Could You Date A Transexual?

sumanoskae

New member
Dec 7, 2007
1,526
0
0
I'm attracted to the double X exclusively, just how I am.

I don't know why you feel that not being attracted to a group of people weakens your support of them. I support gay rights because nobody has the right to tell you how to live your own life, however that may be.

I think the cause is the same; it's about human rights, one of those rights being that you can be attracted to whoever you want, how you think is your business.
 

EclipseoftheDarkSun

New member
Sep 11, 2009
230
0
0
Darken12 said:
EclipseoftheDarkSun said:
The effect of male-determining genes on the Y chromosome is the only reason we care. That should be obvious. When I say it's currently a fantasy, I'm saying it's a possibility, but not a certainty, not that it's impossible or that it shouldn't be researched, though I'm not sure how easy it'll be to get funding for it.

Out of interest, a male to female conversion would have female-levels of testosterone having lost the testes? How about the other 'male' hormones?
Genes are absolutely meaningless. Medicine can overwrite, alleviate or palliate the effects the Y chromosome has on a male, particularly if hormone therapy is done during childhood and teenage years and the irreversible effect of male hormones can be prevented. And the more science advances, the more we'll be able to overwrite and tamper with.

Genes. Are. Our. Subordinates.
One day sure.. for the moment, that's not quite the case.
 

EclipseoftheDarkSun

New member
Sep 11, 2009
230
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
The unfortunate thing for your argument is that gender is not wrapped up in the nice neat package that the argument would purport. XY women walk among us. They never have to change their name or birth certificate, they can menstruate and carry children, they can be biological mothers and the whole nine.
Never heard of such a thing. If you're referring to Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS), then they are externally women, but internally have no uterus, therefore no periods, at least so I thought. They have testicles, undescended, they have a vagina and presumably breasts, but no ovaries or fallopian tubes or womb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome
"Clinical phenotypes in these individuals range from a normal male habitus with mild spermatogenic defect or reduced secondary terminal hair, to a full female habitus, despite the presence of a Y-chromosome"

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome"

Look at the pics, they appear to be a woman, but CANNOT produce children or have a period.

Get your facts straight.

Hmm.. looking more closely at the article on CAIS:

"External genitalia is normal, although the labia and clitoris are sometimes underdeveloped.[20][21] The vaginal depth is widely variable, but is typically shorter than unaffected women;[1] one study of eight women with CAIS measured the average vaginal depth to be 5.9 cm [22] (vs. 11.1 ± 1.0 cm for unaffected women [23])"

"The gonads in these women are not ovaries, but instead, are testes; during the embryonic stage of development, testes form in an androgen-independent process"

"The Müllerian system (the fallopian tubes, uterus, and upper portion of the vagina) typically regresses due to the presence of anti-Müllerian hormone originating from the Sertoli cells of the testes.[18] These women are thus born without fallopian tubes, a cervix, or a uterus,[18] and the vagina ends "blindly" in a pouch.[1] Müllerian regression does not fully complete in approximately one third of all cases, resulting in Müllerian "remnants".[18] Although rare, a few cases of women with CAIS and fully developed Müllerian structures have been reported. In one exceptional case, a 22 year old with CAIS was found to have a normal cervix, uterus, and fallopian tubes.[38] In an unrelated case, a fully developed uterus was found in a 22 year old adult with CAIS."

So, some *very* rare people can have the cervix, uterus and fallopian tubes - my bad. But still no ovaries.

Anyway, speaking from a personal perspective, I'm not going to waste time, or make enemies, by acting like an asshole to people who are transexuals. I sympathise with their situation and would hate to be treated like they too often are treated.

However, I would very likely not want to sexually be with a transexual (I'm a male with strong heterosexual preference for females, and if you think that being a woman with the mind of a man or vice versa is perfectly natural, then you can't criticise someone for their sexual preference either - both are biochemical processes, with possibly some societal expectation influencing them) if they declared their status up front and I'd be a little leery of women I thought looked too masculine for my liking, even if they really were XX women with all the plumbing and feminised brain.

I could be friends with one though, assuming they weren't super needy or demanding/annoying as hell (like some people seem to be claiming). If not, they'd be fine by me. Plus I'd be happy to call them he or she as desired.

If I slept with one unknowingly, perhaps because they might not have thought to mention it, or I didn't think to ask etc, and found out later, I wouldn't resort to violence, that would be cruel/immature. I would however very likely imo, say "Umm, I'm not cool with sleeping with you any more, because I was under false impressions and I want a relationship with the prospect of having (biological) children, and quite frankly, I don't want to sleep with a person with your background."

Hopefully that's not too offensive to transexuals, but it's a damn sight better than some idiots would treat you.
 

EclipseoftheDarkSun

New member
Sep 11, 2009
230
0
0
AperioContra said:
I consider myself a very open minded person, and if a transsexual found love, I'm happy for them, I'm genuine about that. But as for with me.... I just don't think so. I know my mind, and the second I found out, it would be like finding out that my favorite pizza was made from catshit. It might taste the same, but every bite I just couldn't help but think of the pounds of catshit went into making that pizza.

So in brief, dating a transexual is like eating a catshit pizza.... wait that came out wrong.
Keep digging yourself deeper there soldier :)
 

Epic Bear Man

New member
Feb 5, 2013
178
0
0
A Distant Star said:
Honestly, if I was macking on a girl, and I get her pants off and there's a dick there... well she's clearly hot enough that I was macking on her and I'm already all hot and bothered... there's a very good chance I will just suck that dick.
Don't think the "girl" should go first with that sort of thing? =P Although I'm fairly certain if they were really good at returning the favor, I'd probably do it too. >.>
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
EclipseoftheDarkSun said:
Never heard of such a thing.
Not only did you base your argument on not having heard of something but....

Get your facts straight.
You didn't even bother to verify it was what I was talking about before telling me to get my facts straight? Come on.

Even still, your own article treats these women not as apparent women, but actually women. Funny that even your own sources don't back up your prejudices.

I've got more bad news: even women with AIS can be, rarely, fertile. Not just have Fallopian tubes, but be capable of giving birth to their own live young. You an find reports of such a thing with Google, so whether or not you've heard of this is immaterial.

Again, even your own sources have gone so far as to reinforce my point: gender is not the nice, neat package you're trying to make it out to be. Sadly, it seems like you're going to ignore that.
 

Bigsmith

New member
Mar 16, 2009
1,026
0
0
I can say I could. But as far I know I'm Bi so I really couldn't care what gender a person is/was when it comes to it.

Although I wouldn't mind it if i dated a MtoF that decided to keep their junk. A Girl with a dick? Yes please. XD

If it's someone who went under the knife, it would probably take me a while to get used to their more private areas and as long as the person understood that then it'll be fine.
 

LongMuckDong

New member
Aug 23, 2011
56
0
0
EclipseoftheDarkSun said:
AperioContra said:
I consider myself a very open minded person, and if a transsexual found love, I'm happy for them, I'm genuine about that. But as for with me.... I just don't think so. I know my mind, and the second I found out, it would be like finding out that my favorite pizza was made from catshit. It might taste the same, but every bite I just couldn't help but think of the pounds of catshit went into making that pizza.

So in brief, dating a transexual is like eating a catshit pizza.... wait that came out wrong.
Keep digging yourself deeper there soldier :)
What he said made perfect sense, no hole was dug - only a pitchers mound formed.
 

LittleThestral

New member
May 29, 2012
35
0
0
I'm disturbed at how many people make "able to make/help create babies" a top priority for a lover. Is it really that impossible to, say, fall in love with someone, find out they're incapable of having biological children for one reason or another, and still love them enough to stay with them? Hormone fuckups happen constantly, plenty of women have disorders that make them incapable of bearing children (or, at least, able to carry to term), all kinds of shit can happen.

For that matter, what need is there to have biological children? Why is that so important? I'm not trying to be a dick here, I'm genuinely mystified at how many people feel such a pressing need to spawn even more people. I don't get it.
 

EclipseoftheDarkSun

New member
Sep 11, 2009
230
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
EclipseoftheDarkSun said:
Never heard of such a thing.
Not only did you base your argument on not having heard of something but....

Get your facts straight.
You didn't even bother to verify it was what I was talking about before telling me to get my facts straight? Come on.

Even still, your own article treats these women not as apparent women, but actually women. Funny that even your own sources don't back up your prejudices.

I've got more bad news: even women with AIS can be, rarely, fertile. Not just have Fallopian tubes, but be capable of giving birth to their own live young. You an find reports of such a thing with Google, so whether or not you've heard of this is immaterial.

Again, even your own sources have gone so far as to reinforce my point: gender is not the nice, neat package you're trying to make it out to be. Sadly, it seems like you're going to ignore that.
1. I corrected myself . Would you have done the same? And I had heard of AIS.
2. Saying you saw it on Google is no more credible than saying you read it in a tabloid magazine. Give us a verified source please.
3. I never said gender was a nice neat package, but nice strawman argument.
4. Calling them women is probably following a convention of politeness to treat people as they wish to be treated. If someone dresses up like a giant carrot and wants me to call them squiggy, I'll probably humour them.
 

EclipseoftheDarkSun

New member
Sep 11, 2009
230
0
0
LittleThestral said:
I'm disturbed at how many people make "able to make/help create babies" a top priority for a lover. Is it really that impossible to, say, fall in love with someone, find out they're incapable of having biological children for one reason or another, and still love them enough to stay with them? Hormone fuckups happen constantly, plenty of women have disorders that make them incapable of bearing children (or, at least, able to carry to term), all kinds of shit can happen.

For that matter, what need is there to have biological children? Why is that so important? I'm not trying to be a dick here, I'm genuinely mystified at how many people feel such a pressing need to spawn even more people. I don't get it.
Why not ask a neurologist? Do you really think people have in depth insights into their own motivations? Rarely, I'd suggest, since they boil down to feelings. Obviously once again societal expectations probably play a role and yearning to have kids with similar characteristics to relatives you like. The same hormones that make transgender people feel like a particular gender are also affecting these drives.
 

mike1921

New member
Oct 17, 2008
1,292
0
0
LostGryphon said:
mike1921 said:
Well...the definition

(Websters) Mutilation-
1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect
2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of

Fits the act. You're literally reconfiguring the genitals via surgical equipment, as well as altering secondary body characteristics using the same tools. Making a comparison to earrings, which is punching a small hole through the skin/cartilage of the ear then placing a small metal/plastic object in it, is irreconcilable from a logical standpoint.

If you're making the argument that any act that causes a small cosmetic change to the body is mutilation, I disagree rather strongly with the assertion, but it could work in that context and does, sort of, fit within the confines of the definition of the term.

As for whether or not genital manipulation is more of a mutilation than an ear piercing? I wouldn't say that you would be particularly hard pressed to find someone who would agree with you, but the vast majority of people would disagree. It's reasonable to assume that said majority would be arguing from a definite point of advantage as well.
It's already imperfect, it's on a person who's mentally a girl. If I had a head shaped like a rhinoceros head no one would take issue with me surgically having it altered to look like a human head. It's fixing it if anything.

Your ear lobes are not imperfect for lacking holes.

Honestly I think the word "mutilation" loses all real meaning when it goes from "people actively harming themselves in a way that changes their body" to "People making actually possibly overall beneficial alterations". I don't really have any strong feelings on ear rings and I really don't have any on whether gender reassignment surgery is mutilation, as I don't think the word actually signifies anything at that point.
 

ceeqanguel

New member
Aug 24, 2008
72
0
0
I give my most sincere blessings to anyone and everyone who finds love and can be loved back. No matter what those messy hormones say. Hahahah!

But personally, as a hetero male, it would be important for me to find a life partner who could give me progeny. I am white and my uncle and aunt could not have children, so they adopted two black kids from Haiti. Therefore I grew up in a pretty cool,open and diverse family. Maybe it gave me some social advantage because I don't have a single prejudiced bone in my body. So I guess adoption wouldn't be out of the question, but even if my wife could not bear my children, it would be important for me to pass my own genes on. I don't have faith in the divine, but I have much certitude that the human spirit and genius will find a medical solution to infertility. I'm ok if it is not tomorrow. In the meanwhile, I can try to help science , and acceptance, the best way I can.
 

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
3,078
0
0
Yes I want to date at least one of each; passable MtF or FtM. I date both genders anyway so Transfolks are cool too; I find that each sort of person brings their own special somethin to the table.

LittleThestral said:
I'm disturbed at how many people make "able to make/help create babies" a top priority for a lover... For that matter, what need is there to have biological children? Why is that so important? I'm not trying to be a dick here, I'm genuinely mystified at how many people feel such a pressing need to spawn even more people. I don't get it.
It's biological, it's built into our DNA to reproduce, and reproduce with our own genetics so that they can be passed on. This is hard wired and true for a majority of people, which includes homosexual and transexual people as well. Arguing against this is arguing against nature. Things happen, yes, but people still have the preference for their own genetics being passed on first. I say MOST, not everyone.
 

Andalusa

Mad Cat Lady
Feb 25, 2008
2,734
0
0
Why would that even be important? Yes, it's a big deal, but in a relationship, if you like the person, you wouldn't even have to question it.
To answer the OP: yes. Simple as that.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Helmholtz Watson said:
Really? Care to back up that claim that the psychological community supports the idea that a pierced ear is more of a mutilation than a person having their penis, testicles and scrotum cut off?
Huh. I thought we were talking SRS. Are you intentionally misrepresenting SRS, or do you really not know what SRS entails?

further, do you not understand that SRS is a medical procedure that requires psychological and medical screening?
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Nurb said:
It's biological, it's built into our DNA to reproduce, and reproduce with our own genetics so that they can be passed on.
And yet we don't have people insisting they should bang 12 year olds, despite the fact that biologically we are driven to chase young tail.

Do you think we should have 30 year olds competing for barely post-pubescent girls? It's biological, after all!

Even the social aspect against going after young girls is a historically recent one.

LostGryphon said:
Well...the definition

(Websters) Mutilation-
1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect
2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of

Fits the act. You're literally reconfiguring the genitals via surgical equipment, as well as altering secondary body characteristics using the same tools. Making a comparison to earrings, which is punching a small hole through the skin/cartilage of the ear then placing a small metal/plastic object in it, is irreconcilable from a logical standpoint.
You're right. It's irreconcilable. One's making something imperfect. The other's SRS.

The thing is, you're using much softer terms than your own definition. Not to mention, much surgery is now considered mutilation by your definition. EDIT: by your application of that definition, I should say. There's actually nothing wrong with the MW definition, just the application.

As for whether or not genital manipulation is more of a mutilation than an ear piercing? I wouldn't say that you would be particularly hard pressed to find someone who would agree with you, but the vast majority of people would disagree. It's reasonable to assume that said majority would be arguing from a definite point of advantage as well.
Yes, argument by population isn't a logical fallacy or anything. It's not like cultural ideals are ephemeral. After all, the Greeks and Japanese used to have sex with young boys. If you were to ask them which was more unnatural, pederasty or invasive surgery, they might well have answered the latter.
 

SilkySkyKitten

New member
Oct 20, 2009
1,021
0
0
Sure, I don't see why hell not.

I mean, it would be like getting the best of both worlds in a sense anyway. You could get the tits AND the cock, or the pussy AND the manly nuzzle-able chest... that sounds quite fun if you ask me. :3
 

BaronUberstein

New member
Jul 14, 2011
385
0
0
Skywolf09 said:
Sure, I don't see why hell not.

I mean, it would be like getting the best of both worlds in a sense anyway. You could get the tits AND the cock, or the pussy AND the manly nuzzle-able chest... that sounds quite fun if you ask me. :3
I'd call fetishization of somebody's condition just as bad as calling them psychotic. Why in god's name are you focusing on somebody's physical bits like that? Seriously. Other people aren't just toys for your amusement.