Transgender

u say it

a big clit is a dick. Change My Mind.

  On 8/17/2018 at 11:29 AM, darreichungsform said:

In the end a clit is something like a mini willy

Sexual stuff (lately) has gained acceptance much quicker than say race. Or I'm told. I am not a minority. So, I don't know the experience.  We've been wishy washy in the sex department for thousands years. 

  On 8/18/2018 at 12:37 AM, Stickfigger said:

 

  On 8/17/2018 at 11:22 AM, Amen Warrior said:

 

  On 8/17/2018 at 9:38 AM, darreichungsform said:

But there IS a difference between women and transwomen?

In a purely reproductive sense I suppose, but kissing a trans woman won't make you gay dw ;)

There's this idea that trans women are being deceitful if they don't immediately divulge their trans status before any sort of physical contact, like they have HIV or something.

Should a man with a micropenis divulge that information on a first date? Should a lady with extra long dangly fanny flaps warn a man about it before they've shared their first kiss?

Men and women are different in more than a reproductive sense. Come on. Look at most species on the planet and things like sexual dimorphism or whatever, the idea that the only differences are in sex organs is completely ludicrous

  On 8/17/2018 at 12:16 PM, Salvatorin said:

a big clit is a dick. Change My Mind.

Check out hyenas - they are matriarchal and the dominant female walks around with a raging clit

https://vimeo.com/19707588

all pictures of transgender persons should legally be required to have digitally unremovable watermark warnings declaring the sex the person in the photo was born as. we don't want anyone accidentally wanking to a big perky pair of tits but it turns out are on a woman who was born male. I want my fake tits only on women born as females

/s (if it wasn't obvious)

*slap bass* whats the deeeal with transgender people?

  On 8/18/2018 at 2:13 AM, auxien said:

all pictures of transgender persons should legally be required to have digitally unremovable watermark warnings declaring the sex the person in the photo was born as. we don't want anyone accidentally wanking to a big perky pair of tits but it turns out are on a woman who was born male. I want my fake tits only on women born as females

 

/s (if it wasn't obvious)

slow scroll down picture only to realise dick

plus, why do i always spell realise realize ?

what if i told you, mandella effect...

  On 8/18/2018 at 2:13 AM, auxien said:

all pictures of transgender persons should legally be required to have digitally unremovable watermark warnings declaring the sex the person in the photo was born as. we don't want anyone accidentally wanking to a big perky pair of tits but it turns out are on a woman who was born male. I want my fake tits only on women born as females

 

/s (if it wasn't obvious)

as I said, big clits are dicks.

You can't take a piss with a big clit though

  On 8/18/2018 at 7:47 AM, goDel said:

You can't take a piss with a big clit though

You can't feed a baby with you buttocks either yet butt cheeks are nippleless tits. How do you explain THIS?

By explaining what you actually mean with "are". A very difficult subject. But I could explain it really well. If I tried.

OK, that's what I wanted to know. Thanks mate

  On 8/18/2018 at 8:04 AM, goDel said:

By explaining what you actually mean with "are". A very difficult subject. But I could explain it really well. If I tried.

yeah I feel all discussions on this stuff come down to these kind of philosofical axioms

  On 8/15/2018 at 2:03 AM, MIXL2 said:

and so im curious as to how much of what is commonly known as male privilege has to do exclusively with being male and/or having more disagreeable/assertive personality traits..

It's a combination of

1. employing stereotypical masculinity, such as walking in a straight line and assuming everyone else will get out of your way, and
2. other people, perceiving you as male, employing stereotypical femininity, such as walking around you so that you can do so

Which is, interestingly, formalised in old fashioned dancing, with its leader/follower dichotomy, those roles given to men and women respectively.  Only there's these rules for everything, and much like learning a language, people learn to intuit and internalise them while young rather than sitting down and reading them.  Which is another way the whole aspie thing comes into play, as such people often don't pick up on these cues.

This is why some newly-transitioned trans men (who were mistakenly raised as girls) will still walk around others even though they don't need to, and some newly-transitioned trans women (who were mistakenly raised as boys) will walk into people.  Only it applies to absolutely everything.  (Such as having the audacity to actually speak up at meetings, and other people having the politeness to actually hear you, two separate and very much related issues.)  Trans people often have pretty good insights into how bad sexism is because they have firsthand experience of seeing it from two different angles.  For instance, when Ben Barres gave a seminar after transitioning, a faculty member famously remarked how his work was "much better than his sister's".  He gave the exact same man's work more credibility when he wasn't mistaking him for a woman.

This is why we're trying a multi-pronged approach in feminism, to encourage women to be more assertive, and also to promote the idea that being less assertive isn't a bad thing.  Though these two messages can lead to infighting, I think it's important to decouple them, to realise both that women aren't inherently feminine and men aren't inherently masculine, and also that femininity is as equally valid as masculinity.

Of course, this is all a gross oversimplification.

I have a counterpoint to make, but as godel said.. better not in this forum :^)

  On 8/15/2018 at 5:25 PM, darreichungsform said:

to me the transwoman in the video seems like an actor. very stilted and while you would say she is authentic if you knew that she is a theater actor I would call her appearance inauthentic as an actual person. I can't describe it but she constantly seems like disguising her voice to a higher pitch, reciting a well rehearsed speech and acting like a caricature of a women. don't get me wrong, I have no problem with it at all and she makes some excellent points about gender inequality/inequity. but it's a bit weird to watch a person that appears so fake talking about the "call of authenticity"

Leaving aside for a second that you're judging as inauthentic the performance of someone on a stage, in front of an audience, what she's doing with her voice is compensating for a medical issue.  Learning to compensate for the damage done by testosterone is somewhat akin to learning to walk again with physiotherapy.  You could say it comes across as inauthentic, but that's kind of missing the point.  Testosterone's effects are generally (though not completely) more prominent and irreversible than oestrogen's, which is why trans men tend to pass for cis better than trans women.  Trans men don't need to learn to compensate for the effects of oestrogen on their voice, but I think it would be absurd to say they're more authentic than trans women.  Similarly, trans women who transition before puberty also don't have to compensate for the effects of testosterone on their voice, and again, because they don't have to learn to compensate for a medical issue, I don't think we can say they're any more "real", just that their voices haven't been ruined by a medical condition.  So there's that.

Incidentally, the term you're looking for is "trans woman", adjective then noun.  You wouldn't talk about a "gaywoman" (etymology of "lesbian" aside), a "blackwoman", a "lefthandedwoman" etc.  Same here.  All are types of women, not in a separate category entirely.

Please don't drag me into your argument. Or here non-argument. I very much appreciate zoebs contributions around here. She just wrote a long response to you. If you want to engage, please do. If not, ...euh just reread your post. Was that warrented?

@mixl

  On 8/16/2018 at 8:50 PM, azatoth said:

I would also think that misogyny is why trans women are more visible in the discourse than trans men. Considering there's this whole TERF thing too.

Yes, I think it's partly because there are biological reasons why trans men can pass for cis better than trans women (assuming transitioning after puberty, which is thankfully less often the case now), and partly the one-two punch of bigots misgendering trans people and also being sexist against who they perceive as women.  Even TERFs, who attempt to be against who they perceive as men, treat trans women as men who they therefore assume are predators, and trans men as women who they therefore assume were passively tricked, apparently being unable to think for themselves, and lacking their own agency.  TERFs have very bad ideas, apparently the result of internalising a lot of misogyny.

See also: lesbians are represented more than gay men in fiction, but not in a realistic way, so much as a stereotypical way intended to cater to the assumed straight male audience's gaze.  You ever notice that double standard where a lesbian couple are assumed to grow out of it and be two straight women one day, whereas a guy who even thinks about dating another guy is forever tainted as gay?  Society has issues, manifesting as bizarre double standards.

Trans women are popular in fiction, but only as tragic figures, punchlines, and serial killers.  Comparatively, still far too many people don't seem to realise that trans men even exist.  (Even scientists focused on trans women rather than trans men, and only straight trans women at that.)  This makes sense if you suspect that's because all these depictions are for the benefit of straight, cis men, who might fetishise "exotic" women but not men.

  On 8/18/2018 at 1:17 PM, ZoeB said:

 

  On 8/16/2018 at 8:50 PM, azatoth said:

I would also think that misogyny is why trans women are more visible in the discourse than trans men. Considering there's this whole TERF thing too.

 

 This makes sense if you suspect that's because all these depictions are for the benefit of straight, cis men, who might fetishise "exotic" women but not men.

Interesting posts, but want to push you back a bit on this. As it attempts to explain something as some malign conscious effort, which is, imo, mostly born from ignorance instead of a conscious effort. As most things people say or do are in a way self-beneficial in the sense that things we say tend to confirm our own realities. This is not a thing uniquely to cis straight men. And, imo, it really doesnt help anyone to give it a stamp like that.

Fact of the matter remains that the way transgender can be portrayed in culture can be ignorant and hold little relation to reality. But there's also a sense of irony. Especially when it comes to fiction. As fiction is essentially what it says it is: fiction. At which point we could enter a discussion where we might argue about what a world would look like with fiction respecting all kinds of perspectives people might have. And what that fiction would look like. But ultimately we have to accept that mainstream culture is a thing of the masses. And a reflection thereof. Whether we like it or not. Would I want a new and improved culture? Most definitely! Could we please get rid of this superhero culture? Yes please!

Addressing cis male dominance can be useful. And is def a thing to address. But saying "all these depictions are for the benefit of..." really destorts the issue we're trying to improve, imo. Or in others words, being a cis straight man, I don't see any benefit for me and my "compatriots" to begin with. Could be my prevelidged ignorance. But it's equally likely there's a more benign explanation. To say the least. And from where I'm standing, that looks like a better explanation, tbh.

  On 8/18/2018 at 1:00 PM, goDel said:

Please don't drag me into your argument. Or here non-argument. I very much appreciate zoebs contributions around here. She just wrote a long response to you. If you want to engage, please do. If not, ...euh just reread your post. Was that warrented?

 

@mixl

That last point in the last paragraph was something I'd never considered ZoeB. Makes perfect sense of course, thanks

  On 8/18/2018 at 12:37 AM, Stickfigger said:

 

  On 8/17/2018 at 11:22 AM, Amen Warrior said:

 

  On 8/17/2018 at 9:38 AM, darreichungsform said:

But there IS a difference between women and transwomen?

In a purely reproductive sense I suppose, but kissing a trans woman won't make you gay dw ;)

 

There's this idea that trans women are being deceitful if they don't immediately divulge their trans status before any sort of physical contact, like they have HIV or something.

Should a man with a micropenis divulge that information on a first date? Should a lady with extra long dangly fanny flaps warn a man about it before they've shared their first kiss?

Men and women are different in more than a reproductive sense. Come on. Look at most species on the planet and things like sexual dimorphism or whatever, the idea that the only differences are in sex organs is completely ludicrous

We're not talking about the differences between men and women though are we? The subject is transgenderism, and depending on the stage of their transition a trans person can to all intents and purposes be identical to their cis counterpart, except for the reproductive system. Especially if they started their transition before puberty.

My comment was more about it being unusual for anyone to discuss their genitals when first meeting someone, or in the earliest stages of a relationship, yet it's expected of trans people lest they be murdered. Completely fucked

  On 8/18/2018 at 1:17 PM, ZoeB said:

 

  On 8/16/2018 at 8:50 PM, azatoth said:

I would also think that misogyny is why trans women are more visible in the discourse than trans men. Considering there's this whole TERF thing too.

Yes, I think it's partly because there are biological reasons why trans men can pass for cis better than trans women (assuming transitioning after puberty, which is thankfully less often the case now), and partly the one-two punch of bigots misgendering trans people and also being sexist against who they perceive as women. Even TERFs, who attempt to be against who they perceive as men, treat trans women as men who they therefore assume are predators, and trans men as women who they therefore assume were passively tricked, apparently being unable to think for themselves, and lacking their own agency. TERFs have very bad ideas, apparently the result of internalising a lot of misogyny.

 

See also: lesbians are represented more than gay men in fiction, but not in a realistic way, so much as a stereotypical way intended to cater to the assumed straight male audience's gaze. You ever notice that double standard where a lesbian couple are assumed to grow out of it and be two straight women one day, whereas a guy who even thinks about dating another guy is forever tainted as gay? Society has issues, manifesting as bizarre double standards.

 

Trans women are popular in fiction, but only as tragic figures, punchlines, and serial killers. Comparatively, still far too many people don't seem to realise that trans men even exist. (Even scientists focused on trans women rather than trans men, and only straight trans women at that.) This makes sense if you suspect that's because all these depictions are for the benefit of straight, cis men, who might fetishise "exotic" women but not men.

Great post. I had definitely subconsciously noticed that double standard re gay men and lesbians, thank you for elucidating it. Porn 100% enforces that false lesbian trope, I wonder to what extent it's responsible for it in the mainstream