point of considering it a fault to have a strong and partisan opinion regardless of the issue?)
I could say more, but it's way too late. Sorry if this was incoherent.
172
Ms There - SOME people can fall in love on second or third dates, though we might debate on how shallow or deep such love might be. But it is not the sort of thing that happens to everyone all the time. In FRAUD's case, too, one might think that he'd probably even be much more likely to know (or guess) a trans woman's status before a possible first date than most straight men. He's also much more likely to discuss trans issues with women he dates just as part of his own history, which would seem to make it more likely that the matter would be revealed as a dealbreaker before he'd fallen.
I said "insufficient openness" rather than "concealment", consciously trying not to frame it as a matter of deliberate intent. There can be some things one finds out about someone too late, regardless of the reason. Some cases might or might not involve more fault than others, but that's a question of degree.
Again, it's very late here and I'm sure I'm incoherent. I just meant to say that I've known people with dealbreakers who surprised themselves by overcoming them, and people who couldn't handle the timing of when something came out even though the something itself wasn't the problem. That struck me as a flaw in your example; I was not saying that the example was wrong.
I said "insufficient openness" rather than "concealment", consciously trying not to frame it as a matter of deliberate intent. There can be some things one finds out about someone too late, regardless of the reason. Some cases might or might not involve more fault than others, but that's a question of degree.
Again, it's very late here and I'm sure I'm incoherent. I just meant to say that I've known people with dealbreakers who surprised themselves by overcoming them, and people who couldn't handle the timing of when something came out even though the something itself wasn't the problem. That struck me as a flaw in your example; I was not saying that the example was wrong.
173
"The only reason someone choose to say no to being in an intimiate relation with all transsexuals before ever even meeting them is based on a prejudice."
Only if heterosexuality and homosexuality are also prejudices. Should we tell soi-disant lesbians that they're bigots by refusing to consider having intimate relationships with men? What about men who pose as lesbians online? Or men who convincingly crossdress?
MTF transsexuals want to be treated just like women (I reject the term "cis-women"). That can happen in the social sphere, maybe even should happen, but in the romantic sphere, forget it. You're NOT just like women: your bodies are an amalgam of male and female qualities, in varying proportions. It may be that in some situations the male qualities are well-hidden, but they're still there, and complete openness will generally reveal them, except maybe in cases where the two parties are of different races (non-Asian men have a hard time spotting Asian ladyboys because most races are bad at differentiating members of other races to begin with).
There are men out there who will be attracted to those male qualities, so why do you insist on railing against those who aren't? We have the right NOT to want to have sex with you, NOT to want to love you, NOT to want to "give you a chance". That doesn't make us bigots; it makes us people who realize that we'll never want the real you. And that makes you angry, just as every rejected lover gets angry -- but you no more have the right to cry bigotry than a man does if a lesbian doesn't want him because he's a man.
Only if heterosexuality and homosexuality are also prejudices. Should we tell soi-disant lesbians that they're bigots by refusing to consider having intimate relationships with men? What about men who pose as lesbians online? Or men who convincingly crossdress?
MTF transsexuals want to be treated just like women (I reject the term "cis-women"). That can happen in the social sphere, maybe even should happen, but in the romantic sphere, forget it. You're NOT just like women: your bodies are an amalgam of male and female qualities, in varying proportions. It may be that in some situations the male qualities are well-hidden, but they're still there, and complete openness will generally reveal them, except maybe in cases where the two parties are of different races (non-Asian men have a hard time spotting Asian ladyboys because most races are bad at differentiating members of other races to begin with).
There are men out there who will be attracted to those male qualities, so why do you insist on railing against those who aren't? We have the right NOT to want to have sex with you, NOT to want to love you, NOT to want to "give you a chance". That doesn't make us bigots; it makes us people who realize that we'll never want the real you. And that makes you angry, just as every rejected lover gets angry -- but you no more have the right to cry bigotry than a man does if a lesbian doesn't want him because he's a man.
174
@93 clashfan: I'm glad you liked it!
I'm still puzzled about all this redefining new sex terminology.
Does this make me a cis-ter?
I'm still puzzled about all this redefining new sex terminology.
Does this make me a cis-ter?
175
FRAUD's friends are being silly. If 'supports the rights of' has to equal 'sexually attracted to', then every queer-basher with girl-on-girl action on his hard drive is a LGBT ally and every woman-raper is a feminist.
176
@Doot (22) who said "man-made pussy looks like a blown-out truck tire that's driven through the mud,"
That may be the case for some people, but it's hardly universal. My girlfriend's cunt is gorgeous. Possibly her surgeon was better at his job than the surgeons who worked on the person/people you know? But no, a constructed cunt is not automatically less attractive than a home-grown one, and it's ridiculous to say that it is.
That may be the case for some people, but it's hardly universal. My girlfriend's cunt is gorgeous. Possibly her surgeon was better at his job than the surgeons who worked on the person/people you know? But no, a constructed cunt is not automatically less attractive than a home-grown one, and it's ridiculous to say that it is.
177
It's ok to prefer natural boobs to implants?
It's not ok to prefer a natural woman to a surgically constructed one?
It's not ok to prefer a natural woman to a surgically constructed one?
178
arewethereyet-170-- Fine. I accept that my preference for the cisgendered is a prejudice, but in doing so, I reject any negative connotations normally associated with prejudice and bigotry. I now pronounce them good things and hope everyone engages them happily and proudly.
179
Auntie,
My original statement was a simple "women seem more obsessed about their libidos than men." Apparently this female obsession is so obvious it's not worth saying. Thank you.
My original statement was a simple "women seem more obsessed about their libidos than men." Apparently this female obsession is so obvious it's not worth saying. Thank you.
181
@179
It's like saying that women are more "obsessed" about getting breast cancer than men. Or more "obsessed" about being raped than men.
How'd you end up so fucking obtuse?
It's like saying that women are more "obsessed" about getting breast cancer than men. Or more "obsessed" about being raped than men.
How'd you end up so fucking obtuse?
182
Anecdotally, I know many women who have experienced low libido while on hormonal birth control. Myself I lost 10 years of good sex before putting 2 and 2 together. Mostly because pharmaceutical companies and the medical community either downplay or outright conceal these side effects. Mirena IUD hormones not systemic? I would love to believe it. After being screwed by pharma for a decade, I won't believe anything they claim ever again.
183
It seems to me that there's two distinct issues here.
One is something I'll call the straight male teen's trans nightmare: "Imagine that you were dating this really cool girl. It's the third date, and you're in loooooove with her, and you're just about to hit a home run, when you find out she's a trannie!!!1! What do you do!?!? [in a hushed subtone] and does this mean you're ... GAY?!?!" Personally, I think I'd handle it much like I'd handle a revelation that the woman I was with had had her tubes tied. At certain periods of my life, that would have been a deal-breaker, even if she was "perfect" otherwise, and it would have been much less unpleasant for everyone if she'd told me that on the first date rather than waiting until everyone was heavily emotionally invested. At other periods of my life, it wouldn't have been a major issue.
But that's not what FRAUD is talking about. He's saying he's met a lot of MtF trans people, and he's never met one who turns him on. His political activism tells him he should be turned on by at least some of them, but his hormones refuse to cooperate. I think that's a comment on the limits of current male-to-female surgical techniques, not prejudice.
@Mydriasis: I think he's trolling.
BTW, Mydriasis, you don't understand phylogeny. Phylogeny compares populations that don't interbreed. So you can compare (for example) lions and tigers and bears with it. Phylogenetic techniques are inapplicable to male humans and female humans, or US whites and US blacks, because those groups do interbreed.
One is something I'll call the straight male teen's trans nightmare: "Imagine that you were dating this really cool girl. It's the third date, and you're in loooooove with her, and you're just about to hit a home run, when you find out she's a trannie!!!1! What do you do!?!? [in a hushed subtone] and does this mean you're ... GAY?!?!" Personally, I think I'd handle it much like I'd handle a revelation that the woman I was with had had her tubes tied. At certain periods of my life, that would have been a deal-breaker, even if she was "perfect" otherwise, and it would have been much less unpleasant for everyone if she'd told me that on the first date rather than waiting until everyone was heavily emotionally invested. At other periods of my life, it wouldn't have been a major issue.
But that's not what FRAUD is talking about. He's saying he's met a lot of MtF trans people, and he's never met one who turns him on. His political activism tells him he should be turned on by at least some of them, but his hormones refuse to cooperate. I think that's a comment on the limits of current male-to-female surgical techniques, not prejudice.
@Mydriasis: I think he's trolling.
BTW, Mydriasis, you don't understand phylogeny. Phylogeny compares populations that don't interbreed. So you can compare (for example) lions and tigers and bears with it. Phylogenetic techniques are inapplicable to male humans and female humans, or US whites and US blacks, because those groups do interbreed.
184
@161
I’ll try once more…
What may work for others may not work for you and vice versa. No need to label it as a “disordered relationship”.
And maybe he is involved with raising the child to some degree or another? After all, the brother and his wife threatened to contact CPS. They never threatened to tell the husband, and probably because he is fully aware and approve of what’s going on.
Just live your life happily and let other live theirs. Thanks
I’ll try once more…
What may work for others may not work for you and vice versa. No need to label it as a “disordered relationship”.
And maybe he is involved with raising the child to some degree or another? After all, the brother and his wife threatened to contact CPS. They never threatened to tell the husband, and probably because he is fully aware and approve of what’s going on.
Just live your life happily and let other live theirs. Thanks
185
@179 Hunter: Did you not have a nice Thanksgiving?
I still don't understand your issue and your beef. I'm not obsessed with my libido, only observant. Are you mad because you're currently not getting any, and that you secretly wish more women DID obsess about their sex drives? Are you harboring a disquieting thought that if you didn't get some ass soon (Oh, the horrors!!), you might become a dateless troll? Or how well hung you think you are, DAMN IT! Why can't they SEE it??? Or whether or not I prefer hamburgers to hot dogs or chocolate to caramel? It sounds more like you've become a bit oddly "ob-sexed". For someone whose vague opinion that women's perceived obsessions are so obvious [they] "aren't worth saying", you seem hell bent on screaming volumes.
@181 mydriasis: Maybe it's because he's too obsessed with his libido?
I still don't understand your issue and your beef. I'm not obsessed with my libido, only observant. Are you mad because you're currently not getting any, and that you secretly wish more women DID obsess about their sex drives? Are you harboring a disquieting thought that if you didn't get some ass soon (Oh, the horrors!!), you might become a dateless troll? Or how well hung you think you are, DAMN IT! Why can't they SEE it??? Or whether or not I prefer hamburgers to hot dogs or chocolate to caramel? It sounds more like you've become a bit oddly "ob-sexed". For someone whose vague opinion that women's perceived obsessions are so obvious [they] "aren't worth saying", you seem hell bent on screaming volumes.
@181 mydriasis: Maybe it's because he's too obsessed with his libido?
186
@141 - "You mention "trappings", and I ask: why can't people like/engage in the 'trappings' of the other gender without deducing that this makes them a member of that category? E.g., if I like to skateboard, climbs trees, fix cars, watch sports, wear trousers rather than skirts, etc (all "stereotypical" male things), does that make me a boy/man? Why can't I just be a girl/woman who likes that sh*t? "
This is where I always get lost in discussions about gender. I was born with a standard female body and was treated in the normal way for my body. But I have zero mothering instinct, I like video games and rough sports, and rarely wear a dress. I don't feel like a man, I'm not sure I really feel like a woman. I like what I like. I don't understand how people cross that line from "I like the things normally associated with the opposite gender" to "I am supposed to be the opposite gender". I'm not questioning anyone's right to feel that way or to act on those feelings, just saying that I really don't get it. Just because society tells me my interests are masculine doesn't mean I need to change my body to be male to fit with my interests. Maybe I'm missing something. Can anyone recommend some reading that might explain it to me?
This is where I always get lost in discussions about gender. I was born with a standard female body and was treated in the normal way for my body. But I have zero mothering instinct, I like video games and rough sports, and rarely wear a dress. I don't feel like a man, I'm not sure I really feel like a woman. I like what I like. I don't understand how people cross that line from "I like the things normally associated with the opposite gender" to "I am supposed to be the opposite gender". I'm not questioning anyone's right to feel that way or to act on those feelings, just saying that I really don't get it. Just because society tells me my interests are masculine doesn't mean I need to change my body to be male to fit with my interests. Maybe I'm missing something. Can anyone recommend some reading that might explain it to me?
188
I wish we could/would take the BT out LGBT. Totally differnent issues and totally different life challenges. I know it's not progressively queer of me and unPC but there you have it. Hate away......
190
Read the question again:
"Do I have the right to not feel comfortable with the idea (or reality) of having sex with these women and still consider myself a supporter of the trans community"
Nowhere here does it say love, hes purely asking about sex. There is no way in hell he can know for sure every woman he comes across is or is not born with an XX OR XY DNA, this is his issue with being uncomfortable with an idea in his head about what trans women are like.
It is possible for FRAUD to get off on having sex with a woman, and than days later, he found out shes actually trans, it didnt matter how "uncomfortable" he is now, but the fact was, he did have no problem getting his rock off on a transsexual woman as long as he didnt know in his mind.
He has the right to be turned off at the idea of being a transsexual, he can still support transsexual people but dont tell me he doesnt have a personal bias if the only thing that is stopping him from admitting he is attracted to a woman is if he found out the DNA of the woman in question.
"Do I have the right to not feel comfortable with the idea (or reality) of having sex with these women and still consider myself a supporter of the trans community"
Nowhere here does it say love, hes purely asking about sex. There is no way in hell he can know for sure every woman he comes across is or is not born with an XX OR XY DNA, this is his issue with being uncomfortable with an idea in his head about what trans women are like.
It is possible for FRAUD to get off on having sex with a woman, and than days later, he found out shes actually trans, it didnt matter how "uncomfortable" he is now, but the fact was, he did have no problem getting his rock off on a transsexual woman as long as he didnt know in his mind.
He has the right to be turned off at the idea of being a transsexual, he can still support transsexual people but dont tell me he doesnt have a personal bias if the only thing that is stopping him from admitting he is attracted to a woman is if he found out the DNA of the woman in question.
191
And there are also many people who dont have sex until they get married, you can fall in love with someone and never had sex with them. So the more important question I have is can FRAUD fall in love with a trans woman or a woman who happens to be trans?
I couldnt care less if some men dont want to have sex with transsexuals, in my experience, the problem with transsexuals finding a mate is not due to a lack of sexual partner, but a life partner who is brave enough to confront his desire and stand up proudly for the woman he is in love with.
I couldnt care less if some men dont want to have sex with transsexuals, in my experience, the problem with transsexuals finding a mate is not due to a lack of sexual partner, but a life partner who is brave enough to confront his desire and stand up proudly for the woman he is in love with.
192
With all the women I have slept with in my life, it would not surprise me to find out 1-2 were transwomen. What the hell, never really had and bad pussy. Some too loose, some too tight but it all was pretty good in my memory of how things were. Does that make me a, "queer hetrosexual", lol?
193
Identities are useful. I identify as gay so everyone knows I find men sexually and romantically attractive. Technically, I'm bisexual as I do find the very occasional woman attractive and I quite like vagina. Though, honestly it's unlikely I'd ever end up going there and I definitely couldn't fall in love with a woman. So I think identifying as bi would just be confusing for people and ultimately counterproductive.
Likewise, for me personally, queer is a redundant identity. Everyone knows what I mean when I say I'm gay; queer would just make it confusing. It's, for me, unnecessary.
I kinda thought queer stood for genderqueer anyway. And, whilst I'm not your stereotypical blokey bloke; I've got stereotypically masculine and feminine personality traits: I've always felt comfortable with male pronouns and uncomfortable with female ones. I'm definitely male.
Likewise, for me personally, queer is a redundant identity. Everyone knows what I mean when I say I'm gay; queer would just make it confusing. It's, for me, unnecessary.
I kinda thought queer stood for genderqueer anyway. And, whilst I'm not your stereotypical blokey bloke; I've got stereotypically masculine and feminine personality traits: I've always felt comfortable with male pronouns and uncomfortable with female ones. I'm definitely male.
195
@187 Hunt: Ha-ha---You wish! It sounds more like you're a little cis-boom-sexed about mine, though.
All kidding aside, I'm pretty sure I'm older than you are.
All kidding aside, I'm pretty sure I'm older than you are.
196
@64 Please forgive me for a second -- I'm a bit of a nerd. I'm not arguing with you on the merits of your position. I just can't resist looking at numbers, statistics, stuff like that. So, have pity and don't get mad at me.
If GSA's are working the way they should, attracting a cross-section of the whole population, gay and straight, then the membership of a GSA should have approximately the same proportion of gay and straight people as the population does. Which is what... 90% straight? In such an organization, given perfectly unbiased processes, you'd likely have the majority reflected in the leadership, what, about 90% of the time? Anyway, just saying, something to consider when looking at the numbers. It might not harbinger the end of the world.
If GSA's are working the way they should, attracting a cross-section of the whole population, gay and straight, then the membership of a GSA should have approximately the same proportion of gay and straight people as the population does. Which is what... 90% straight? In such an organization, given perfectly unbiased processes, you'd likely have the majority reflected in the leadership, what, about 90% of the time? Anyway, just saying, something to consider when looking at the numbers. It might not harbinger the end of the world.
198
I was a little put off by Kate Bornstein's words - I'm supportive of equality, but I'm straight. Then I took a look at her IGBP video, and a couple more things she's got online. And, seeing how she presents herself, I'm a little easier about it. It's the kind of thing that comes off a lot more offensive printed on a page than coming from the mouth of a person.
199
@183
I understand how it works, I was just taking liberties for the purpose of illustration. If I wanted to be more accurate you could take the tree, point to the end of it, after people split off and say 'look, somewhere in here we developed somewhat isolated human populations'. And then trace your finger way way back to whererever sexual reproduction emerges and say "look, this is where 'men' and 'women' become seperate". I had to read a paper on it but I completely forgot who invented sexual reproduction.
I kind of meant it as an analogy, not a faithful description of genetics. My point was that the biological difference between a man and a woman is much greater than the biological difference between races. So equating race with gender is silly.
I understand how it works, I was just taking liberties for the purpose of illustration. If I wanted to be more accurate you could take the tree, point to the end of it, after people split off and say 'look, somewhere in here we developed somewhat isolated human populations'. And then trace your finger way way back to whererever sexual reproduction emerges and say "look, this is where 'men' and 'women' become seperate". I had to read a paper on it but I completely forgot who invented sexual reproduction.
I kind of meant it as an analogy, not a faithful description of genetics. My point was that the biological difference between a man and a woman is much greater than the biological difference between races. So equating race with gender is silly.
202
Ms Brooklyn - How's the tree growing?
Actually, I quite appreciate your viewpoint, and to some extent I approached FRAUD's possible dating future with a similar mind set.
Your approach seems better suited to a different type of alliance than one with such a built-in privilege and power imbalance. The closest type that springs to mind is a hypothetical Catholic-Protestant Alliance. That might fit your analysis much better, and I'm sure there are better examples just waiting to be recognized.
Granted, GSAs draw from a cross-section of the population, but you can hardly expect direct proportionality in membership. It's a bit difficult to deconstruct, because of questions of identification, but, with far more to be gained at stake for the G side than the S side, it seems safe to say that a considerably smaller proportion of the S side is open to alliance in the first place.
A few leadership considerations:
* Identity makes this murky, as presumably not all the straight-identified GSA presidents will still be straight-identified ten years later, but there may in many individual GSAs be no pool of available open non-straights. It reminds me of how Billie Jean King founded a women's sports magazine and had to hire a male editor because there were no qualified women available.
* An organization formed to address imbalance and promote amity between different groups is likely to reflect its mission in its leadership. If the idea of privilege is well addressed, then much of the straight membership might be more willing to take a back seat and listen instead of to push to the fore and White Knight.
* A sad counter-argument is that it seems highly likely that many non-straights will want a straight president thinking that it will be good for the GSA image or make it apparent that it isn't just a Gay Club.
* One concern I've been developing seeing such a lenghty run of openly straight GSA presidents goes a way beyond the appearance of prerogative to the extent that GSA presidency may come to be a sort of philosophical fashion accessory acquired by Type A young straights to establish liberal credentials. It reminds me a little of all those college-bound girls one hears about who would look at someone with a schedule of five hours a week of volunteering and call her a slacker. I don't want the position to become just another piece in the Competitive Charity game.
More...
Actually, I quite appreciate your viewpoint, and to some extent I approached FRAUD's possible dating future with a similar mind set.
Your approach seems better suited to a different type of alliance than one with such a built-in privilege and power imbalance. The closest type that springs to mind is a hypothetical Catholic-Protestant Alliance. That might fit your analysis much better, and I'm sure there are better examples just waiting to be recognized.
Granted, GSAs draw from a cross-section of the population, but you can hardly expect direct proportionality in membership. It's a bit difficult to deconstruct, because of questions of identification, but, with far more to be gained at stake for the G side than the S side, it seems safe to say that a considerably smaller proportion of the S side is open to alliance in the first place.
A few leadership considerations:
* Identity makes this murky, as presumably not all the straight-identified GSA presidents will still be straight-identified ten years later, but there may in many individual GSAs be no pool of available open non-straights. It reminds me of how Billie Jean King founded a women's sports magazine and had to hire a male editor because there were no qualified women available.
* An organization formed to address imbalance and promote amity between different groups is likely to reflect its mission in its leadership. If the idea of privilege is well addressed, then much of the straight membership might be more willing to take a back seat and listen instead of to push to the fore and White Knight.
* A sad counter-argument is that it seems highly likely that many non-straights will want a straight president thinking that it will be good for the GSA image or make it apparent that it isn't just a Gay Club.
* One concern I've been developing seeing such a lenghty run of openly straight GSA presidents goes a way beyond the appearance of prerogative to the extent that GSA presidency may come to be a sort of philosophical fashion accessory acquired by Type A young straights to establish liberal credentials. It reminds me a little of all those college-bound girls one hears about who would look at someone with a schedule of five hours a week of volunteering and call her a slacker. I don't want the position to become just another piece in the Competitive Charity game.
204
ankylosaur @156 "what's the difference between preference and prejudice?"
It's a matter of certainty. If you say, "I have always liked red licorice, and never liked the black kind," that's your preference. If you say – "I don't eat black licorice because I know that I will never like it," that's a prejudice. I've lived long enough to find myself occasionally finding a pleasant version of something I thought I couldn't stand. You point out that it's not a problem as long as it doesn't affect anyone. And that's true for preferences/prejudices about licorice.
But it's one thing to say: "I've never had a black friend, and I don't expect to ever be friends with someone black. We're just too different." It's entirely different to say: "I could never be friends with someone black."
I'm glad to live in a culture where people understand that saying such things does affect other people's real lives.
Same with the transgendered. I see a difference between saying that you're not attracted to the transgendered, and saying that you could never be attracted to anyone transgendered.
The latter is closed-minded. Prejudiced. Not open to new experiences.
Crinoline @178 "I accept that my preference for the cisgendered is a prejudice, but in doing so, I reject any negative connotations normally associated with prejudice and bigotry"
Reject away, Crinoline. But I judge people closed-minded for not tasting the really spectacular octopus stew at this one restaurant ("I could never like octopus"). And similarly, to me there's a negative connotation when someone says "I could never enjoy any kind of sex with someone transgendered." You just don't know. Imagine being blindfolded while someone with amazing talents fisted you until you came multiple times. You can't imagine that there exists a transman who could give you pleasure that way? It's just a fist. What do the childhood experiences of the person with the fist matter, when it comes to a fun sexual moment?
More...
It's a matter of certainty. If you say, "I have always liked red licorice, and never liked the black kind," that's your preference. If you say – "I don't eat black licorice because I know that I will never like it," that's a prejudice. I've lived long enough to find myself occasionally finding a pleasant version of something I thought I couldn't stand. You point out that it's not a problem as long as it doesn't affect anyone. And that's true for preferences/prejudices about licorice.
But it's one thing to say: "I've never had a black friend, and I don't expect to ever be friends with someone black. We're just too different." It's entirely different to say: "I could never be friends with someone black."
I'm glad to live in a culture where people understand that saying such things does affect other people's real lives.
Same with the transgendered. I see a difference between saying that you're not attracted to the transgendered, and saying that you could never be attracted to anyone transgendered.
The latter is closed-minded. Prejudiced. Not open to new experiences.
Crinoline @178 "I accept that my preference for the cisgendered is a prejudice, but in doing so, I reject any negative connotations normally associated with prejudice and bigotry"
Reject away, Crinoline. But I judge people closed-minded for not tasting the really spectacular octopus stew at this one restaurant ("I could never like octopus"). And similarly, to me there's a negative connotation when someone says "I could never enjoy any kind of sex with someone transgendered." You just don't know. Imagine being blindfolded while someone with amazing talents fisted you until you came multiple times. You can't imagine that there exists a transman who could give you pleasure that way? It's just a fist. What do the childhood experiences of the person with the fist matter, when it comes to a fun sexual moment?
205
"Sex-positive, supportive of trans folk, and heterosexual" doth amount to "queer heterosexual".
... Which the base vulgar do call straight.
... Which the base vulgar do call straight.
206
EricaP (@204):
I understand the distinction you draw between preference and prejudice, but I find it hard to judge people as harshly, if their prejudice only manifests itself in closing off a possible positive experience for themselves.
If we're getting hyper-interpretive here, I would argue that many prejudices take more the form of "I can't bring myself to try octopus, because the thought of it makes me too squeamish," than "I could never like octopus."
And the same goes for statements of narrow sexual limits or preferences. If you recall, the lw's original question wasn't so much about whether his preference for sexual attraction being limited to women who were born female made him prejudiced (by your definition, I suppose it does), but whether his lack of desire to have sex with a trans woman made him transphobic.
I don't think the lw's statement of preference should be the basis for leveling a fairly harsh judgment about his being close-minded and prejudiced.
Prejudice means to pre-judge, to assume something about a specific individual, thing, or experience without experiencing it directly. But as long as one doesn't go around saying hateful things or behaving negatively about someone, s/he has the right to a preference without being called, essentially a close-minded bigot.
I'm a straight woman who isn't in the slightest sexually attracted to women (yes, some of my best friends, etc.). I didn't have to give the experience a try to know how not-attracted I am (though I have and I was: unattracted, unaroused, and unable to enjoy myself). But I knew how uninterested I was in women sexually long before I confirmed that gut reaction, which, btw, I did not to try and be open-minded, but because it was important to the man I was dating.
If I said, "I could never like having sex with a woman," but supported gay rights, and had many lesbian friends, would you call me prejudiced or homophobic? I hope not.
More...
I understand the distinction you draw between preference and prejudice, but I find it hard to judge people as harshly, if their prejudice only manifests itself in closing off a possible positive experience for themselves.
If we're getting hyper-interpretive here, I would argue that many prejudices take more the form of "I can't bring myself to try octopus, because the thought of it makes me too squeamish," than "I could never like octopus."
And the same goes for statements of narrow sexual limits or preferences. If you recall, the lw's original question wasn't so much about whether his preference for sexual attraction being limited to women who were born female made him prejudiced (by your definition, I suppose it does), but whether his lack of desire to have sex with a trans woman made him transphobic.
I don't think the lw's statement of preference should be the basis for leveling a fairly harsh judgment about his being close-minded and prejudiced.
Prejudice means to pre-judge, to assume something about a specific individual, thing, or experience without experiencing it directly. But as long as one doesn't go around saying hateful things or behaving negatively about someone, s/he has the right to a preference without being called, essentially a close-minded bigot.
I'm a straight woman who isn't in the slightest sexually attracted to women (yes, some of my best friends, etc.). I didn't have to give the experience a try to know how not-attracted I am (though I have and I was: unattracted, unaroused, and unable to enjoy myself). But I knew how uninterested I was in women sexually long before I confirmed that gut reaction, which, btw, I did not to try and be open-minded, but because it was important to the man I was dating.
If I said, "I could never like having sex with a woman," but supported gay rights, and had many lesbian friends, would you call me prejudiced or homophobic? I hope not.
207
"Sex-positive, supportive of trans folk, and heterosexual" doth amount to "queer heterosexual".
... Which the base vulgar do call straight.
... Which the base vulgar do call straight.
208
@206 - if you said "I could never like having sex with a woman," I would probably keep quiet to be polite, but I would think you were naive and prejudiced, yes. Blindfolded, with a finger or a fist probing you, could you really tell the difference between a male hand and a female hand?
209
@ 204 (EricaP):
You make an analogy between an expression of sexual non-interest and racial bigotry, when you say that FRAUD's assertion that he has no sexual interest in any woman not born female is akin to saying '"I could never be friends with someone black."'
"Being friends with" is not synonymous with "wants to fuck."
I am friends with all kinds of people I don't want to have sex with (and the list goes far beyond gender differences). I am friends with gay men, with women, straight and lesbian, with people of all races, with those of different religions (for the record, had sex with a few who fit into these categories, too, in case I'm going to get called a racial or religious bigot), with people far, far removed from me generationally. I am friends with straight men I would love to fuck if only things worked out that way, and I am friends with straight men I would never in a zillion years want to fuck. I even have a couple of republican friends.
I have never used any distinction as an excuse to not get to know another human being, but I have the right to not want to fuck whomsoever I don't want to fuck and not deserve to get tarred with the bigot brush for it.
And I can't ever imagine liking licorice.
You make an analogy between an expression of sexual non-interest and racial bigotry, when you say that FRAUD's assertion that he has no sexual interest in any woman not born female is akin to saying '"I could never be friends with someone black."'
"Being friends with" is not synonymous with "wants to fuck."
I am friends with all kinds of people I don't want to have sex with (and the list goes far beyond gender differences). I am friends with gay men, with women, straight and lesbian, with people of all races, with those of different religions (for the record, had sex with a few who fit into these categories, too, in case I'm going to get called a racial or religious bigot), with people far, far removed from me generationally. I am friends with straight men I would love to fuck if only things worked out that way, and I am friends with straight men I would never in a zillion years want to fuck. I even have a couple of republican friends.
I have never used any distinction as an excuse to not get to know another human being, but I have the right to not want to fuck whomsoever I don't want to fuck and not deserve to get tarred with the bigot brush for it.
And I can't ever imagine liking licorice.
210
@208: But I don't have sex with a hand. I have sex with a whole person.
Probably, given the scenario you're describing, I would be unable to tell the difference between who the hand belonged to, and so, yes, I might get pleasure (fisting being a favorite of mine).
But that isn't the point here, and it doesn't address the lw's concerns. I am not talking about the equivalent of bathhouse glory-holing. I am talking, about who it is I choose to date, to have a sexual relationship with. Likewise, you could give me a food and serve it to me blindfolded and not tell me that it was haggis and I might enjoy myself. But I'm still never going to enjoy the idea of eating haggis, even afterward, if you said to me, "but you ate it that one time, when you didn't know what it was, and you liked it."
The mind is a powerful organ.
Probably, given the scenario you're describing, I would be unable to tell the difference between who the hand belonged to, and so, yes, I might get pleasure (fisting being a favorite of mine).
But that isn't the point here, and it doesn't address the lw's concerns. I am not talking about the equivalent of bathhouse glory-holing. I am talking, about who it is I choose to date, to have a sexual relationship with. Likewise, you could give me a food and serve it to me blindfolded and not tell me that it was haggis and I might enjoy myself. But I'm still never going to enjoy the idea of eating haggis, even afterward, if you said to me, "but you ate it that one time, when you didn't know what it was, and you liked it."
The mind is a powerful organ.
211
I recently got off hormonal birth control, and my libido has disappeared. It was sky high while on the pill. Just saying that generalizations SUCK!
212
@209 - just choose not to fuck them as individuals, and I'll think the world of you. We are all entitled to be friends with whomever we like too - it's a free country. But if someone tells me that he/she will never be friends with someone of a different race, I consider them prejudiced. You just don't know.
@210 If you learned that you had enjoyed haggis, that would not bring you to reevaluate your thoughts on haggis?
@210 If you learned that you had enjoyed haggis, that would not bring you to reevaluate your thoughts on haggis?
213
So, does "Queer" now mean "anyone who isn't anti-LGBT"? Because I had thought it meant "I'm Bi but I don't want to call myself Bi"
You know, like Pansexuals.
You know, like Pansexuals.
214
FRAUD can enjoy sex with a trans woman without being BLINDFOLDED because he can never be sure about the DNA of the person he is having sex with.
the original question only deal with sex.
Fraud is not comfortable with having sex with any trans woman, he has the right to not feel comfortable, but the question is why is he uncomfortable and how can he feel uncomfortable if he can never know for sure the woman he is having sex with (WIDE EYES OPEN) have a XY or XX choromosome?
lets imagine this: would FRAUD be more comfortable having sex with a super butch male looking lesbian as opposed to a trans woman who nobody on earth could have guess she had XY DNA.
Fraud is uncomforable with having sex with any women who are trans, nobody questions his right to feel uncomfortable, but the question is the root of that discomfort , and its the idea of trans women in his mind that turned him off , not the actual reality, because in reality, Fraud cannot know for sure who is trans or not trans.
So Fraud could be prejudiced against trans women on a subconscious level, it all depends on what is it about the idea of transgender women that turn him off if he cannot honestly tell for sure all the women he feel attracted to were transsexual or cisgender?
the original question only deal with sex.
Fraud is not comfortable with having sex with any trans woman, he has the right to not feel comfortable, but the question is why is he uncomfortable and how can he feel uncomfortable if he can never know for sure the woman he is having sex with (WIDE EYES OPEN) have a XY or XX choromosome?
lets imagine this: would FRAUD be more comfortable having sex with a super butch male looking lesbian as opposed to a trans woman who nobody on earth could have guess she had XY DNA.
Fraud is uncomforable with having sex with any women who are trans, nobody questions his right to feel uncomfortable, but the question is the root of that discomfort , and its the idea of trans women in his mind that turned him off , not the actual reality, because in reality, Fraud cannot know for sure who is trans or not trans.
So Fraud could be prejudiced against trans women on a subconscious level, it all depends on what is it about the idea of transgender women that turn him off if he cannot honestly tell for sure all the women he feel attracted to were transsexual or cisgender?
215
(Following up myself@212:) I'm okay with generalizations and statements of fact, just not absolutes set in the future. Out of politeness to the people around you who may be trans, or may love someone trans, can't you just substitute: "I've never been attracted to someone trans, and I doubt I ever will." Instead of saying "I could never do that?"
Also, try using more considerate analogies. There's a difference between comparing transgendered people to haggis (usually considered a horrible food in the US), versus licorice, which many people like (though not me or you).
Also, try using more considerate analogies. There's a difference between comparing transgendered people to haggis (usually considered a horrible food in the US), versus licorice, which many people like (though not me or you).
216
Re the "expert" advice to LW1: I don't doubt for a moment that the "expert" who was consulted would be LIVID if anyone presumed to tell him/her/it how "correctly" to refer to his/her/its own sexuality. To exhort the LW to no longer identify himself as "straight" is just as offensive as those rabid religionists who exhort post-surgical transgenders to identify as persons who have voluntarily mutilated their deity-specified bodies for no better reason than transient thrills.
Please, Dan: Practice what you preach, and apply the same standard to your "consultants."
-- Spikeygrrl (30 years a BDSMer but still 100% "straight," thank you very much!)
Please, Dan: Practice what you preach, and apply the same standard to your "consultants."
-- Spikeygrrl (30 years a BDSMer but still 100% "straight," thank you very much!)
217
And again i repeat, transsexual women are not crying over this guy not enjoying the idea of fucking transsexuals.
I personally can fall in love with someone without fucking them, fuck is is not love.
I perfer love, and i think most trans women do as well, and if you really are in love with someone, you will want to give them pleasure in every way possible, one of them including the physical.
A more interesting question again is, can Fraud fall in love with a woman who is trans?
I personally can fall in love with someone without fucking them, fuck is is not love.
I perfer love, and i think most trans women do as well, and if you really are in love with someone, you will want to give them pleasure in every way possible, one of them including the physical.
A more interesting question again is, can Fraud fall in love with a woman who is trans?
218
Isnt it transphobic to use the analogy of a straight guy who says he can never be attracted to a man to a straight guy saying he can never be attracted to a woman who happens to be trans?
Isnt that kind of comparison really boils down to the idea that trans women are not really women?
I know many people have prejudice against transgender women , some will accept us as women only on a surface level, some wont at all, and some will claim they are great supporter and they will even fuck us but they wont be in an offical or public relationship with us, and someone will say they are supporter but they are NEVER going to be attracted to us (even though they have no way of knowing if a woman is trans or not for sure)
To me, you can support trans women and not be open minded to trans women, and being a supporter of trans people and being open minded me that you can see yourself being with a trans woman because they are women in your eyes, and you can imagine (no matter how remote) that you could be in a relationship with a trans women because duh, you are attracted to women!
so i think there are many different degree of acceptance/tolerance toward trans people and its more realistic to look at the issue from that view.
In my opinon, if a straight man tells me he see trans women as women, and accept us as women, but than he tells me he cant imagine ever being in an intimiate relationship with any trans women even though he is straight, single and looking
I have to say , yeah, you are a bit of a hypocrite, that’s okay we all are, and I am not going to call you a bigot, but well, it is what it is.
Not that i dont appreciate straight men who say that to me, becuase lets face it, even if you are not 100 percent accepting, you are doing pretty good if you are 80 or 90 percent there, compared to the kind of hateful anti-trans world we live in.
More...
Isnt that kind of comparison really boils down to the idea that trans women are not really women?
I know many people have prejudice against transgender women , some will accept us as women only on a surface level, some wont at all, and some will claim they are great supporter and they will even fuck us but they wont be in an offical or public relationship with us, and someone will say they are supporter but they are NEVER going to be attracted to us (even though they have no way of knowing if a woman is trans or not for sure)
To me, you can support trans women and not be open minded to trans women, and being a supporter of trans people and being open minded me that you can see yourself being with a trans woman because they are women in your eyes, and you can imagine (no matter how remote) that you could be in a relationship with a trans women because duh, you are attracted to women!
so i think there are many different degree of acceptance/tolerance toward trans people and its more realistic to look at the issue from that view.
In my opinon, if a straight man tells me he see trans women as women, and accept us as women, but than he tells me he cant imagine ever being in an intimiate relationship with any trans women even though he is straight, single and looking
I have to say , yeah, you are a bit of a hypocrite, that’s okay we all are, and I am not going to call you a bigot, but well, it is what it is.
Not that i dont appreciate straight men who say that to me, becuase lets face it, even if you are not 100 percent accepting, you are doing pretty good if you are 80 or 90 percent there, compared to the kind of hateful anti-trans world we live in.
219
@218, would you agree that transwomen are a subset of women? A man might say he couldn't imagine falling in love with a Catholic woman, say, or an ugly woman, a Communist woman, a woman who was an amputee, a tall woman, or a woman who was raised as a male... All of these are prejudices, and in my view it's foolish for people to think they know the future. But I don't see that talking about transwomen as a distinct class is necessarily the same as saying that they aren't real women.
220
It would be entertaining to see Mr Ank mediating between Ms Erica and Ms Cute over the meaning of "never" and other things.
Ms Erica and in particular Ms There bring forth interesting questions about knowledge versus assumption.
I am recalling (very vaguely) a column Agela Watrous wrote about ten years ago in which she framed the issue rather as discrimination in one's love/sex life, and entirely endorsed the concept of dating/boinking with one's head as well as with one's groin, evenn if the resulting discrimination would be unacceptable in any other sphere of life.
Ms Erica and in particular Ms There bring forth interesting questions about knowledge versus assumption.
I am recalling (very vaguely) a column Agela Watrous wrote about ten years ago in which she framed the issue rather as discrimination in one's love/sex life, and entirely endorsed the concept of dating/boinking with one's head as well as with one's groin, evenn if the resulting discrimination would be unacceptable in any other sphere of life.
221
Oh, curses - Angela Watrous, not Agela. I had to retype the post because it disappeared.
This thread has made it seem a bit more surprising to me than usual that I haven't ever, shall we say, manifested tangible evidence of attraction in female company. Then again, if I were to put a number on how many males (within reasonable bounds of knowledge or assumption) have produced the same, it would be depressingly low. If I weren't out of circulation (or, to please Ms Erica, if unforeseen circumstances caused me to return), I think in general the logistics of dating a trans man would be a net plus compared to dating a cis man.
This thread has made it seem a bit more surprising to me than usual that I haven't ever, shall we say, manifested tangible evidence of attraction in female company. Then again, if I were to put a number on how many males (within reasonable bounds of knowledge or assumption) have produced the same, it would be depressingly low. If I weren't out of circulation (or, to please Ms Erica, if unforeseen circumstances caused me to return), I think in general the logistics of dating a trans man would be a net plus compared to dating a cis man.
222
@215: I wasn't comparing transgendered people to haggis. I was using your "if you were blindfolded, how could you tell whose hand was up inside you" question and following it to try and discuss the "informed decision" aspect of actually dating. But thank you for making me out to be a hate-filled bigot.
And I wonder what is an acceptable ruling-out point to you--surely you have some? If I said I would never be sexually interested in anyone more than 30 years older or younger, would that be okay? Is it all right to say that I, a straight woman, could never be attracted to a woman? Should I leave myself open to the possibility of someday in the future being sexually attracted to a child? (uh, oh, there go those charges of my being inconsiderate again and comparing pedophiles to those who date transpeople.) Okay, what if I couch this in what appears to be the last acceptable arena of prejudice: What if I unilaterally ruled out all people weighing over 350 pounds? How about 400 pounds?
To say that you and all other enlightened people carefully weigh each individual case and that to have a group of people from whom you recuse yourself from considering as sexual partners is tantamount to naivety or bigotry is hypocritical.
And I wonder what is an acceptable ruling-out point to you--surely you have some? If I said I would never be sexually interested in anyone more than 30 years older or younger, would that be okay? Is it all right to say that I, a straight woman, could never be attracted to a woman? Should I leave myself open to the possibility of someday in the future being sexually attracted to a child? (uh, oh, there go those charges of my being inconsiderate again and comparing pedophiles to those who date transpeople.) Okay, what if I couch this in what appears to be the last acceptable arena of prejudice: What if I unilaterally ruled out all people weighing over 350 pounds? How about 400 pounds?
To say that you and all other enlightened people carefully weigh each individual case and that to have a group of people from whom you recuse yourself from considering as sexual partners is tantamount to naivety or bigotry is hypocritical.
223
Ms There - It just occurred to me that FRAUD has, in his own words, "numerous friends in varying states of transition". Is it possible that this could account for much of his difficulty? He may have seen too much of the process, as it were, to exclude those particulars from his appreciation of the end product with women he knows to have transitioned. (This is much more a guess than an assertion.)
I'm quite satisfied to defer to you about situations concerning his incorrect assumption.
I'm quite satisfied to defer to you about situations concerning his incorrect assumption.
224
To FTP: A bit of friendly advice. Lose the Facebook page. There are certain realities that we in non mainstream lifestyles have to deal with. One of them is that someone out there will object and make an issue out of your activities. And they'll use what they've found to push their moral agenda. With a kid in the mix, that just gives them more ammunition.
Its sad that members of your own family see fit to throw a wrench into your relationship and those of people close to you. Imagine how many busy bodies there are who don't give a sh*t about you and won't hesitate to make an example of you.
Its sad that members of your own family see fit to throw a wrench into your relationship and those of people close to you. Imagine how many busy bodies there are who don't give a sh*t about you and won't hesitate to make an example of you.
225
@222 The joy of Slog is that we get so deep into issues. In order to do that, here, I find myself calling your statements prejudiced. I apologize that I can't find a way to do that without seeming to insult you.
Of course I have preferences, in food, in movies, in dating, in lust. But I keep an open mind for specific instances of undesirable classes, that might make me change my standards. Generally, I don't like eating octopus, licking labia, horror movies, or making fundraising calls. But occasionally there are exceptions. I don't expect to date anyone obese, or anyone under thirty, or anyone who used to have a penis. But stranger things have happened, and I don't rule it out categorically. Also, to the extent that a category seems particularly distasteful to me, I figure that's probably my psychological issue, rather than anything to do with those people. Like the later Heinlein, I rather think we're all inherently omnisexual, if it weren't for our psychological baggage.
Of course I have preferences, in food, in movies, in dating, in lust. But I keep an open mind for specific instances of undesirable classes, that might make me change my standards. Generally, I don't like eating octopus, licking labia, horror movies, or making fundraising calls. But occasionally there are exceptions. I don't expect to date anyone obese, or anyone under thirty, or anyone who used to have a penis. But stranger things have happened, and I don't rule it out categorically. Also, to the extent that a category seems particularly distasteful to me, I figure that's probably my psychological issue, rather than anything to do with those people. Like the later Heinlein, I rather think we're all inherently omnisexual, if it weren't for our psychological baggage.
226
@222 nocutename
My experience is that I react to people on a case by case basis. But it's very easy to comprehend that it simply does not work that way for everyone. Exclusively straight people exist as do all the others on the sexual spectrum.
My experience is that I react to people on a case by case basis. But it's very easy to comprehend that it simply does not work that way for everyone. Exclusively straight people exist as do all the others on the sexual spectrum.
227
@225 EricaP
But isn't the world a richer place for having variety? I doubt we are all omnisexual and I rather hope we aren't.
But isn't the world a richer place for having variety? I doubt we are all omnisexual and I rather hope we aren't.
228
@227 okay, sure. In this world, it amounts to the same thing. But I believe people would mostly be better off if everyone kept a somewhat open mind about who/what might make their wobbly bits tingle. Play the odds, stick with what has worked for you in the past, sure. But why not also stay open to serendipitous sexy surprises...
229
EricaP:
Okay, keep an open mind. I think that in practice, I do this more often than not. But I keep going back to this poor letter writer, who maybe should have said, as you suggested, '"I've never been attracted to someone trans, and I doubt I ever will."' And it occurs to me that although he phrased his attitude to Dan like this: "in my own dating life, I wouldn't feel comfortable dating/having sex with a woman who had at one point in her life been a man," he likely wouldn't have phrased it that way to his actual trans friends, and quite possibly said something more akin to what you've provided as a model. And yet he still gets taken to task for it.
Nowhere in the original letter does he imply that he is harsh or rude in his statement of preference. In fact, even Kate Bornstein, who has irritated so many Sloggers by her re-christening FRAUD as "queer heterosexual" instead of "straight," agrees that he isn't transphobic.
Somehow our hair-splitting got us miles ahead of FRAUD.
Okay, keep an open mind. I think that in practice, I do this more often than not. But I keep going back to this poor letter writer, who maybe should have said, as you suggested, '"I've never been attracted to someone trans, and I doubt I ever will."' And it occurs to me that although he phrased his attitude to Dan like this: "in my own dating life, I wouldn't feel comfortable dating/having sex with a woman who had at one point in her life been a man," he likely wouldn't have phrased it that way to his actual trans friends, and quite possibly said something more akin to what you've provided as a model. And yet he still gets taken to task for it.
Nowhere in the original letter does he imply that he is harsh or rude in his statement of preference. In fact, even Kate Bornstein, who has irritated so many Sloggers by her re-christening FRAUD as "queer heterosexual" instead of "straight," agrees that he isn't transphobic.
Somehow our hair-splitting got us miles ahead of FRAUD.
230
@229 - Yep. In person, I'm sure we're all more polite than on Slog. And FRAUD was probably perfectly polite to his transfriends. But we're all prone to overinterpreting what people say to us. So maybe his friends just teased FRAUD, saying, "hey, never say never!" And he thought they meant that he should have sex with one of them, to prove that he wasn't transphobic. Which made him feel defensive; hence the letter to Dan.
231
@223
I know I am doing some hair splitting, but I am a trans woman and I have alot of hair to split.
Anyways FRAUD originally said "But in my own dating life, I wouldn't feel comfortable dating/having sex with a woman who had at one point in her life been a man"
Many trans women would not say they were, at any point in their life, a man.
Many trans women now transitioned really early, so they had literally never been through a male puberty before they transitioned. Many trans women would also say that they have always been a girl, excluding the fact of their outside/outward appearance.
So perhaps part of FRAUD's problem with trans women is that he believe trans women were once men and this is definitely not something that the ts community as a whole would agree with.
Anyhow, my impression of the letter is that FRAUD is asking for premission to not be labelled as an ally of the trans community..
but if hes really concerned with standing along side of trans women..he should be more detailed as to why he doesnt want to sleep with trans women, or date them or be in a relationship with a trans women.
As a pre op trans woman, I personally do not tolerate anyone who will not appreciate every part of my body, and if Fraud said hes not comfortable with sleeping with me or a post op trans women, i would just say who said i am interested in you?..but no, i guess I wont consider FRAUD to be transphobic unless if i find out theres more to the source his discomfort.
yes, i need to write this much to come to the conclusion i am okay with FRAUD, but he is asking for premission, which makes me suspect theres more to his discomfort, and hes not saying it becuase it would make him look bad in front of GLBTQ community =[
More...
I know I am doing some hair splitting, but I am a trans woman and I have alot of hair to split.
Anyways FRAUD originally said "But in my own dating life, I wouldn't feel comfortable dating/having sex with a woman who had at one point in her life been a man"
Many trans women would not say they were, at any point in their life, a man.
Many trans women now transitioned really early, so they had literally never been through a male puberty before they transitioned. Many trans women would also say that they have always been a girl, excluding the fact of their outside/outward appearance.
So perhaps part of FRAUD's problem with trans women is that he believe trans women were once men and this is definitely not something that the ts community as a whole would agree with.
Anyhow, my impression of the letter is that FRAUD is asking for premission to not be labelled as an ally of the trans community..
but if hes really concerned with standing along side of trans women..he should be more detailed as to why he doesnt want to sleep with trans women, or date them or be in a relationship with a trans women.
As a pre op trans woman, I personally do not tolerate anyone who will not appreciate every part of my body, and if Fraud said hes not comfortable with sleeping with me or a post op trans women, i would just say who said i am interested in you?..but no, i guess I wont consider FRAUD to be transphobic unless if i find out theres more to the source his discomfort.
yes, i need to write this much to come to the conclusion i am okay with FRAUD, but he is asking for premission, which makes me suspect theres more to his discomfort, and hes not saying it becuase it would make him look bad in front of GLBTQ community =[
232
@229:
But we don't know what FRAUD did or didn't say to his friends; we only know what he said to Dan, which is "I realize I wouldn't be fucking a dude, but . . . " (Which of course means: "Oh noez, I'd be fucking a dude!!1!") As he's explained it here, FRAUD's unwillingness to date transwomen has nothing to do with absence of attraction, and everything to do with the presence of discomfort. (I'm not saying that FRAUD is necessarily attracted to transwomen; I'm just saying he didn't frame the question in terms of attraction or non-attraction.)
Like you and a great many other posters, I don't think anybody should be blamed for their lack of attraction to any person or group of people. Who we're attracted to isn't under our conscious control, and not being attracted to somebody doesn't amount to an expression of prejudice. But being actively uncomfortable with somebody is, I would argue, a little less blameless.
Yes, FRAUD is only uncomfortable with transwomen (or the idea of transwomen) in the specific context of sex; otherwise, it sounds like he's perfectly cool with them, which puts him ahead of 99% of the population. And yes, I know that we all have our squicks as well as our turn-ons, and those aren't necessarily subject to our conscious control, either. But I think that considerate adults should, at the very least, rephrase their squicks as neutral statements of personal preference. Instead of saying "I'm not comfortable with the thought of having sex with a [man, woman, transexual, intersexual, black/Asian/white person, fat person, old person], and it's a mental hurdle I just can't clear," why not just say "I've never met a [man, woman, transexual, intersexual, black/Asian/white person, fat person, old person] who turned me on, and I just don't think my libido's wired that way"? For me, at least, this isn't just a question of semantics. The first statement suggests that the speaker has some fundamental objection to [men, women, transexuals, etc.]; the second statement comes across as much less of a sweeping value judgment.
FRAUD's letter vaguely reminds me of Dan's occasional tangents about how female genitals freak him out. Yeah, we get that vaginas don't turn Dan's crank, and that's totally cool. But when he goes on about how vaginas make him feel all grossed-out and icky? That's not so cool. The same principle applies here. Not attracted to transwomen? Totally cool. Advertising to the world that the thought of having sex with a transwoman is a "mental hurdle [you] can't clear" and makes you feel all uncomfortable? Keep it to yourself, dude.
More...
But we don't know what FRAUD did or didn't say to his friends; we only know what he said to Dan, which is "I realize I wouldn't be fucking a dude, but . . . " (Which of course means: "Oh noez, I'd be fucking a dude!!1!") As he's explained it here, FRAUD's unwillingness to date transwomen has nothing to do with absence of attraction, and everything to do with the presence of discomfort. (I'm not saying that FRAUD is necessarily attracted to transwomen; I'm just saying he didn't frame the question in terms of attraction or non-attraction.)
Like you and a great many other posters, I don't think anybody should be blamed for their lack of attraction to any person or group of people. Who we're attracted to isn't under our conscious control, and not being attracted to somebody doesn't amount to an expression of prejudice. But being actively uncomfortable with somebody is, I would argue, a little less blameless.
Yes, FRAUD is only uncomfortable with transwomen (or the idea of transwomen) in the specific context of sex; otherwise, it sounds like he's perfectly cool with them, which puts him ahead of 99% of the population. And yes, I know that we all have our squicks as well as our turn-ons, and those aren't necessarily subject to our conscious control, either. But I think that considerate adults should, at the very least, rephrase their squicks as neutral statements of personal preference. Instead of saying "I'm not comfortable with the thought of having sex with a [man, woman, transexual, intersexual, black/Asian/white person, fat person, old person], and it's a mental hurdle I just can't clear," why not just say "I've never met a [man, woman, transexual, intersexual, black/Asian/white person, fat person, old person] who turned me on, and I just don't think my libido's wired that way"? For me, at least, this isn't just a question of semantics. The first statement suggests that the speaker has some fundamental objection to [men, women, transexuals, etc.]; the second statement comes across as much less of a sweeping value judgment.
FRAUD's letter vaguely reminds me of Dan's occasional tangents about how female genitals freak him out. Yeah, we get that vaginas don't turn Dan's crank, and that's totally cool. But when he goes on about how vaginas make him feel all grossed-out and icky? That's not so cool. The same principle applies here. Not attracted to transwomen? Totally cool. Advertising to the world that the thought of having sex with a transwoman is a "mental hurdle [you] can't clear" and makes you feel all uncomfortable? Keep it to yourself, dude.
234
@232: You're right that "advertising to the world that the thought of having sex with a transwoman is a "mental hurdle [you] can't clear" and makes you feel all uncomfortable" is something best kept to oneself. If FRAUD indeed makes his revulsion known or obvious, he's a a boor or being uncool and a hypocrite, despite his involvement in the LGBT community.
And you're also correct that we don't know what FRAUD did or didn't say to his friends. Without that crucial information, we're making all kinds of assumptions which lie behind our judgments of him as a person.
I've chosen (based on the fact of his having been the president of his college GSA and his claiming to have been a vocal supporter of LGBT issues and having numerous friends going through the various stages of transitioning between genders) to assume that FRAUD displayed more tact with his friends, and that his phrasing of his questions to Dan take the tone of serious introspection, a condition in which one doesn't always worry so much about sounding offensive, but is trying to really come to a deeper understanding of one's feelings and motives. If anything, I think that this level of self-questioning is to be commended and I don't think that great delicacy of expression is necessary under those circumstances.
You've chosen (as have EricaP and arewethereyet) to assume that FRAUD expressed himself to his presumed friends exactly as he has to Dan in this column, and have been accordingly offended by a tone you think is more prejudicial than it needs to be.
We'll none of us know what exactly FRAUD said, nor the way in which he said it. So I believe it therefore makes sense to warily cut him some slack.
But as you and arewethereyet--the only person on this thread with perhaps the best claim to have any sort of stake in this issue--have pointed out, even if he is displaying some prejudice or insensitivity, he is still 99% ahead of the vast majority of the population. Seriously, I think arewehereyet said something about transwomen not crying over FRAUD's unwillingness to date/fuck/love them, and I think she is right. But he can still be an ally for their rights. I don't want to sleep with a lot of people, whose rights I work towards securing, and I hope that my efforts aren't dismissed nor my intentions negated just because I don't want to have sex with them.
More...
And you're also correct that we don't know what FRAUD did or didn't say to his friends. Without that crucial information, we're making all kinds of assumptions which lie behind our judgments of him as a person.
I've chosen (based on the fact of his having been the president of his college GSA and his claiming to have been a vocal supporter of LGBT issues and having numerous friends going through the various stages of transitioning between genders) to assume that FRAUD displayed more tact with his friends, and that his phrasing of his questions to Dan take the tone of serious introspection, a condition in which one doesn't always worry so much about sounding offensive, but is trying to really come to a deeper understanding of one's feelings and motives. If anything, I think that this level of self-questioning is to be commended and I don't think that great delicacy of expression is necessary under those circumstances.
You've chosen (as have EricaP and arewethereyet) to assume that FRAUD expressed himself to his presumed friends exactly as he has to Dan in this column, and have been accordingly offended by a tone you think is more prejudicial than it needs to be.
We'll none of us know what exactly FRAUD said, nor the way in which he said it. So I believe it therefore makes sense to warily cut him some slack.
But as you and arewethereyet--the only person on this thread with perhaps the best claim to have any sort of stake in this issue--have pointed out, even if he is displaying some prejudice or insensitivity, he is still 99% ahead of the vast majority of the population. Seriously, I think arewehereyet said something about transwomen not crying over FRAUD's unwillingness to date/fuck/love them, and I think she is right. But he can still be an ally for their rights. I don't want to sleep with a lot of people, whose rights I work towards securing, and I hope that my efforts aren't dismissed nor my intentions negated just because I don't want to have sex with them.
235
INTOLERANCE ALERT, sorry.
I feel the same as FRAUD, but for different (or maybe the same reasons.) I can't imagine feeling miss-assigned in your body and it must be very challenging. I sincerely wish all trans people the best and hope they find the love they deserve, like everyone else.
However, the whole trans idea makes me totally crazy. (218) Mutilating yourself and taking some hormones does not make you a woman! It makes you a man who cut off his junk and took some hormones. And THAT'S OK! Variety IS the spice of life. I think the real issue is the narrow media -influenced concept of what behaviours are supposedly "male" or "female". Men can like dresses and women can like building things without having to switch genders. But that's another story.
If FRAUD is not attracted to trans women, that's ok! He doesn't have to apologize for his hormones and trans people don't have to apologize to wankers like me. You don't have to be open to fucking someone to give them basic respect as a human. Yes, It is plausible that he (or I) could become enamoured with a trans woman and have a very happy relationship. But in my case, even if the person were the stunning ideal of stereotypical womanhood, I feel that I would lose my attraction to them if they told me they used to be a man. Because I would not be able to differentiate "used to be" from "currently am." Or maybe I would shrug and change my status to queer and go on about my day? I suppose I'll cross that bridge when I get there.
I feel the same as FRAUD, but for different (or maybe the same reasons.) I can't imagine feeling miss-assigned in your body and it must be very challenging. I sincerely wish all trans people the best and hope they find the love they deserve, like everyone else.
However, the whole trans idea makes me totally crazy. (218) Mutilating yourself and taking some hormones does not make you a woman! It makes you a man who cut off his junk and took some hormones. And THAT'S OK! Variety IS the spice of life. I think the real issue is the narrow media -influenced concept of what behaviours are supposedly "male" or "female". Men can like dresses and women can like building things without having to switch genders. But that's another story.
If FRAUD is not attracted to trans women, that's ok! He doesn't have to apologize for his hormones and trans people don't have to apologize to wankers like me. You don't have to be open to fucking someone to give them basic respect as a human. Yes, It is plausible that he (or I) could become enamoured with a trans woman and have a very happy relationship. But in my case, even if the person were the stunning ideal of stereotypical womanhood, I feel that I would lose my attraction to them if they told me they used to be a man. Because I would not be able to differentiate "used to be" from "currently am." Or maybe I would shrug and change my status to queer and go on about my day? I suppose I'll cross that bridge when I get there.
237
@227: Amen! I think the world would be a sadly depressing, boring as hell place if we were all the same.
238
It's ironic that the first writer is being told "who he should love" by people who have strongly rejected similar demands.
I also had to roll my eyes at the new demand that he stop calling himself straight. We need to slow down this rapid lingo turnover, or no one will be able to undestand us! It's not a secret club with secret words, it's a message about personal freedom that should be shared.
I also had to roll my eyes at the new demand that he stop calling himself straight. We need to slow down this rapid lingo turnover, or no one will be able to undestand us! It's not a secret club with secret words, it's a message about personal freedom that should be shared.
239
@235
"However, the whole trans idea makes me totally crazy. (218) Mutilating yourself and taking some hormones does not make you a woman! It makes you a man who cut off his junk and took some hormones. "
yeah, you are definitely intolerant and transphobic, its telling that you came to the defense of FRAUD.
"However, the whole trans idea makes me totally crazy. (218) Mutilating yourself and taking some hormones does not make you a woman! It makes you a man who cut off his junk and took some hormones. "
yeah, you are definitely intolerant and transphobic, its telling that you came to the defense of FRAUD.
240
@234 - I agreed, I am all for self introspection, I have thought alot about this issue personally. I hope FRAUD is also reading some of our comments and exploring his source of discomfort.
241
Bornstein clearly doesn't speak for all of us. I, for one, don't "blend genders in my body." Is Bornstein a transgenderist? Because that's very different from transsexualism.
Nobody should be judged for not being attracted to a particular person. It's easy to understand how a lot of straight guys aren't into mid-transition transsexuals or transgenderists and gender queer people (or trans women that have some male-typical physical characteristics). But what if you physically and emotionally can't even tell that a person's trans until she tells you?
If you're attracted to a woman, date her for a while, and maybe even have great sex with her, only to get grossed out and dump her when she tells you about her medical history - you're a bigot.
Nobody should be judged for not being attracted to a particular person. It's easy to understand how a lot of straight guys aren't into mid-transition transsexuals or transgenderists and gender queer people (or trans women that have some male-typical physical characteristics). But what if you physically and emotionally can't even tell that a person's trans until she tells you?
If you're attracted to a woman, date her for a while, and maybe even have great sex with her, only to get grossed out and dump her when she tells you about her medical history - you're a bigot.
242
Bornstein clearly doesn't speak for all of us. I, for one, don't "blend genders in my body." Is Bornstein a transgenderist? Because that's very different from transsexualism.
Nobody should be judged for not being attracted to a particular person. It's easy to understand how a lot of straight guys aren't into mid-transition transsexuals or transgenderists and gender queer people (or trans women that have some male-typical physical characteristics). But what if you physically and emotionally can't even tell that a person's trans until she tells you?
If you're attracted to a woman, date her for a while, and maybe even have great sex with her, only to get grossed out and dump her when she tells you about her medical history - you're a bigot.
Nobody should be judged for not being attracted to a particular person. It's easy to understand how a lot of straight guys aren't into mid-transition transsexuals or transgenderists and gender queer people (or trans women that have some male-typical physical characteristics). But what if you physically and emotionally can't even tell that a person's trans until she tells you?
If you're attracted to a woman, date her for a while, and maybe even have great sex with her, only to get grossed out and dump her when she tells you about her medical history - you're a bigot.
243
With respect to FRAUD, 46 years ago someone else answered the question more effectively than Dan or anyone else here.
244
My first reaction to the term queer heterosexual (QHet) was positive. However, as I read some of the comments, my perception changed and now I don't think it applies to FRAUD (thanks to posts like echizen_kurage's or Sea Otter's.) That's why I love 'Savage Love 2.0', forum included!
However, I do like the term in other sense: QHet could be used by heterosexuals who are open to other possibilities in their lives, not only queer friendly but also not one-hundred-percent-heterosexual. Although I believe that most of our sexuality is given by nature, as human beings we are prone to learning, especially if we are open to new possibilities. At forty-something I'm not the same guy I was at twenty. Not gay, not bi, but not completely straight either. Thanks to the Internet, literature and a life dedicated to self-exploration, my mind today is populated by non-vanilla images that make me horny and still don’t move me to act on them. I’m still heterosexual, but not completely. But I’m not bi either and none of the current terms applies to me. I would never come out of a closet I don’t belong to, but I like the possibilities implied by this new term. Yes, in this sense, I would call myself Queer Heterosexual.
In other words: it's the equivalent to monogamish: Queer Heterosexual = Heterosexualish.
However, I do like the term in other sense: QHet could be used by heterosexuals who are open to other possibilities in their lives, not only queer friendly but also not one-hundred-percent-heterosexual. Although I believe that most of our sexuality is given by nature, as human beings we are prone to learning, especially if we are open to new possibilities. At forty-something I'm not the same guy I was at twenty. Not gay, not bi, but not completely straight either. Thanks to the Internet, literature and a life dedicated to self-exploration, my mind today is populated by non-vanilla images that make me horny and still don’t move me to act on them. I’m still heterosexual, but not completely. But I’m not bi either and none of the current terms applies to me. I would never come out of a closet I don’t belong to, but I like the possibilities implied by this new term. Yes, in this sense, I would call myself Queer Heterosexual.
In other words: it's the equivalent to monogamish: Queer Heterosexual = Heterosexualish.
248
As a former worker with Texas CPS I can very easily soothe FTP's fears. CPS don't give a damn about people's personal lives. Unless the child has marks and bruises, has lost weight or developed severe mental health issues as a result of the home environment then the poly couple have nothing to fear. Unless of course, they smoke meth or crack or synthetic drugs, but since the child is 10 then it's not that big of a deal. Children have to actually be abused before CPS gets involved.
249
As a former worker with Texas CPS I can easily soothe FTP's fears. CPS don't give a damn about people's personal lives. Unless the child has marks, bruises, has lost weight or developed severe mental health issues due to the home environment, then the poly couple have nothing to fear. Unless they smoke meth, crack or synthetic drugs. But since the child is already 10 then even the drugs wouldn't be that big of a deal. Children actually have to be abused before CPS intervenes. It's amazing how many people can't understand that.
251
Why do "all" of your LGBTetc. friends know this about you, FRAUD? A bit TMI, I'd say. You ID as straight, thus they expect that you'll be attracted to some women. If you happen not to be attracted to trans, there's nothing you can do about that. Attraction can't be forced.
However, are you SURE you're straight? Cause this sounds like hella gay drama to me!
However, are you SURE you're straight? Cause this sounds like hella gay drama to me!
252
SFMMD, keep your sex and and your work separate, dig? HR does NOT like sex/relationship drama making problems and any whispers about fetishes and other things that most people don't want to know about their co-workers (or worse, DO want to know, and tell everyone) will get you on the layoff list PDQ. She could take down the evidence, then claim you approached her with an unwanted advance.
253
@243: You mean "Go where you wanna go; do what you wanna do"?
Otherwise, what does a recording and about six different album covers of The Mamas and the Papas have to do with FRAUD's situation, for chissakes?
You HAVE been sitting in car fumes too long, dude!
Otherwise, what does a recording and about six different album covers of The Mamas and the Papas have to do with FRAUD's situation, for chissakes?
You HAVE been sitting in car fumes too long, dude!
254
#253, if you still can't figure it out, then I'll have to call it a mystery. At least to you, if not to anyone else.
255
The thing I'm taking from this most interesting discussion isn't so much about attraction and transexuality as it is about the utter failure of metaphors when applied to attraction and sexual identity.
The arguments are:
Not being attracted to trans people is like not being attracted to tall people or fat people or children or women.
Calling not being attracted to trans people transphobic is like calling a gay man a misogynistic, woman-hating, pig.
Analyzing a poem in order to appreciate it is like performing an autopsy on a woman in order to love her.
Declaring that you could never be attracted to a trans person is as prejudiced as declaring that you could never be attracted to a Black person.
A man who is convinced that he's really a woman despite all external evidence to the contrary is like a schizophrenic who is convinced that he's someone else despite all evidence to the contrary.
Saying that human sexuality is a social construction is like saying that the sexuality of dogs and cats is a social construction as well, like saying that they're not really male or female either.
Changing sex with hormones and surgery is like changing race with dye.
Getting fisted blindfolded by a transman is like getting fisted blindfolded by any man, or any thing presumably, even a talented robot. The childhood experiences of the fister don't matter.
In every one of these, the comparison is used to make the point. They fail to prove it.
The arguments are:
Not being attracted to trans people is like not being attracted to tall people or fat people or children or women.
Calling not being attracted to trans people transphobic is like calling a gay man a misogynistic, woman-hating, pig.
Analyzing a poem in order to appreciate it is like performing an autopsy on a woman in order to love her.
Declaring that you could never be attracted to a trans person is as prejudiced as declaring that you could never be attracted to a Black person.
A man who is convinced that he's really a woman despite all external evidence to the contrary is like a schizophrenic who is convinced that he's someone else despite all evidence to the contrary.
Saying that human sexuality is a social construction is like saying that the sexuality of dogs and cats is a social construction as well, like saying that they're not really male or female either.
Changing sex with hormones and surgery is like changing race with dye.
Getting fisted blindfolded by a transman is like getting fisted blindfolded by any man, or any thing presumably, even a talented robot. The childhood experiences of the fister don't matter.
In every one of these, the comparison is used to make the point. They fail to prove it.
256
The metaphors are not brought in as proof, Crinoline, but to create a space for empathy. If you cannot understand why a woman resents being told that she isn't really a woman, and can never become a woman (and why decent human beings might avoid telling her so), the idea was to put it in terms that you (and others) might be able to appreciate viscerally.
257
Crinoline,
I guess sex is just outside the normal range of experience, and can't be treated in the same way.
I guess sex is just outside the normal range of experience, and can't be treated in the same way.
258
@255 - rereading, I see you brought up comparisons used to make many different points, so I'll just say that my comparisons were intended to create a space for empathy.
259
@248 Wow I hope you're right...and that it applies to other states. I've never heard of CPS caring if someone is in an open marriage.
Commenters like #152 make me think "Polyphobia" is the new wave of bigotry to erupt, now that homophobia and transphobia are on the decline.
Commenters like #152 make me think "Polyphobia" is the new wave of bigotry to erupt, now that homophobia and transphobia are on the decline.
260
FTP's letter just shows how desperate people like FTP's brother are for a morality police. They believe there should be one. They look around. They don't see one. They remain certain that FTP's behavior is wrong and that it's hurting children. They're so convinced that there has to be a morality police that they see it in CPS. I imagine they're bitterly disappointed when CPS doesn't live up to their expectations.
261
The first letter was so made up just to speak w/ that expert. "All" of his friends call him a transphobe? Why does this even come up in conversation? He shouldn't have to talk about who he's attracted to/not attracted to.
Fake.
Fake.
262
God save us all from bigoted relatives who either do not understand LGBT issues or are simply shit-heads. The B-I-L & S-I-L did not understand my defence of a family member finding her true love and marrying her. They are more fundamentally religious (Orthodox Jewish) and boycotted the wedding (a lovely affair BTW) & stated that if I defend their lifestyle, I am probably a closeted gay as well. (Did not use a PC name - jeez for religious people, they sure do use the Q word without any good context)
My response, at the dinnertable BTW, is that they are likely shitheads and will remain so.
My response, at the dinnertable BTW, is that they are likely shitheads and will remain so.
263
@254: Yep--you remain a cloud of carbon monoxide spewing mystery to me.
How's your private helicopter to and from Bellevue Square running?
How's your private helicopter to and from Bellevue Square running?
264
Imagine being blindfolded while someone with amazing talents fisted you until you came multiple times. You can't imagine that there exists a transman who could give you pleasure that way? It's just a fist. What do the childhood experiences of the person with the fist matter, when it comes to a fun sexual moment?
This story is not really convincing. What if the person with the fist is your father? Does that mean that you should not rule out incest? What if it is a 10-year old? Does that mean that you should not be prejudiced against pedophilia?
265
@264: There are social taboos against incest and pedophilia. We don't use the derogatory word "prejudice" in those circumstances, because our society approves of those prejudices. So we call them taboos, instead.
To put prejudice against the transgendered in the same category is harmful to real people. It should not be socially acceptable to say "I would never have sex with a woman whose sex chromosomes are XY." Think whatever you want inside your head. But the only reason for announcing that general rule is to win other people's reassurance that you're still a good person. If you want to be a good person, think of people as people first, not as categories you will or won't fuck.
To put prejudice against the transgendered in the same category is harmful to real people. It should not be socially acceptable to say "I would never have sex with a woman whose sex chromosomes are XY." Think whatever you want inside your head. But the only reason for announcing that general rule is to win other people's reassurance that you're still a good person. If you want to be a good person, think of people as people first, not as categories you will or won't fuck.
266
@119, 122, 123: Here's my take on poly as it relates to the term queer.
As 119 says, being to be poly is to be a member of a sexual minority, but it is independent of the hetero-bi-homosexual spectrum. "Straight" is commonly understood to mean heterosexual, and while it sometimes has other connotations, that seems to be the vast majority of its meaning. So if a person is poly and heterosexual, I don't think it's strange for them to identify as straight; in fact, I would expect them to do so.
One thing I think is interesting in this thread in general is that "queer" and "straight" are presented as opposites, and I personally don't think of them that way. I often see straight, kinky people or straight, poly people identify as queer because their experience as a member of a sexual minority makes them feel more at home identifying as queer. I personally think that this makes sense: the "t" in "LGBTQ" isn't an identity on the gay-bi-straight spectrum either, and poly and kinky people experience a lot of the same kinds of prejudice as other sexual minorities.
Basically, I think that all hetero people should identify as straight, but that if they are straights who are also members of sexual minorities, they should be able to call themselves queer without people telling them they're wrong. Or not adopt the queer label if they don't feel like it fits.
As 119 says, being to be poly is to be a member of a sexual minority, but it is independent of the hetero-bi-homosexual spectrum. "Straight" is commonly understood to mean heterosexual, and while it sometimes has other connotations, that seems to be the vast majority of its meaning. So if a person is poly and heterosexual, I don't think it's strange for them to identify as straight; in fact, I would expect them to do so.
One thing I think is interesting in this thread in general is that "queer" and "straight" are presented as opposites, and I personally don't think of them that way. I often see straight, kinky people or straight, poly people identify as queer because their experience as a member of a sexual minority makes them feel more at home identifying as queer. I personally think that this makes sense: the "t" in "LGBTQ" isn't an identity on the gay-bi-straight spectrum either, and poly and kinky people experience a lot of the same kinds of prejudice as other sexual minorities.
Basically, I think that all hetero people should identify as straight, but that if they are straights who are also members of sexual minorities, they should be able to call themselves queer without people telling them they're wrong. Or not adopt the queer label if they don't feel like it fits.
267
Ms Cute - Well, it is true that one might react quite differently, in the sentence, "I don't date/boink anyone's who's X," X being one point of identity or another, if the verb were changed to HIRE (except, I suppose, if X=under legal age, although that's temporary).
268
I can't believe we're even HAVING this discussion.
It makes me want to tear out my hair just to watch you all do it.
And now I'm doing it! AAAAAGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!
It makes me want to tear out my hair just to watch you all do it.
And now I'm doing it! AAAAAGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!
269
Ms Erica @265 - I like your point, but wonder if the degree of volition in a particular case changes anything for you. Just as an example, I think I can visualize your saying, "I will never have a relationship (knowingly) with a hard-line Republican." Not that it would shock me if you would, just that something such as religion or politics might be different.
270
@269 I guess the point of announcing that (rather than keeping it to myself) would be in hopes of inspiring my fellow Democrats and demoralizing hard-line Republicans. Not sure how well that would work, as a political tactic.
But telling people that I'm (sexually) repulsed by some aspect about them that is permanent and involuntary does seem even less acceptable.
But telling people that I'm (sexually) repulsed by some aspect about them that is permanent and involuntary does seem even less acceptable.
271
Not wanting to sleep with a MTF trans person doesn't make a person straight. If you survey what turns off gay men the most, the answer is "fems." Ironic, huh? Well, as one guy said, "if I wanted a woman, I'd be straight!" In truth, I've known drag queens and transsexuals and the men who loved them, and they're neither gay nor straight. They're something else, since they're not attracted to macho gay men nor to straight women. They like trannies, period. But this guy ain't one of'em.
272
I suppose the one thing that makes sex so difficult to accept as "my own choice" -- I am working on my sexual happiness, which concerns me, and if it so happens that I'm not attracted by the idea of a sex-change opperation, to the extent that it turns me off, i.e., I couldn't be sexually happy with a trans person and I would make her unhappy if I tried -- is that it involves other people.
Sex and love, love and sex. If I'm not sexually attracted to the idea of trans people, that means I'm "transphobic" at some level.
So if you're not attracted to the "idea" of BDSM, or watersports, or scat... if they cross a boundary for you, to the extent that you would terminate a relationship if your partner suddenly revealed an interest in these activities and wanted to icnlude you... then you're a bigot?
So you no longer have the right to define by yourself the parameters within which you're willing to look for sexual happiness?
I cannot exclude something I don't like from my search path for sexual happiness simply because there are people who identify with it -- people I respect and whose decision to act in accordance with their nature I also respect, but who I would not like to have sex with -- without being a bigot?
I cannot dislike chocolate as food without being a bigot, since there are people who like chocolate as food?
I think the only reason why people feel strongly that me not being sexually attracted to some group of people -- by the idea that defines this group even -- is still the confusion between sex and love.
The implication that I cannot really fully respect someone if there is something about him/her that turns me off as an idea. So, if I, as a straight man, really don't like to sleep with men, am I prejudiced against males? Does that imply that I cannot respect, like, and have deep relationships with other males?
Sexual preference is sexual preference. It is what works for me in bed. It does not determine how I treat people. And in the end, it's how I treat people that determines whether or not I'm a bigot, consciously or unconsciously.
By confusing lack of sexual attraction with 'ickiness', 'disgust', 'impossibility to connect', this confusion illustrates one of the most interesting philosophical dangers in the confusion between sex and love, attraction and connection, desire and admiration, that is so deeply embedded in our culture.
More...
Sex and love, love and sex. If I'm not sexually attracted to the idea of trans people, that means I'm "transphobic" at some level.
So if you're not attracted to the "idea" of BDSM, or watersports, or scat... if they cross a boundary for you, to the extent that you would terminate a relationship if your partner suddenly revealed an interest in these activities and wanted to icnlude you... then you're a bigot?
So you no longer have the right to define by yourself the parameters within which you're willing to look for sexual happiness?
I cannot exclude something I don't like from my search path for sexual happiness simply because there are people who identify with it -- people I respect and whose decision to act in accordance with their nature I also respect, but who I would not like to have sex with -- without being a bigot?
I cannot dislike chocolate as food without being a bigot, since there are people who like chocolate as food?
I think the only reason why people feel strongly that me not being sexually attracted to some group of people -- by the idea that defines this group even -- is still the confusion between sex and love.
The implication that I cannot really fully respect someone if there is something about him/her that turns me off as an idea. So, if I, as a straight man, really don't like to sleep with men, am I prejudiced against males? Does that imply that I cannot respect, like, and have deep relationships with other males?
Sexual preference is sexual preference. It is what works for me in bed. It does not determine how I treat people. And in the end, it's how I treat people that determines whether or not I'm a bigot, consciously or unconsciously.
By confusing lack of sexual attraction with 'ickiness', 'disgust', 'impossibility to connect', this confusion illustrates one of the most interesting philosophical dangers in the confusion between sex and love, attraction and connection, desire and admiration, that is so deeply embedded in our culture.
273
The most famous husband of a trannie in American History was Sitting Bull, whose wife was "winkte" which is Lakota for a trannie.
274
@EricaP, who wrote:
I'm not so sure. I can see people making the claim for the reason you mention, but I can see also other reasons -- for instance, simply making a statement of fact (as people will state their preferences in dating sites, or will discuss them later on with their dates, etc.).
When a gay man comes out of the closet, he does make the claim -- implicit or explicit -- that he does not want to have sex with women. Just as trans people, women (cis or trans) did not 'choose' to be women, but were born like that. One could claim that the gay guy who claims he would never sleep with them is thereby being 'bigotted' (or conversely, the straight guy who claims he'd never have sex with other men).
There are of course reasons for our preferences, just as there are reasons for having this kink rather than that kink, and so on. But 'bigotry' is something else, to me; bigotry is acting on one's feeling/belief of superiority with respect to some other group so as to harm them. But when I simply define the limits within which sex would work for me, I am not doing harm to others -- unless you think denying access to my body is such harm.
If we admit people are entitled to their kinks, then they're entitled also to their anti-kinks. If we're entitled to our turn-ons, we're also entitled to our turn-offs. As long as all they do is define sexual happiness for us, as long as we're not imposing our criteria on others and their sexual happiness, there is nothing bigotted about that. It's simply being who you are.
More...
It should not be socially acceptable to say "I would never have sex with a woman whose sex chromosomes are XY." Think whatever you want inside your head. But the only reason for announcing that general rule is to win other people's reassurance that you're still a good person.
I'm not so sure. I can see people making the claim for the reason you mention, but I can see also other reasons -- for instance, simply making a statement of fact (as people will state their preferences in dating sites, or will discuss them later on with their dates, etc.).
When a gay man comes out of the closet, he does make the claim -- implicit or explicit -- that he does not want to have sex with women. Just as trans people, women (cis or trans) did not 'choose' to be women, but were born like that. One could claim that the gay guy who claims he would never sleep with them is thereby being 'bigotted' (or conversely, the straight guy who claims he'd never have sex with other men).
There are of course reasons for our preferences, just as there are reasons for having this kink rather than that kink, and so on. But 'bigotry' is something else, to me; bigotry is acting on one's feeling/belief of superiority with respect to some other group so as to harm them. But when I simply define the limits within which sex would work for me, I am not doing harm to others -- unless you think denying access to my body is such harm.
If we admit people are entitled to their kinks, then they're entitled also to their anti-kinks. If we're entitled to our turn-ons, we're also entitled to our turn-offs. As long as all they do is define sexual happiness for us, as long as we're not imposing our criteria on others and their sexual happiness, there is nothing bigotted about that. It's simply being who you are.
275
@271 I've known drag queens and transsexuals and the men who loved them, and they're neither gay nor straight. They're something else, since they're not attracted to macho gay men nor to straight women. They like trannies, period. But this guy ain't one of'em.
oh great, now we are back to square one, theres so many transphobia on this thread its not even funny. Why would you compare "trannies" to "drag queen" can a man not identify with being straight while still be in a relationship with a transsexual? Do you know its offensive to call someone a tranny especially when you are not? especially when you are basically saying drag queens and "trannies" are the same thing?
oh great, now we are back to square one, theres so many transphobia on this thread its not even funny. Why would you compare "trannies" to "drag queen" can a man not identify with being straight while still be in a relationship with a transsexual? Do you know its offensive to call someone a tranny especially when you are not? especially when you are basically saying drag queens and "trannies" are the same thing?
276
@274
I think there is a difference between saying transsexual women can never turn me on for some reasons, as opposed to saying I am not comfortable with the idea of having sex with women who were once a man, which is how the original poster put it.
I think there is a difference between saying transsexual women can never turn me on for some reasons, as opposed to saying I am not comfortable with the idea of having sex with women who were once a man, which is how the original poster put it.
277
In fact now that i read more closely, FRAUD never made the claim that transsexuals cant turn him on, or that he cannot be attracted to trans women, he just "cant feel comfortable" being with one because he couldnt get through the "mental hurdle" of " dating/having sex with a woman who had at one point in her life been a man. "
I do feel that if he truly understand that alot of trans women do not ever identify as being a "man" , than he would maybe get over his "mental hurdle".
I do feel that if he truly understand that alot of trans women do not ever identify as being a "man" , than he would maybe get over his "mental hurdle".
278
Yeah, I cant believe a week later I am still talking about this but just as a side note, I cant tell you how many times men would say they can always tell if a woman is transsexual, hence, they can control and affirm their belief that they will never be attracted to a transsexual.
This is not about a man saying he is not turned on by bigger women or Chinese women or tall women. This is not a matter of sexual turn on, because there is no way a man can tell before hand if a woman has XX or XY in their DNA, so it boils down to the idea a man has about trans women, why doesn’t he feel comfortable in his mind despite the fact their body is saying yes or interested to a woman who’s transsexual?
Its KIND of like saying, you know, I don’t mind fucking a sex worker, I just don’t feel comfortable with the idea of dating a sex worker.
Thats really what i got from the FRAUD'S question. If he had said to Dan, whats wrong with me? I tried to look at transsexual porn everyday and i just cant get hard looking at those women, am i still an ally of trans community??? , that would have been a different story, but FRAUD is dealing with something else that is at least partly his fault.
This is not about a man saying he is not turned on by bigger women or Chinese women or tall women. This is not a matter of sexual turn on, because there is no way a man can tell before hand if a woman has XX or XY in their DNA, so it boils down to the idea a man has about trans women, why doesn’t he feel comfortable in his mind despite the fact their body is saying yes or interested to a woman who’s transsexual?
Its KIND of like saying, you know, I don’t mind fucking a sex worker, I just don’t feel comfortable with the idea of dating a sex worker.
Thats really what i got from the FRAUD'S question. If he had said to Dan, whats wrong with me? I tried to look at transsexual porn everyday and i just cant get hard looking at those women, am i still an ally of trans community??? , that would have been a different story, but FRAUD is dealing with something else that is at least partly his fault.
279
Would it matter to me if a potential blindfolded wonderful bj were given to me by a woman or man? Yes, because my dick longs for woman.
Am I anti-gay? I don't think so. I have found gays generally more honest and interesting than straight guys.
Am I anti-gay? I don't think so. I have found gays generally more honest and interesting than straight guys.
280
@73 and @82, you make some good points but you seem to assume that all biological markers of sex line up and that it's only the subjective experience of gender that doesn't match up in pre-operative transsexuals. However, there are three biological markers and they don't always line up: chromosomes, genitals and hormones.
There are some babies born with ambiguous genitalia. Parents in those cases are often forced to make an arbitrary decision - is it a boy or a girl? And sometimes the kid grows up and decides the parents made the wrong decision. How do we know who was right and who was wrong? How can anyone possibly ever know for sure?
Disorders of the chromosome can make biological sex ambiguous as well. For example, XX male syndrome:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syn….
Different hormone levels are also associated with different genders. Maybe an XY person with male genitalia has excess "female" hormones and lowered testosterone and that contributes to his feeling that he should have been born a woman. Now I suppose you could argue that hormones could "fix" the situation, but how can we be sure that the hormones were wrong but the chromosome and genitalia combination were correct? Which of the three should we decide reins supreme? And if there is no good way to decide, why shouldn't we take the transexual's subjective experience into account?
So when someone says they feel like they aren't the gender they were supposed to be, or they were born the wrong gender, etc. how do we know there is no biological basis for the ambiguity? Maybe it's not all in their head. Maybe we don't know as much about the sexes as we think we do. There is a lot more grey area than people realize or would feel comfortable with.
More...
There are some babies born with ambiguous genitalia. Parents in those cases are often forced to make an arbitrary decision - is it a boy or a girl? And sometimes the kid grows up and decides the parents made the wrong decision. How do we know who was right and who was wrong? How can anyone possibly ever know for sure?
Disorders of the chromosome can make biological sex ambiguous as well. For example, XX male syndrome:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syn….
Different hormone levels are also associated with different genders. Maybe an XY person with male genitalia has excess "female" hormones and lowered testosterone and that contributes to his feeling that he should have been born a woman. Now I suppose you could argue that hormones could "fix" the situation, but how can we be sure that the hormones were wrong but the chromosome and genitalia combination were correct? Which of the three should we decide reins supreme? And if there is no good way to decide, why shouldn't we take the transexual's subjective experience into account?
So when someone says they feel like they aren't the gender they were supposed to be, or they were born the wrong gender, etc. how do we know there is no biological basis for the ambiguity? Maybe it's not all in their head. Maybe we don't know as much about the sexes as we think we do. There is a lot more grey area than people realize or would feel comfortable with.
281
Erica,
Why were you offended when the internet johns wanted anal with you? What difference whether they or Mr Erica?
Why were you offended when the internet johns wanted anal with you? What difference whether they or Mr Erica?
282
My dick longs for woman.
The best five words ever to come out of the Savage Love comments section? I think so.
283
Whatever turns you on, turns you on. I'm not trying to blame anyone for that. Even if there may be psychological reasons why someone likes to be beaten, or only likes one kind of sex, or only with one kind of person -- that's just the way their wobbly bits work. Sure, fine.
But I do care how you treat people around you. If you're on a dating site, feel free to be specific, in a generally, positive way: "I'm looking for a cute, sensible blond Christian woman, shorter than me, who likes giving blowjobs, and who has no children but would like to in the future."
But know that if you say it in negative terms, it sounds offensive: "Don't contact me if you're black, lesbian, male, Muslim, were ever molested or raped, had reconstructive surgery of any kind, have fertility issues, have a bad relationship with your mother, are insecure, have bad teeth, or have any kind of Brooklyn accent. Those are all turn-offs, and I am not comfortable even thinking about sex with you."
There's a difference between having self-knowledge of what your wobbly bits like, and, on the other hand, telling people that they fall into some category that turns you off.
This isn't rocket science, people. In elementary school you're allowed to invite only your friends to your birthday party. But you don't get to go around telling everyone else about your fun party and how they're not invited. And if you say - "I would never invite someone Jewish to my party," then, yes, you're a bigot. And that's different from simply inviting your friends, none of whom happen to be Jewish.
But I do care how you treat people around you. If you're on a dating site, feel free to be specific, in a generally, positive way: "I'm looking for a cute, sensible blond Christian woman, shorter than me, who likes giving blowjobs, and who has no children but would like to in the future."
But know that if you say it in negative terms, it sounds offensive: "Don't contact me if you're black, lesbian, male, Muslim, were ever molested or raped, had reconstructive surgery of any kind, have fertility issues, have a bad relationship with your mother, are insecure, have bad teeth, or have any kind of Brooklyn accent. Those are all turn-offs, and I am not comfortable even thinking about sex with you."
There's a difference between having self-knowledge of what your wobbly bits like, and, on the other hand, telling people that they fall into some category that turns you off.
This isn't rocket science, people. In elementary school you're allowed to invite only your friends to your birthday party. But you don't get to go around telling everyone else about your fun party and how they're not invited. And if you say - "I would never invite someone Jewish to my party," then, yes, you're a bigot. And that's different from simply inviting your friends, none of whom happen to be Jewish.
284
Also, Mr. Hunter "my dick longs for woman" 78: for fuck's sake, leave Erica alone. I know she's perfectly capable of looking out for herself, but from a bystander's perspective, your compulsive need to bait her is both pathetic and creepy.
286
@280 "when someone says they were born the wrong gender, etc. how do we know there is no biological basis for the ambiguity? Maybe it's not all in their head. Maybe we don't know as much about the sexes as we think we do."
Well said.
Well said.
287
@272 "it's how I treat people that determines whether or not I'm a bigot."
But what you say to them is part of how you treat them. And if you treat transwomen as "fake" women by emphasizing in conversations that of course you could never be attracted to any of them, or anyone like them (and with a look of disgust on your face, as you imagine their body), that's treating your friends badly.
But what you say to them is part of how you treat them. And if you treat transwomen as "fake" women by emphasizing in conversations that of course you could never be attracted to any of them, or anyone like them (and with a look of disgust on your face, as you imagine their body), that's treating your friends badly.
289
@278: EricaP, who said that anyone would ever say things to someone like "I could never be attracted to you or any member of a group to which you belong," especially with a "look of disgust" on one's face as one imagines their body?
That's plain old bad manners, and neither the lw nor anyone else has suggested that anyone is doing that.
Of course we should all treat everyone with dignity and respect and there's absolutely nothing in the original letter or in any subsequent posting in this thread to suggest that anyone has either done or advocates doing anything else.
That's plain old bad manners, and neither the lw nor anyone else has suggested that anyone is doing that.
Of course we should all treat everyone with dignity and respect and there's absolutely nothing in the original letter or in any subsequent posting in this thread to suggest that anyone has either done or advocates doing anything else.
290
@289 The LW didn't keep his disinterest to himself, politely declining any transwoman who overtly came on to him. He talked with his transgendered friends (and to Dan) about how he couldn't see any transwoman as a woman he might consider sexually.
If he called himself an ally to women in a feminist organization, but he insisted on telling them that he could never think of them sexually, because they're not real women, they're feminists... they would rightly feel offended.
If he called himself an ally to women in a feminist organization, but he insisted on telling them that he could never think of them sexually, because they're not real women, they're feminists... they would rightly feel offended.
291
Ms Erica - In the spirit of my imagining you meeting Mrs Bachmann and the two of you getting on brilliantly until you realize she's a fundamentalist and she realizes you're into BDSM:
You are at lunch with a group of about half a dozen like-thinking women. A frenemy comes in late and pronounces herself too distraught to eat. She'd had what had seemed like a pretty good date the night before, only she found out after they had sex that she'd just boinked a Gingrich campaign strategist. If the mood of the table were about right and the woman in question just the right sort of frenemy, I can see it.
You are at lunch with a group of about half a dozen like-thinking women. A frenemy comes in late and pronounces herself too distraught to eat. She'd had what had seemed like a pretty good date the night before, only she found out after they had sex that she'd just boinked a Gingrich campaign strategist. If the mood of the table were about right and the woman in question just the right sort of frenemy, I can see it.
292
I think we can all agree if FRAUD wants to be 100 percent behind trans women he wouldnt say this
"I wouldn't feel comfortable dating/having sex with a woman who had at one point in her life been a man."
I am kind of disappointed at Kate. B 's response overall. I dont know why she called the man a queer heterosexual and i dont know why she didnt call FRAUD up on the fact that he said trans women used to be men and thats why he can't feel comfortable being with them like other women who were born biological female.
Fraud should be aleast ware that part of his discomfort comes from purely his idea that trans women were once men, an idea that alot of trans people disagree with.
Yeah I am splitting hair, but so what? how often do we get to talk about how men see or treat trans women on Dan savage?
I want to hear stories of men who fall in love and get married even with both PRE op and POST op trans women, i want to hear positive love stories, otherwise its just too depressing for me.
"I wouldn't feel comfortable dating/having sex with a woman who had at one point in her life been a man."
I am kind of disappointed at Kate. B 's response overall. I dont know why she called the man a queer heterosexual and i dont know why she didnt call FRAUD up on the fact that he said trans women used to be men and thats why he can't feel comfortable being with them like other women who were born biological female.
Fraud should be aleast ware that part of his discomfort comes from purely his idea that trans women were once men, an idea that alot of trans people disagree with.
Yeah I am splitting hair, but so what? how often do we get to talk about how men see or treat trans women on Dan savage?
I want to hear stories of men who fall in love and get married even with both PRE op and POST op trans women, i want to hear positive love stories, otherwise its just too depressing for me.
294
I feel like i need to say this over and over again, FRAUD never said he doesnt feel sexually attracted to trans women, from his question, it could very well be that he can be sexually attracted to trans women, but he doesnt want to be with them nevertheless because he cant get over the fact that they were once men!
So it is Fraud's idea that needs to be challenged, and rightly so, if he choose to be 100 percent behind trans women as he claim he is.
you cant quite compare this to any other example.
So it is Fraud's idea that needs to be challenged, and rightly so, if he choose to be 100 percent behind trans women as he claim he is.
you cant quite compare this to any other example.
295
@290:
Oh, EricaP, I can't believe I'm getting dragged into this, but you're being so deliberately obtuse, I can't stand it!
Read the letter again. Nowhere in it does FRAUD give us a verbatim account of the discussions he has with his friends. He never once gives a direct quote of anything he has said to anyone else.
Indeed, I can think of many, many reasons that anyone would phrase a letter to an advice columnist, especially one in which the lw was questioning his own attitudes or values, differently than he'd discuss the same issue with friends and co-workers.
Maybe the lw's friends/co-workers had noticed that he laments about the dearth of available women to date and suggested he open his dating pool to include them, and he politely declined. This could have led to a challenge, which in turn could have led to FRAUD's being called transphobic, which led to him wondering if he is indeed transphobic and writing to Dan about it.
You've got no clue that FRAUD was ever disrespectful or hurtful in his direct conversation, yet you insist on going on ad infinitum accusing him of bigotry and claiming that he deliberately makes insensitive comments about his preferences. This has led you to suggesting that to have any preferences at all in the matter of sexual attraction is to be "naive" and "prejudiced." It has led you to absurd "what if" scenarios involving anonymous, blindfolded fisting sessions. It has led to your assumption that no one is capable of graciously turning another person's advances down, and assuming that every sexual rejection is couched in hurtful language, WHEN THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ORIGINAL LETTER TO JUSTIFY THIS.
I find it telling that you'd rather see him as an utter asshole than give him the benefit of any doubt.
More...
Oh, EricaP, I can't believe I'm getting dragged into this, but you're being so deliberately obtuse, I can't stand it!
Read the letter again. Nowhere in it does FRAUD give us a verbatim account of the discussions he has with his friends. He never once gives a direct quote of anything he has said to anyone else.
Indeed, I can think of many, many reasons that anyone would phrase a letter to an advice columnist, especially one in which the lw was questioning his own attitudes or values, differently than he'd discuss the same issue with friends and co-workers.
Maybe the lw's friends/co-workers had noticed that he laments about the dearth of available women to date and suggested he open his dating pool to include them, and he politely declined. This could have led to a challenge, which in turn could have led to FRAUD's being called transphobic, which led to him wondering if he is indeed transphobic and writing to Dan about it.
You've got no clue that FRAUD was ever disrespectful or hurtful in his direct conversation, yet you insist on going on ad infinitum accusing him of bigotry and claiming that he deliberately makes insensitive comments about his preferences. This has led you to suggesting that to have any preferences at all in the matter of sexual attraction is to be "naive" and "prejudiced." It has led you to absurd "what if" scenarios involving anonymous, blindfolded fisting sessions. It has led to your assumption that no one is capable of graciously turning another person's advances down, and assuming that every sexual rejection is couched in hurtful language, WHEN THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ORIGINAL LETTER TO JUSTIFY THIS.
I find it telling that you'd rather see him as an utter asshole than give him the benefit of any doubt.
297
FRAUD says: "All my LGBTQA friends...call me a transphobe, because [I think] sex with a MTF straight woman [is] different than sex with a cisgender straight woman."
Sex with any particular woman is different, of course, from sex with any other woman. But there is no way in which sex with a transwoman is specifically, identifiably different from sex with a generic woman. Except in his head. (And in the head of most of the people in this thread.)
Sex with any particular woman is different, of course, from sex with any other woman. But there is no way in which sex with a transwoman is specifically, identifiably different from sex with a generic woman. Except in his head. (And in the head of most of the people in this thread.)
298
@291 vennominon, feel free to call me obtuse, just not deliberately so. I've no idea what your point is. Would this "frenemy" be a covert Republican? Is she upset, or feigning upset? If the mood were right, what would the table of half a dozen like-thinking women do? And what are the odds I could find "half a dozen like-thinking women" at this point, anyway?
299
@295 >> This has led you to suggesting that to have any preferences at all in the matter of sexual attraction is to be "naive" and "prejudiced." >>
Preferences are fine. Absolute predictions are naive, as in your statement @206: "I could never like having sex with a woman."
Preferences are fine. Absolute predictions are naive, as in your statement @206: "I could never like having sex with a woman."
300
@291/298 oh, wait... the frenemy is my rival? So I seize the opportunity to point out how 'prejudiced' she is, showing her up among our friends by demonstrating her unreasoning bias against Republicans? Am I closer to your point?
301
I'd have to say that, if I were in his position, I'd at least go on the down low about my poly relationships. His relatives may be bullies, but I care much more about my family than about any here-today, gone-tomorrow hookup. Family is forever.
303
This is rapidly devolving into an X-rated Green Eggs and Ham. (Would you like it with a fox? Would you like it in her box? )
If somebody says they aren't interested, and they are sure enough of their disinterest that they aren't even interested in considering a hypothetical, it isn't your job to go all Sam-I-Am on them and insist "well, you just haven't met the right woman yet."
If somebody says they aren't interested, and they are sure enough of their disinterest that they aren't even interested in considering a hypothetical, it isn't your job to go all Sam-I-Am on them and insist "well, you just haven't met the right woman yet."
304
@302 Hunt: So did we! All the best. I hope you realize I was kidding with you in past blogs, and not hitting on you!
@303 avast2006: How did you get THAT idea, Dr. Seuss, from someone's just wishing a fellow blogger and his family a Happy Thanksgiving?
Good grief, Charlie Brown, what next--Lucy Van Pelt should be called upon being "Real In"?
@303 avast2006: How did you get THAT idea, Dr. Seuss, from someone's just wishing a fellow blogger and his family a Happy Thanksgiving?
Good grief, Charlie Brown, what next--Lucy Van Pelt should be called upon being "Real In"?
306
Ms Erica - It's just a made-up scenario; I hope it didn't offend you. It was just that your earlier post made me wonder if you might ever say such a thing. And that was what came to me.
I can see a couple of possibilities here. One would be if your frenemy's distress started an honest round table discussion in which each one in the group gave an honest self-appraisal of her own capacities in that direction.
However, as the hardest part of the scenario to visualize would be your being at lunch with a group of women (given that, from much of what you post, it's just easier to visualize your dealings with men), I might write it up as it being a group you've known for a long time, the frenemy in question brings out your Catty-Mc-Kit-Kat side, and you could use a good score over her. I'll gladly stipulate that you catch yourself mentally after you say it, but perhaps just feel that, given the group dynamics, you're better off not backing down.
I can see a couple of possibilities here. One would be if your frenemy's distress started an honest round table discussion in which each one in the group gave an honest self-appraisal of her own capacities in that direction.
However, as the hardest part of the scenario to visualize would be your being at lunch with a group of women (given that, from much of what you post, it's just easier to visualize your dealings with men), I might write it up as it being a group you've known for a long time, the frenemy in question brings out your Catty-Mc-Kit-Kat side, and you could use a good score over her. I'll gladly stipulate that you catch yourself mentally after you say it, but perhaps just feel that, given the group dynamics, you're better off not backing down.
307
@280/286
This IS a biological basis for this ambiguity. They've studied it. And I've mentioned it before.
This IS a biological basis for this ambiguity. They've studied it. And I've mentioned it before.
308
Jesus, Erica.
Sex is not a birthday party.
I think people should be comfortable telling their friends both what they like and don't like. That's the fun of having friends, isn't it? My friends know my very picky, very long list of restrictions.
None of the rules are "bigoted", I don't think, but most of them are painfully shallow.
I have a good friend who's Asian but doesn't really dig on girls that are. Big deal.
The LR is having these conversations among his friends - not wearing a tshirt of his don'ts and won'ts. Maybe some of his friends fall into this catagory but big deal - I think they'll live. Pretty much any male friend I have falls into the 'won't' catagory for me too. So?
P.S. I know it was an analogy and I usually quite like your points but that one was way off in my books. I feel like this is probably your lady-socialization showing. You were taught to be "nice" and letting someone know that you're not sexually interested in them isn't "nice" so it should be avoided at all costs? It's as "not nice" as a small child finding out you've excluded them from your birthday party? I'm not trying to be offensive but that comparison seemed rather telling to me.
Sex is not a birthday party.
I think people should be comfortable telling their friends both what they like and don't like. That's the fun of having friends, isn't it? My friends know my very picky, very long list of restrictions.
None of the rules are "bigoted", I don't think, but most of them are painfully shallow.
I have a good friend who's Asian but doesn't really dig on girls that are. Big deal.
The LR is having these conversations among his friends - not wearing a tshirt of his don'ts and won'ts. Maybe some of his friends fall into this catagory but big deal - I think they'll live. Pretty much any male friend I have falls into the 'won't' catagory for me too. So?
P.S. I know it was an analogy and I usually quite like your points but that one was way off in my books. I feel like this is probably your lady-socialization showing. You were taught to be "nice" and letting someone know that you're not sexually interested in them isn't "nice" so it should be avoided at all costs? It's as "not nice" as a small child finding out you've excluded them from your birthday party? I'm not trying to be offensive but that comparison seemed rather telling to me.
309
Ms There @292 - I don't think you are splitting hairs at all, and I was just last night thinking something similar to your conclusion. I realized that I haven't bought any new books in ages, and had to think a bit to recall the last fiction I read involving a cis-trans relationship. The most recent one I can recall is in one of the novels of Bill Mann. I recuse myself from appraising the work of an old friend, though, and therefore offer no further comment.
I definitely agree about the 100% part. If today were Friday, I might start a side line about pinpointing, but it would get too detailed for too little benefit.
I definitely agree about the 100% part. If today were Friday, I might start a side line about pinpointing, but it would get too detailed for too little benefit.
310
Ms Cute - You have reminded me that I can Christiesplain this. FRAUD's discomfort potentially reminds me of Major Palgrave's blood pressure.
In A Caribbean Mystery, nobody at the resort is shocked when Major Palgrave dies. He was old, fonder of Planter's Punch than was prudent, everybody says he had high blood pressure and a bottle of medicine for it was found in his bungalow. Only Miss Marple knows that Major Palgrave was about to show her what he claimed to be a picture of a murderer when he saw someone and hastily put his snapshots away.
Luckily for Miss Marple, when some women on the beach lament Major Palgrave's carelessness of his health, Mr Rafiel contradicts them. Major Palgrave didn't have high blood pressure; he'd told Mr Rafiel so. Evelyn Hillingdon or Esther Walters counters that one doesn't go saying that one hasn't got something, while Miss Marple gets in a gentle dig by telling Mr Rafiel that the Major was probably boasting; gentlemen do. But it turns out that Mr Rafiel, on an occasion when Major Palgrave was overindulging, had told him he should drink less and think of his blood pressure. But Major Palgrave's doctor had assured him that he had nothing to worry about in that line.
I see that Ms Driasis has made a more explicit post addressing this point, but I am not going to erase a good Christiesplain. Miss Marple would be displeased with me.
In A Caribbean Mystery, nobody at the resort is shocked when Major Palgrave dies. He was old, fonder of Planter's Punch than was prudent, everybody says he had high blood pressure and a bottle of medicine for it was found in his bungalow. Only Miss Marple knows that Major Palgrave was about to show her what he claimed to be a picture of a murderer when he saw someone and hastily put his snapshots away.
Luckily for Miss Marple, when some women on the beach lament Major Palgrave's carelessness of his health, Mr Rafiel contradicts them. Major Palgrave didn't have high blood pressure; he'd told Mr Rafiel so. Evelyn Hillingdon or Esther Walters counters that one doesn't go saying that one hasn't got something, while Miss Marple gets in a gentle dig by telling Mr Rafiel that the Major was probably boasting; gentlemen do. But it turns out that Mr Rafiel, on an occasion when Major Palgrave was overindulging, had told him he should drink less and think of his blood pressure. But Major Palgrave's doctor had assured him that he had nothing to worry about in that line.
I see that Ms Driasis has made a more explicit post addressing this point, but I am not going to erase a good Christiesplain. Miss Marple would be displeased with me.
311
So I assume Major Palgrave was murdered.
Who did it?
An unrelated question: how does one get italics or other snazzy formatting into her comments here on Slog? I have tried writing them in my word processor and formatting my text the way I'd like it, with italics and whatnot, and then cutting and pasting into this comment box, but when I do that, all my formatting disappears. Yet I notice that others are able to use special text boxes (ankylosaur) or italcize (many of you).
I'm using a Macbook, if that makes a difference.
Thanks.
Who did it?
An unrelated question: how does one get italics or other snazzy formatting into her comments here on Slog? I have tried writing them in my word processor and formatting my text the way I'd like it, with italics and whatnot, and then cutting and pasting into this comment box, but when I do that, all my formatting disappears. Yet I notice that others are able to use special text boxes (ankylosaur) or italcize (many of you).
I'm using a Macbook, if that makes a difference.
Thanks.
313
@308, I could see having "a good friend who's Asian but doesn't really dig on girls that are." That's his/her preference. To me, that's fine.
But if it went further, and my friend ruled out, categorically, ever being interested in anyone Asian, or Jewish, or black, or trans, or handicapped... I'd stop hanging out with that friend. Guess I'm super sensitive to hurt feelings. You want to trace that back to my elementary school experiences, be my guest.
But if it went further, and my friend ruled out, categorically, ever being interested in anyone Asian, or Jewish, or black, or trans, or handicapped... I'd stop hanging out with that friend. Guess I'm super sensitive to hurt feelings. You want to trace that back to my elementary school experiences, be my guest.
315
@303 who said "If somebody says they aren't interested, and they are sure enough of their disinterest that they aren't even interested in considering a hypothetical, it isn't your job to go all Sam-I-Am on them and insist "well, you just haven't met the right woman yet."
Exactly. This is all reminding me of when I first came out and all the people who kept badgering me about "how can you know if you never tried women?", or "Maybe you just haven't met the right girl yet...".
I know what I like. I know what I don't like. Being told what I should like is something that, as a gay person, I have had to fight all my life. I am not willing to be told by anyone, be they straight, gay, transsexual, cicwhatever, queer... what I SHOULD like or what I SHOULD be open to.
So long as someone isn't voting away your rights, denying you a job, or in some other way hurting you for who or what you are then they haven't done anything wrong. But no one has a right to tell anyone else who they should or should not be open to dating, marrying, fucking or other very personal and intimate kinds of interrelations.
What I don't get is why people want to try to force others to be "open" to fucking or dating someone they don't want to fuck or date.
Who here really wants to date someone who has to force themselves to date them? Do you really want to date someone who isn't comfortable being with you but is willing to suck it up just so they don't get labeled as a bigot? Do you really want to get intimate with someone who needed years with a therapist just to be able to contemplate fucking you?
I would bet not. So getting on someone's case about it so long as they aren't hurting you doesn't make sense. And not fucking you isn't hurting you.
But I do agree with Erica about what she is saying. I just say it more bluntly and honestly.
PEOPLE SHOULD LIE!!!!
That's basically what she is saying, just in a round about way. Yeah, don't be honest and say "I could never get involved with a transsexual", because that is just going to get shit on.
Just say, "I would love to date a transsexual if I ever met one I was attracted to. I just haven't yet", even if in your head you are thinking, "No fucking way, ever, ever, ever..."
Think it, don't say it. Lie. Everyone will be much happier in the long run.
As Brian in Queer as Folk said, "It's not lying if they make you lie."
If telling the truth is just going to get your ass raked over the coals then they don't really want the truth. They want you to lie, so don't disappoint them.
More...
Exactly. This is all reminding me of when I first came out and all the people who kept badgering me about "how can you know if you never tried women?", or "Maybe you just haven't met the right girl yet...".
I know what I like. I know what I don't like. Being told what I should like is something that, as a gay person, I have had to fight all my life. I am not willing to be told by anyone, be they straight, gay, transsexual, cicwhatever, queer... what I SHOULD like or what I SHOULD be open to.
So long as someone isn't voting away your rights, denying you a job, or in some other way hurting you for who or what you are then they haven't done anything wrong. But no one has a right to tell anyone else who they should or should not be open to dating, marrying, fucking or other very personal and intimate kinds of interrelations.
What I don't get is why people want to try to force others to be "open" to fucking or dating someone they don't want to fuck or date.
Who here really wants to date someone who has to force themselves to date them? Do you really want to date someone who isn't comfortable being with you but is willing to suck it up just so they don't get labeled as a bigot? Do you really want to get intimate with someone who needed years with a therapist just to be able to contemplate fucking you?
I would bet not. So getting on someone's case about it so long as they aren't hurting you doesn't make sense. And not fucking you isn't hurting you.
But I do agree with Erica about what she is saying. I just say it more bluntly and honestly.
PEOPLE SHOULD LIE!!!!
That's basically what she is saying, just in a round about way. Yeah, don't be honest and say "I could never get involved with a transsexual", because that is just going to get shit on.
Just say, "I would love to date a transsexual if I ever met one I was attracted to. I just haven't yet", even if in your head you are thinking, "No fucking way, ever, ever, ever..."
Think it, don't say it. Lie. Everyone will be much happier in the long run.
As Brian in Queer as Folk said, "It's not lying if they make you lie."
If telling the truth is just going to get your ass raked over the coals then they don't really want the truth. They want you to lie, so don't disappoint them.
317
Unfortunate (almost) everyone has SOME prejudices. No matter how open minded we may be, or try to be, how we're raised, past experiences, etc cause some biases to form. Should we try to move beyond them to the best of our abilities? Of course. But not everyone is able to overcome everything.
Do I believe that people should say that they would never do something? No. We never know what we may do or not do in the future. But FRAUD doesn’t say he would never. He said he wouldn’t feel comfortable. And that it’s a mental hurdle he can’t clear. That doesn’t mean ever. That, to me, means presently. And I think he does feel bad about it, which shows that he’d like it to change. Doesn’t mean he will change, but he wants to grow.
I think the best thing we can do for posterity is try not to push any biases we may have obtained on them as well. Not racism, sexism, etc. I also have had a few trans friends over the course of my life. I can’t say I’d never have sex with them. But I do think there are some mental hurdles that might need to be overcome before I’d be able to. I’ve never thought of these friends as females who were trying to be men. As far as I was concerned, they were men when I met them, and that’s what they are, but it doesn’t mean that some small part of your brain may tell you “But they used to have girl parts!”. I hope that if I was attracted to a trans person, I wouldn’t let that be what got in my way, but I also can’t say with absolute certainty that it wouldn’t.
Because FRAUD is so active in the LGBT community, I do think that he deserves some slack. He is a far cry from many straight men. And telling someone they have a phobia repeatedly can make them believe it, and stick to it because they believe it. I’m sure any future children this man has will learn from his already open-mindedness, and will be able to take it a step further. That’s where progression really comes in.
For example: My mother was raised in a family that didn’t believe in mix-race couples. They never shunned anyone for the fact, or bi-racial children, they just didn’t agree with it. Because of knowing how her family felt, she never really developed an attraction for men of other races. She is able to notice when they are attractive, has friends in mixed-race relationships, and loves their children. From her example, I have no issues with dating someone of another race. But, I will admit that I’ve had physical relationships with people who don’t share the same skin tone as me, I’ve not had a romantic relationship. There is still that portion of my brain that knows I could lose several members of my family by doing so, and I’m only willing to risk that if I believe someone is “the one”. Hopefully, if I have children, they will feel completely comfortable dating whomever they want because they’ll know that they can be who they are without upsetting their family.
Likewise, instead of berating people for the prejudices they still hold, we should be educating them. Another example: My father. He was homophobic for a large chunk of my life. However, the majority of my friends while in high school were gay men. This meant that he got to see them on a personal level. Instead of just, “That gay guy”, they had names and stories. Some of those friends have been among his favorite of the people I hung out with. People can learn and evolve. But we have to be understanding of their misconceptions and work with them, instead of just telling them that isn’t how they should feel.
More...
Do I believe that people should say that they would never do something? No. We never know what we may do or not do in the future. But FRAUD doesn’t say he would never. He said he wouldn’t feel comfortable. And that it’s a mental hurdle he can’t clear. That doesn’t mean ever. That, to me, means presently. And I think he does feel bad about it, which shows that he’d like it to change. Doesn’t mean he will change, but he wants to grow.
I think the best thing we can do for posterity is try not to push any biases we may have obtained on them as well. Not racism, sexism, etc. I also have had a few trans friends over the course of my life. I can’t say I’d never have sex with them. But I do think there are some mental hurdles that might need to be overcome before I’d be able to. I’ve never thought of these friends as females who were trying to be men. As far as I was concerned, they were men when I met them, and that’s what they are, but it doesn’t mean that some small part of your brain may tell you “But they used to have girl parts!”. I hope that if I was attracted to a trans person, I wouldn’t let that be what got in my way, but I also can’t say with absolute certainty that it wouldn’t.
Because FRAUD is so active in the LGBT community, I do think that he deserves some slack. He is a far cry from many straight men. And telling someone they have a phobia repeatedly can make them believe it, and stick to it because they believe it. I’m sure any future children this man has will learn from his already open-mindedness, and will be able to take it a step further. That’s where progression really comes in.
For example: My mother was raised in a family that didn’t believe in mix-race couples. They never shunned anyone for the fact, or bi-racial children, they just didn’t agree with it. Because of knowing how her family felt, she never really developed an attraction for men of other races. She is able to notice when they are attractive, has friends in mixed-race relationships, and loves their children. From her example, I have no issues with dating someone of another race. But, I will admit that I’ve had physical relationships with people who don’t share the same skin tone as me, I’ve not had a romantic relationship. There is still that portion of my brain that knows I could lose several members of my family by doing so, and I’m only willing to risk that if I believe someone is “the one”. Hopefully, if I have children, they will feel completely comfortable dating whomever they want because they’ll know that they can be who they are without upsetting their family.
Likewise, instead of berating people for the prejudices they still hold, we should be educating them. Another example: My father. He was homophobic for a large chunk of my life. However, the majority of my friends while in high school were gay men. This meant that he got to see them on a personal level. Instead of just, “That gay guy”, they had names and stories. Some of those friends have been among his favorite of the people I hung out with. People can learn and evolve. But we have to be understanding of their misconceptions and work with them, instead of just telling them that isn’t how they should feel.
318
@297: I'm not sure that's true: neovaginas might just feel completely different than natural ones. There are still physical differences between post-op transwomen and ciswomen.
Even if there weren't: so what if the differences are all in your head. Sex is mostly all in your head anyway: why should people not be allowed to have preferences based on what's in their heads?
I agree that people should be polite in expressing their preferences, but that doesn't mean you have to be dishonest. I would personally much prefer being rejected for something I can't control (my height, skin color, genitals, gender identity) than something I can. I don't think there's anything wrong with listing characteristics you like as well as ones you don't like on a dating site, for instance. If I fall into some category that turns someone off, it's not my fault, it just means we're not compatible, and it's good to know that.
Compare that with me doing something that turns someone off, or something about my personality turning someone off, which is a lot more hurtful.
I like the idea of thinking of people as individuals who I might date or not date, be attracted to or not attracted to, as opposed to members of groups that I go for or don't go for. Still, I can say that I generally go for women with vaginas, even if someone changes my mind on that. I'm open to the idea that I might someday be attracted to anyone, even someone I never thought I would be attracted to. Even so, I don't think there's anything wrong with saying who I'm generally into.
Even if there weren't: so what if the differences are all in your head. Sex is mostly all in your head anyway: why should people not be allowed to have preferences based on what's in their heads?
I agree that people should be polite in expressing their preferences, but that doesn't mean you have to be dishonest. I would personally much prefer being rejected for something I can't control (my height, skin color, genitals, gender identity) than something I can. I don't think there's anything wrong with listing characteristics you like as well as ones you don't like on a dating site, for instance. If I fall into some category that turns someone off, it's not my fault, it just means we're not compatible, and it's good to know that.
Compare that with me doing something that turns someone off, or something about my personality turning someone off, which is a lot more hurtful.
I like the idea of thinking of people as individuals who I might date or not date, be attracted to or not attracted to, as opposed to members of groups that I go for or don't go for. Still, I can say that I generally go for women with vaginas, even if someone changes my mind on that. I'm open to the idea that I might someday be attracted to anyone, even someone I never thought I would be attracted to. Even so, I don't think there's anything wrong with saying who I'm generally into.
320
@Erica/315
Nope. I guess we have to agree to disagree.
"PEOPLE SHOULD LIE!!!!
That's basically what she is saying, just in a round about way. Yeah, don't be honest and say "I could never get involved with a transsexual", because that is just going to get shit on.
Just say, "I would love to date a transsexual if I ever met one I was attracted to. I just haven't yet", even if in your head you are thinking, "No fucking way, ever, ever, ever..."
Think it, don't say it. Lie. Everyone will be much happier in the long run.
As Brian in Queer as Folk said, "It's not lying if they make you lie."
If telling the truth is just going to get your ass raked over the coals then they don't really want the truth. They want you to lie, so don't disappoint them. "
I wouldn't want to be friends with people who I have to lie to. If I had a "friend" who would rake me over the coals for being honest about my interests then... I don't need to be friends with them.
That was the point of what I was saying. The LW writer was talking to his friends. That was the context. Not just bringing it up out of nowhere.
My friends all know how absurdly picky I am and guess what.... we're still friends. I don't need to lie. And neither should anyone.
Nope. I guess we have to agree to disagree.
"PEOPLE SHOULD LIE!!!!
That's basically what she is saying, just in a round about way. Yeah, don't be honest and say "I could never get involved with a transsexual", because that is just going to get shit on.
Just say, "I would love to date a transsexual if I ever met one I was attracted to. I just haven't yet", even if in your head you are thinking, "No fucking way, ever, ever, ever..."
Think it, don't say it. Lie. Everyone will be much happier in the long run.
As Brian in Queer as Folk said, "It's not lying if they make you lie."
If telling the truth is just going to get your ass raked over the coals then they don't really want the truth. They want you to lie, so don't disappoint them. "
I wouldn't want to be friends with people who I have to lie to. If I had a "friend" who would rake me over the coals for being honest about my interests then... I don't need to be friends with them.
That was the point of what I was saying. The LW writer was talking to his friends. That was the context. Not just bringing it up out of nowhere.
My friends all know how absurdly picky I am and guess what.... we're still friends. I don't need to lie. And neither should anyone.
322
@320, it would be nice if no one had to lie about such things, but clearly from this discussion it appears that many do.
We don't know the context FRAUD had this discussion with his friends in, or exactly how close of friends they were. But it isn't even limited to friends, as this discussion shows.
The topic came up, and different people have different preferences which they expressed, and some are getting flack for it. I expressed similar preferences in a different context in another thread here and got 90% shit for it. It taught me never to express such things openly in such a context again.
I generally don't have to lie to my friends about such things because I am pretty sure that most of my friends don't care a bit if I wanted to fuck them or not, as I don't care if they want to fuck me or not. But clearly for others it is an issue.
We don't know the context FRAUD had this discussion with his friends in, or exactly how close of friends they were. But it isn't even limited to friends, as this discussion shows.
The topic came up, and different people have different preferences which they expressed, and some are getting flack for it. I expressed similar preferences in a different context in another thread here and got 90% shit for it. It taught me never to express such things openly in such a context again.
I generally don't have to lie to my friends about such things because I am pretty sure that most of my friends don't care a bit if I wanted to fuck them or not, as I don't care if they want to fuck me or not. But clearly for others it is an issue.
323
@312 EricaP, re:@303 avast2006's comment: Thanks for the clarification. I see that now.
@303 & @315: Okay---you meant something completely different, entirely! I see your points. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
@303 & @315: Okay---you meant something completely different, entirely! I see your points. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
325
FRAUD: Just because you support LBGTQ rights doesn't mean you have to be friends with everyone you meet who identifies that way. If these folks want to force you to conform your sexuality to what they think it should mean to be straight, and call you names like Transphobe when you resist, it might be time to find some less hypocritical, more open minded friends. MTF's are real women, but there are key differences, such as: pheremones, pussy taste, facial features, body build... the lists goes on. There's no shame in sleeping with women but not being sexually interested in women who used to be men. If there's anything a Savage Love reader should know, it's that you can't change who you want to fuck or how you want to fuck them.
327
@325
you are being transphobic.
how do you know there are key differences, such as pheremones pussy taste, facial fatures , body build among women and transwomen, can you absolutely verify that through a test? are you saying that you have a foul proof test to prove that the pussy in front of you is cisgender or transgender? if you do, please enlighten me.
you are being transphobic.
how do you know there are key differences, such as pheremones pussy taste, facial fatures , body build among women and transwomen, can you absolutely verify that through a test? are you saying that you have a foul proof test to prove that the pussy in front of you is cisgender or transgender? if you do, please enlighten me.
328
and ps: , I wouldnt be friends with anyone who think I used to be a man just because I am trans...i would tell FRAUD straight up that his discomfort needs to be challenged..
its FRAUD 's choice if he wants to care about the opinons of trans people, and I have given him my opinon, hes free to listen or not.
I found it funny how many people keep saying FRAUD is not prejudical at all but transphobia and ignorance are being espoused all over this topic..
its FRAUD 's choice if he wants to care about the opinons of trans people, and I have given him my opinon, hes free to listen or not.
I found it funny how many people keep saying FRAUD is not prejudical at all but transphobia and ignorance are being espoused all over this topic..
329
Please ignore the unregistered. It just derails.
I think that most of us aren't too far apart here. I think we've all been twenty years old and talking with our friends to crazy hours of the night about everything under the sun, including our sexual preferences. That's the kind of conversation I imagine this all came up in for FRAUD. He might have said, "Nope, not ever," and he might have been more diplomatic. I hope he erred on the side of kindness, but if not, he still has time to learn better manners.
I also think that if not wanting to date a transwoman is prejudiced, then fine. He's a little prejudiced. I can live with that; heck, arewethereyet said she can live with that. As mentioned before, it's unclear whether transwomen are just falling all over themselves to go out with him, anyway.
I think that most of us aren't too far apart here. I think we've all been twenty years old and talking with our friends to crazy hours of the night about everything under the sun, including our sexual preferences. That's the kind of conversation I imagine this all came up in for FRAUD. He might have said, "Nope, not ever," and he might have been more diplomatic. I hope he erred on the side of kindness, but if not, he still has time to learn better manners.
I also think that if not wanting to date a transwoman is prejudiced, then fine. He's a little prejudiced. I can live with that; heck, arewethereyet said she can live with that. As mentioned before, it's unclear whether transwomen are just falling all over themselves to go out with him, anyway.
331
@326: First of all, prepubescent transitions are a recent thing and unfortunately all too rare in the US, so that's not likely to come up. Also, the bodies of post-op transwomen are going to be in general different from the bodies of post-op ciswomen, just because they started off male.
That being said, I think someone who says "I would never want to date a transwoman" is much more likely to object to the idea of dating someone born male than to have this kind of preference for some somatic features over others. I think we could present the LW with a beautiful woman, have him get turned on, then tell him she was born male, and he'd get squicked.
It's certainly ok for someone to have the preference not to date someone born male. We're allowed to choose who we want to date based on anything we want. And sex is in the mind, so it doesn't make sense to object to it being a mental thing for him, as opposed to a somatic thing.
However. I do think this is mixed in with homophobia and all sorts of cultural ideas about gender roles. And I do think it's homophobia we're talking about, rather than transphobia, the idea being that it's somehow "gay" for a guy to date someone who once had a male body.
A comparison might be a white guy who said he would never date black women: while it's possible to have a preference for the way one race looks, it's likely that this preference is tied in with all sorts of cultural baggage involving racism and negative stereotypes about black women.
In some ways, this reminds me of the BDSM debates about whether people's kinks are based on experiences they've had, or they're just born with them. It can be both, but either way we can't escape the cultural baggage.
That being said, I think someone who says "I would never want to date a transwoman" is much more likely to object to the idea of dating someone born male than to have this kind of preference for some somatic features over others. I think we could present the LW with a beautiful woman, have him get turned on, then tell him she was born male, and he'd get squicked.
It's certainly ok for someone to have the preference not to date someone born male. We're allowed to choose who we want to date based on anything we want. And sex is in the mind, so it doesn't make sense to object to it being a mental thing for him, as opposed to a somatic thing.
However. I do think this is mixed in with homophobia and all sorts of cultural ideas about gender roles. And I do think it's homophobia we're talking about, rather than transphobia, the idea being that it's somehow "gay" for a guy to date someone who once had a male body.
A comparison might be a white guy who said he would never date black women: while it's possible to have a preference for the way one race looks, it's likely that this preference is tied in with all sorts of cultural baggage involving racism and negative stereotypes about black women.
In some ways, this reminds me of the BDSM debates about whether people's kinks are based on experiences they've had, or they're just born with them. It can be both, but either way we can't escape the cultural baggage.
334
Forgive me for being late to the party but I think men who are attracted to cis-women are typically men who do not find the idea of touching a penis, or what used to be a penis, something they'd do intentionally if well informed. Her vagina is of course not a penis anymore than an A cup would continue to be A cups after breast augmentation but it *used to be* a penis.
There are plenty of women who will date a guy, really like him but if his penis is really small or "looks funny" they will lose sexual interest in him. From what I know of MTF GRS is that the new vagina does not have the ability to self lubricate, many many many many many many many many many many cis het men love a vagina that is naturally well lubed and do not like using lube (outside of anal play or edible ones for foreplay). It's no secret that for a lot of straight men, the big TADA is PIV sex and a pre-op MTF couldn't give them that.
I would say this: if a straight het cis man met a straight or bisexual trans woman who they were attracted to and enjoyed having PIV sex with and then later dumped her because she's "a man", that would make him a transphobic asshole. **
**Of course if he ( didnt feel like she was a man) and felt like there was a breach of trust in her not telling about her childhood and being raised a boy or showing him pictures of what appears to be a little girl and saying it was her (when it wasnt) then lying is a big deal and wouldnt be transphobic for breaking up with because she lied but he would clearly be capable of dating a trans woman and being sexually attracted and active with her.
There are plenty of women who will date a guy, really like him but if his penis is really small or "looks funny" they will lose sexual interest in him. From what I know of MTF GRS is that the new vagina does not have the ability to self lubricate, many many many many many many many many many many cis het men love a vagina that is naturally well lubed and do not like using lube (outside of anal play or edible ones for foreplay). It's no secret that for a lot of straight men, the big TADA is PIV sex and a pre-op MTF couldn't give them that.
I would say this: if a straight het cis man met a straight or bisexual trans woman who they were attracted to and enjoyed having PIV sex with and then later dumped her because she's "a man", that would make him a transphobic asshole. **
**Of course if he ( didnt feel like she was a man) and felt like there was a breach of trust in her not telling about her childhood and being raised a boy or showing him pictures of what appears to be a little girl and saying it was her (when it wasnt) then lying is a big deal and wouldnt be transphobic for breaking up with because she lied but he would clearly be capable of dating a trans woman and being sexually attracted and active with her.
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
Comments (334) RSS