Could You Date A Transexual?

[Helmholtz Watson]

If you really think that SRS has anything to do with cutting off the penis, scrotum, etc...then you are so ridiculously misinformed that it is fucking hilarious that you would try to debate anyone on the matter. Just thought I'd give you a head's up there.

Perhaps I am, but I still have yet to see any information where SRS is considered less of a mutilation than getting a pierced ear.

Huh. I thought we were talking SRS. Are you intentionally misrepresenting SRS, or do you really not know what SRS entails?

See previous answer.

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

Did I ever say otherwise?

 

[SilkySkyKitten]

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.

I wasn't fetishizing someone's condition, I was just stating I wouldn't mind that sort of situation. At all. And in a nonserious manner because being overly serious gets fucking annoying. And I know quite well other people aren't just toys for me to play with. I have a boyfriend. I know he's not just my little plaything, and I know very well there's more to dating someone than their physical traits. So sheesh, dude, lighten the hell up. =/

If you want a more "mature" answer: what gender someone is or associates themselves with or tries to be doesn't matter at all to me. I do have a preference for men in the end, but I wouldn't be against dating practically anyone. So yes, I would date a transexual.

There, you happy?

 

[BaronUberstein]

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.

I wasn't fetishizing someone's condition, I was just stating I wouldn't mind that sort of situation. At all. And in a nonserious manner because being overly serious gets fucking annoying. And I know quite well other people aren't just toys for me to play with. I have a boyfriend. I know he's not just my little plaything, and I know very well there's more to dating someone than their physical traits. So sheesh, dude, lighten the hell up. =/

If you want a more "mature" answer: what gender someone is or associates themselves with or tries to be doesn't matter at all to me. I do have a preference for men in the end, but I wouldn't be against dating practically anyone. So yes, I would date a transexual.

There, you happy?

Your joking response is the serious attitude of many people. Perhaps you should have made it clear you were joking. Remember that there isn't tone of voice with text, and thus you're likely to be taken at face value.

Your mature response (I don't see why you needed to put quotes, because it is the more mature response), is much better. Why? Because it isn't a dehumanizing statement reducing somebody to an object. It deals with people as people.

Perhaps I'm uptight, but as I've said, your joking response is the serious attitude of many people. I've heard that attitude stated with full seriousness by many fellow students. Where they reduce a person to nothing but an object to be used.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Perhaps I am, but I still have yet to see any information where SRS is considered less of a mutilation than getting a pierced ear.

It seems you don't understand that "mutilation" connotates a negative change, usually something involuntary. You have far more legitimacy in saying that an infant being circumsized, which is standard procedure in most developed nations, is mutilation than a completely elective gender confirmation surgery.

I wouldn't say that mutilation has to do with something involuntary, it could also cover things that a person chooses to do. Case in point, I would say that both Michael Jackson and Jocelyn Wildenstein have mutilated their own faces by abusing plastic surgery.

Or perhaps you just think that you know what is best for other people without having been in their position. Its hard to say. I try not to judge, but you're certainly implying that.

Eh, not so much. Just giving my opinion on the subject. I think it would be impossible for me to confidently tell everybody how to live their life given how many people there are that would want SRS.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

What is "abusing" though?

The way that they have used so much plastic surgery that they look nothing like their previous self and they look disgusting. I understand if your born with a cleft lip or if you want to get a little bit of "work" done, but these two people took it way too far.

You're setting your own standard for what is right, rather than letting others set their own standard, which is the sensible option since everybody is different and has differing wants and needs.

According to who, you? No, I don't have to let someone who seems addicted to plastic surgery set their own standard as to what I think is ok. You should not go from looking like this [http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/31700000/Young-Michael-michael-jackson-31756571-968-1290.jpg] to looking this [http://rense.com/general31/michaelj.jpg], unless you had some horrific accident like being trapped in a burning house.

I'm told by people I play too many videogames, but I play just the right amount that I find that suits me, rather than what suits them.

And you can stop playing video games and nobody would know the difference. The same doesn't go with plastic surgery, you can't just "undo" what you get done to your face.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

The way that they have used so much plastic surgery that they look nothing like their previous self and they look disgusting. I understand if your born with a cleft lip or if you want to get a little bit of "work" done, but these two people took it way too far.

Disgusting to you, maybe, but they're not doing it for you. They're doing it for themselves. They're happy, and they're not hurting anybody else with it, so where's the problem?

Assuming they are not a friend or relative of mine, there isn't a "problem" as long as they don't expect me to view them the same way I would view anybody else, because the fact is that they don't look normal. That isn't to say that I would gawk at anybody who has plastic surgery, because it can be done right [http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18bpqlg6tlaudjpg/original.jpg], just that I'm not going to be part of some modern version of The Emperor's New Clothes [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes] and not say that the emperor is naked.

Again, you're setting your own standards, and defining what other people do as addiction. I'm sure some people think you're addicted to videogames and that you're harming yourself, but do those protestations really matter to you?

Also, Michael Jackson DID have some burn injuries, mostly on his scalp, but some on his face as well.

First off, I never denied setting my own standard. Second, I don't play video games for more that 15 hours a week, so your example doesn't hold up. Finally, his scalp isn't his nose and that also wouldn't explain the reason why he felt the need to dye his skin.

Except for me. I would suffer.

How would you "suffer"?

And you can't undo living any moment of your life that you were miserable - its gone forever, and you've missed out on an oppurtunity at more happiness in your life.

But you can make new friends, you can't get your nose back if you get multiple plastic surgeries.

 

[Something Amyss]

Did I ever say otherwise?

Kinda undercutting yourself with that one.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

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.

If you'll read the second paragraph again, I admitted that under the definition being used, ear piercings technically fall under the banner of mutilation. My application is too broad, if anything, though pretty much anything that alters something via surgery could be considered mutilation...unless you're cutting out a tumor or something, though if you want to get really technical/philosophical about it, you're altering that person's individual body's concept of "perfection" which is certainly not perfect in comparison to the norm... etc.

It's sort of a cluster fuck if you take it to the extremes.

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.

And no. I don't believe that an argument by majority is evidence for one concept being valuable and another not. In this particular instance, however, as in many others, the majority has a damned good point.

I'm not talking about culture either. I'm limiting it to the definition of the term and attempting to apply degrees to the idea. Do you, personally, view earrings as more of a body "alteration" than genital manipulation?

 

[BaronUberstein]

Perhaps I'm uptight, but as I've said, your joking response is the serious attitude of many people. I've heard that attitude stated with full seriousness by many fellow students. Where they reduce a person to nothing but an object to be used.

Her "joking response" wasn't even the slightest bit derogatory. A big part of a transsexual is that they very well may be equipped with all sorts of things, like cocks, boobs, etc, that people tend to enjoy on one level or another. If someone has a taste for, or simply a curious interest in the idea of there being both a set of boobs and a cock, that's just the way it is. It has nothing to do with objectifying people.

Defining a person by just their sexual organs is probably the most basic form of turning them into an object, of stripping them of their humanity.

It's normal to be attracted to something, it's insulting to remove all of something from somebody except the physical.

 

[AngloDoom]

Read this title as "Could you defeat a transsexual?

To answer both questions, I'm new to the idea so I'm not sure: I suppose it depends what equipment they're carrying, I guess.

 

[Da Orky Man]

An open question to those who keep saying they want to have kids: Do you screen ALL your romantic partners for childbearing capacity? My ex has a problem with her uterus. While she's born female and has all the right parts, she can't have kids barring some medical breakthrough. Do you ask people if they're childbearing before you get into a relationship, or is this a trans-only issue?

All transsexuals may not aspire to be beautiful women, but I rather expect they all aspire to be convincing women.

As opposed to this "unconvincing" women we were just talking about?

I may not know many transexuals, but I doubt they aspire to look like this:

 

[KerryBamBerry]

I think I would be able to. As long as there was some attraction, we got along and they made me laugh. Thats pretty much all I ask for.

 

[Da Orky Man]

Perhaps I am, but I still have yet to see any information where SRS is considered less of a mutilation than getting a pierced ear.

It seems you don't understand that "mutilation" connotates a negative change, usually something involuntary. You have far more legitimacy in saying that an infant being circumsized, which is standard procedure in most developed nations, is mutilation than a completely elective gender confirmation surgery.

Circumcision is most certainly not standard procedure in developed nations.The USA, Canada and Australia are almost the only developed nations that practice circumcision for anything other than purely religious reasons:

That image was taken from a World Health Organisation report, linked to below. Please ensure you know the figures first.


http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596169_eng.pdf

 

[Something Amyss]

No its not, we are just saying that if a person is born male with xy chromosomes and they get surgery to look like a women, it doesn't change their chromosomes.

And saying that is completely meaningless.

Do you have any credible medical sources to back up your claim towards the notion that chromosomes don't play a role in determining if a person is male or female, because just saying "I know a "professional" who disagrees with you, take my word for it" is not a very convincing stance.

Have you ever taken a single look at this?

From your posts, I'm guessing no. Because a simple google search would be enough to turn up such cases (not to mention debunk a lot of your other specious claims in this thread), and if you went on google scholar.... It's kind of sad, because you skipped right over the dude who used a basic understanding of high school science to explain how genetics aren't the part that intrinsically matters to ask me this.

Let me ask you another question: If you can have an XY woman who has primary sexual characteristics, can develop secondary sexual characteristics, can mesntruate, get pregnant, and carry young to term....I shouldn't even say if, but SINCE. Since you have women out there like that, what difference does it make if they have "male chromosomes?"

(external factors may be necessary to maintain such a pregnancy, incidentally, but that does not immediately mean a chromosome issue).

If your girlfriend/wife had a child with you, then was determined to be "male" by some genetic screening process, would you dump her? Tell her she wasn't a woman? What? Would you pull an Oedipus Rex when you learned the "truth?"

I think it's little more than an excuse that people hide behind to make their bigotry less obvious.

This is probably true, but I was wondering if anyone could provide a reason. Or, alternatively, maybe this would spark something in their minds. There are women out there, biological women, with XY chromosomes, too, so that's a bogus reason too. I doubt anyone seriously screens their partner's chromosomes for signs of genetic gender differences, either. Depending on the XY female instance, they can even go so far as to have kids and possibly not know they're not "real" women by these interesting standards unless something goes wrong.

Again, people slap "science!" on prejudice and want it to have validity, but I was hoping maybe someone would put thought into it.

Sheared Content

I appreciate your candor.

You can't just slap "science" on your beliefs either.

How fortunate I am neither slapping science on my statements nor erroneously calling them beliefs.

You are free to continue your insistence, but that doesn't give your superstitions any inherent validity. I'm sorry, sweetie, I really am. This is why those people who do all those surgeries, those doctors who recommend and screen them, all seem to disagree with you on the concept of gender.