Support NeoGAF

[Simplet]

you have yet to provide any evidence for "not born gay" though. Do you have a study in mind suggestive of other factors?

Nope. I just have a really hard time imagining you can be born attracted to males when you don't even now what a male is (same thing for females by the way). I haven't seen anything so far that would make me change my mind (everything rather seems to confirm this), but then again I have a hard time imagining a way to reliably control whether your sexuality is fixed the instant you're born, a month later, 3 years later or 7 (at this point it probably gets a lot easier to test it).

 

[Mumei]

Once again, yes. Genetics and prenatal environment are most decidedly a factor. Still not convinced about the being born gay thing, and still not convinced there's a scientific consensus around it.

That might be because the focus of this discussion has not been about establishing consensus but attempting to educate you about the evidence. If you're interested in consensus, here's a few things:

American Society of Psychiatrics

"Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood."

Royal College of Psychiatrists

"Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice."

Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab state in the abstract of their 2010 study, "The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation."

The consensus that the evidence for homosexuality being caused by pre-natal environment and genetic factors is so strong that members of anti-gay groups have gone out of their way to create front groups like the American College of Pediatrics, which was formed by six pediatricians who opposed the adoption of a position by the 60,000 member American Academy of Pediatrics in support of gay parents; 15 people in total founded it. This organization was created to play a similar role NARTH does in terms of attempting to give a scholarly veneer to bigotry and misrepresenting legitimate research.

The mere fact that you yourself are not convinced does not indicate that there isn't a consensus; it simply indicates that you are opposed to the consensus.

 

[Simplet]

That might be because the focus of this discussion has not been about establishing consensus but attempting to educate you about the evidence. If you're interested in consensus, here's a few things:

American Society of Psychiatrics

"Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood."

Royal College of Psychiatrists

"Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice."

Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab state in the abstract of their 2010 study, "The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation."

The consensus that the evidence for homosexuality being caused by pre-natal environment and genetic factors is so strong that members of anti-gay groups have gone out of their way to create front groups like the American College of Pediatrics, which was formed by six pediatricians who opposed the adoption of a position by the 60,000 member American Academy of Pediatrics in support of gay parents; 15 people in total founded it. This organization was created to play a similar role NARTH does in terms of attempting to give a scholarly veneer to bigotry and misrepresenting legitimate research.

The mere fact that you yourself are not convinced does not indicate that there isn't a consensus; it simply indicates that you are opposed to the consensus.

"Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences... Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood."

eh?

 

[Captain Sparrow]

Take the people who are attracted to young children, animals, or inanimate objects. Are they born that way? Do they have any say in the matter?

We are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex to procreate. Are we not? Where do we draw the line as to what is acceptable?

 

[Gaborn]

Nope. I just have a really hard time imagining you can be born attracted to males when you don't even now what a male is (same thing for females by the way). I haven't seen anything so far that would make me change my mind (everything rather seems to confirm this), but then again I have a hard time imagining a way to reliably control whether your sexuality is fixed the instant you're born, a month later, 3 years later or 7 (at this point it probably gets a lot easier to test it).

Sexual attraction (the idea that some things are sexually attractive, not necessarily speaking in terms of orientation) have ALWAYS been hard wired in pretty much every species. In fact, it's the entire basis of... well, everything. Your inability to rationalize sexual attraction comes from the fact it's not really rational why we like what we like. I mean, I think there is a lot about sexual attractions that are probably experience driven, fetishes for example, but the basic frame work of a sexual orientation is largely in place by the time we're born even if it's not finally actuated until puberty on a conscious level.

 

[Simplet]

Sexual attraction (the idea that some things are sexually attractive, not necessarily speaking in terms of orientation) have ALWAYS been hard wired in pretty much every species. In fact, it's the entire basis of... well, everything. Your inability to rationalize sexual attraction comes from the fact it's not really rational why we like what we like. I mean, I think there is a lot about sexual attractions that are probably experience driven, fetishes for example, but the basic frame work of a sexual orientation is largely in place by the time we're born even if it's not finally actuated until puberty on a conscious level.

So you pretty much agree with me? Why are we having this discussion then?

 

[Sibylus]

Take the people who are attracted to young children, animals, or inanimate objects. Are they born that way? Do they have any say in the matter?

We are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex to procreate. Are we not? Where do we draw the line as to what is acceptable?

Those who can't (or won't) distinguish between what improves quality of life and what builds up the social fabric (homosexuality) and what degrades quality of life and destroys the social fabric (pedophilia), they are hardly capable of drawing lines about what is moral and acceptable and what is not.

Take your slippery slope and go for a tumble.

 

[Gaborn]

So you pretty much agree with me? Why are we having this discussion then?

I didn't say I agreed with you, I said that sexual attraction is largely hard wired. From there yes, I think sexual orientation, that is, the direction our sexual attraction is focused is wired too, it would be rational for it to be that way because a species that has most of it's members attracted to the opposite sex would rationally have a better chance of surviving than one where most of the members are attracted to the same sex.

However, I see more room there for different degrees. For example, I brought up fetishes. Fetishes are a relatively minor thing in the framework of sexual attraction but there are clearly instances where external factors influence fetishism of different things.

I can clearly see how sexual attraction forms though, humans are a largely hormonally driven species and we can be triggered by different chemical receptors. The "scent of a man" (or woman of course) if you will is a driver of sexual attraction.

 

[Captain Sparrow]

Those who can't (or won't) distinguish between what improves quality of life and what builds up the social fabric (homosexuality) and what degrades quality of life and destroys the social fabric (pedophilia), they are hardly capable of drawing lines about what is moral and acceptable and what is not.

Take your slippery slope and go for a tumble.

So to add to the list of factors that affect orientation: genetics, environment, hormonal, we now have philosophical. Only the most beneficial to your being is what you will choose to like! Hopefully, more people choose to be socially beneficial homosexuals, for our sake.

Anyone care to take a stab at economics? There has to be a study out there that said a lot of lower class people were found to be gay, therefore income is relative to sexuality.

 

[Gaborn]

So to add to the list of factors that affect orientation: genetics, environment, hormonal, we now have philosophical. Only the most beneficial to your being is what you will choose to like! Hopefully, more people choose to be socially beneficial homosexuals, for our sake.

Anyone care to take a stab at economics? There has to be a study out there that said a lot of lower class people were found to be gay, therefore income is relative to sexuality.

Most studies indicate gays are more affluent than straight people actually, although part of that is probably that it is easier for a more well off person to be openly gay.

 

[Simplet]

I didn't say I agreed with you, I said that sexual attraction is largely hard wired. From there yes, I think sexual orientation, that is, the direction our sexual attraction is focused is wired too, it would be rational for it to be that way because a species that has most of it's members attracted to the opposite sex would rationally have a better chance of surviving than one where most of the members are attracted to the same sex.

However, I see more room there for different degrees. For example, I brought up fetishes. Fetishes are a relatively minor thing in the framework of sexual attraction but there are clearly instances where external factors influence fetishism of different things.

I can clearly see how sexual attraction forms though, humans are a largely hormonally driven species and we can be triggered by different chemical receptors. The "scent of a man" (or woman of course) if you will is a driver of sexual attraction.

Right. It's a little bit like micro-evolution and macro-evolution eh?

I'm being unfair here but I'm a little bit tired of this discussion. For all the rivers of condescension you guys have poured over me so far, I have to say you have utterly failed to put a dent in my belief that there isn't any scientific consensus for "born" sexual orientation. If anything you've cemented my opinion to the contrary (which was already fairly well-documented and didn't really need it but still).

Once again, let's just agree to disagree, I have some work I need to be doing. I am just hoping that you might stop bullying people with what I'm going to call your beliefs, that is to say things that are still very much up in the air in terms of human knowledge.

 

[Mumei]

Right. It's a little bit like micro-evolution and macro-evolution eh?

I'm being unfair here but I'm a little bit tired of this discussion. For all the rivers of condescension you guys have poured over me so far, I have to say you have utterly failed to put a dent in my belief that there isn't any scientific consensus for "born" sexual orientation. If anything you've cimented my opinion to the contrary (which was already fairly well-documented and didn't really need it but still).

Once again, let's just agree to disagree, I have some work I need to be doing. I am just hoping that you might stop bullying people with what I'm going to call your beliefs, that is to say things that are still very much up in the air in terms of human knowledge.

I wasn't even beginning to condescend to you.

And you're not being unfair; you're being disingenuous. It is not possible to put a dent in something that you hold as an article of faith, and in spite of the evidence. You repeatedly were given information about the evidence for genetics (twin studies, sibling studies) and pre-natal environment (birth order studies, prenatal hormones)

If you possessed even the slightest ability to evaluate and synthesize evidence, you would have come to the conclusion on your own from what we had provided you that the consensus was clear. Instead, you continued to lie and say that there wasn't a scientific consensus. When presented with position statements from major health organizations stating that there is no evidence for post-natal causes, you did what is to be expected from a disingenuous person; you quote-mined for a single line without taking it in context. What's more, despite our asking you repeatedly to provide the same sort of documentation for your ideas - ideas which when you finally got around to elucidating them were laughable out of date - you simply ignored our requests in lieu of refusing to engage whatever evidence we presented but instead passive aggressively disagreeing with it.

There was no condescension; we were giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you didn't understand some of the terminology, were simply unaware of the scientific consensus, and were on some points perhaps meaning similar things but arguing at cross-purposes.

Instead you proved to be duplicitous. I'm shocked.

 

[Simplet]

I wasn't even beginning to condescend to you.

And you're not being unfair; you're being disingenuous. It is not possible to put a dent in something that you hold as an article of faith, and in spite of the evidence. You repeatedly were given information about the evidence for genetics (twin studies, sibling studies) and pre-natal environment (birth order studies, prenatal hormones)

If you possessed even the slightest ability to evaluate and synthesize evidence, you would have come to the conclusion on your own from what we had provided you that the consensus was clear. Instead, you continued to lie and say that there wasn't a scientific consensus. When presented with position statements from major health organizations stating that there is no evidence for post-natal causes, you did what is to be expected from a disingenuous person; you quote-mined for a single line without taking it in context. What's more, despite our asking you repeatedly to provide the same sort of documentation for your ideas - ideas which when you finally got around to elucidating them were laughable out of date - you simply ignored our requests in lieu of refusing to engage whatever evidence we presented but instead passive aggressively disagreeing with it.

There was no condescension; we were giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you didn't understand some of the terminology, were simply unaware of the scientific consensus, and were on some points perhaps meaning similar things but arguing at cross-purposes.

Instead you proved to be duplicitous. I'm shocked.

What the fuck, I'm starting to get angry now. "If you possessed even the slightest ability to evaluate and synthesize evidence, you would have come to the conclusion on your own from what we had provided you that the consensus was clear." That is not fucking condescncion? Are you fucking kidding me?

As for that consensus you came back with 2 different fucking quotes, one of which fucking stated that according to our knowledge sexual orientation is fixed during early infancy. You went to search for the best quotes to support your position that everyone agrees with you and you came back with one quote out of two stating exactly the opposite? What the fuck? And you have the nerve to come back and call me disingenuous?

I'd very much like to know who here is arguing from an ideological point of view and who is just looking at the evidence? You think I give a fuck whether people are born gay or not? I thought I could have a discussion here, but this is exactly like talking to creationists.

 

[Mumei]

What the fuck, I'm starting to get angry now. "If you possessed even the slightest ability to evaluate and synthesize evidence, you would have come to the conclusion on your own from what we had provided you that the consensus was clear." That is not fucking condescncion? Are you fucking kidding me?

Dear, I said I wasn't being condescending. I didn't say I wasn't going to start. And I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your nonsense.

 

[Gaborn]

What the fuck, I'm starting to get angry now. "If you possessed even the slightest ability to evaluate and synthesize evidence, you would have come to the conclusion on your own from what we had provided you that the consensus was clear." That is not fucking condescncion? Are you fucking kidding me?

As for that consensus you came back with 2 different fucking quotes, one of which fucking stated that according to our knowledge sexual orientation is fixed during early infancy. You went to search for the best quotes to support your position that everyone agrees with you and you came back with one quote out of two stating exactly the opposite? What the fuck? And you have the nerve to come back and call me disingenuous?

I'd very much like to know who here is arguing from an ideological point of view and who is just looking at the evidence? You think I give a fuck whether people are born gay or not? I thought I could have a discussion here, but this is exactly like talking to creationists.

The point is we have PROVIDED evidence and support for our views. You have provided... well, your belief.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I thought I could have a discussion here, but this is exactly like talking to creationists.

Isn't it?

Edit: <--- check dat postcount

 

[Dead Man]

Dear, I said I wasn't being condescending. I didn't say I wasn't going to start. And I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your nonsense.

 

[Simplet]

The point is we have PROVIDED evidence and support for our views. You have provided... well, your belief.

You want me to prove that there is no consensus that sexual orientation is fixed at birth? That's really easy, I just have to copy-paste the paragraph from the American Society of Psychiatrics that Mumei quoted earlier. There, it's done.

American Society of Psychiatrics

"Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood."

 

[squidyj]

You want me to prove that there is no consensus that sexual orientation is fixed at birth? That's really easy, I just have to copy-paste the paragraph from the American Society of Psychiatrics that Mumei quoted earlier. There, it's done.

Why do I only ever pop back in near the end of the trainwrecks?

 

[Gaborn]

You want me to prove that there is no consensus that sexual orientation is fixed at birth? That's really easy, I just have to copy-paste the paragraph from the American Society of Psychiatrics that Mumei quoted earlier. There, it's done.

That doesn't support your position though. Read it again:

"Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.

All of this SHOULD be clear to you, except environment. You have to understand from a developmental stand point the number one environment is the womb.

In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts.

Exactly. The consensus is that it's determined by your biology, influenced in part by the womb (aka your mother's biological environment)

Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations,

Sure. Female sexuality seems to be different and more fluid than man sexuality. Is that because it is actually more fluid or because the cultural pressure on men is stronger to not experiment or act outside of heterosexuality? That isn't saying anything about the origin of homosexuality.

there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood."

And I think that completely addresses the rest of your concerns.

 

[Simplet]

I don't even know what to say anymore.

All I can hope for is that some posters will come back to this thread, point the obvious, and I might win this argument through raw numbers. I don't think there is anything I can do otherwise. But I'll just consider myself lucky if I don't drown under cat gifs. You guys win.

 

[Dead Man]

I don't even know what to say anymore.

All I can hope for is that some posters will come back to this thread, point the obvious, and I might win this argument through raw numbers. I don't think there is anything I can do otherwise. But I'll just consider myself lucky if I don't drown under cat gifs. You guys win.

You haven't made any arguments though, all you have done is describe your position.

Edit: What is 'the obvious'?

 

[Yagharek]

Just on the thread topic, it depends.

One night stand: no obligation.
Insert sliding scale here
Lifelong commitment: probably should tell their partner.

I can't imagine how difficult it could be to tell someone though. There would be all sorts of repercussions. Shock, horror, surprise would all be expected from many people as possible reactions and this stems from the social acceptance of transgender/ intersex people as a whole. People are generally raised with nice neat little expectations about male/female and there isn't a wide appreciation that sexuality, gender etc are on a spectrum.

Maybe ideally, one day, there will be a mature climate where people aren't afraid to be up front because everyone else readily accepts transgender people as just another part of a wide array.

I can't imagine how I would react if presented with the scenario because I know it doesn't apply to me or my wife. But if it were the case, I couldn't imagine walking away from 12 years together over something like that, especially when you're in love. But it would also be upsetting to find out that the other person found it so hard to talk about too.

I feel for people who have to deal with dilemmas like this.

 

[Devolution]

I don't even know what to say anymore.

All I can hope for is that some posters will come back to this thread, point the obvious, and I might win this argument through raw numbers. I don't think there is anything I can do otherwise. But I'll just consider myself lucky if I don't drown under cat gifs. You guys win.

You should just back the fuck out since you've displayed a clear anti-homosexual agenda.

 

[JoeBoy101]

Speaking on the topic:

I agree for the most part with Vince. Its fairly situational.

In the context of a relationship, I'd say yes. Not because I view transgenders differently, but that kind of secret is going to come out anyways when the relationship becomes physical. Further, if you're trying to having a relationship, isn't better to be up front and open to your partner?

In the context of a fling/one-night stand/whatever I'd suggest doing so, not out of obligation, but because it would avoid awkward situations that could become hairy depending on the other person's reaction. I'm not saying transgenders need to walk up and introduce themselves as such, wear badges or whatnot, but it might be wise that if/when interacting with someone and its clearly headed to being physical, it would be best to make sure they know where its headed.

 

[akira28]

Gaborn, Sparrow and Simplet seem to be arguing about matters that do not consent this topic, I would subject someone creates a new thread to discuss the gay choice or no issue, here let me give a little hipotetical so you guys have fun: "What if like some medical doctor finds a "cure" for homosexuality and proves it to work 100% and the conservatives are like, trying to pass a law to have all natal hospitals use the procedure in the name of "eliminating birth defects" "

That would be so interesting. I'd watch that movie just to see how it played out. I'm guessing we'd see some true colors, and that lots of people wouldn't even second guess it, almost not even needing a law to be passed.

 

[Yoshiya]

http://home60515.com/3.html




It's this kind of stuff that makes me agree with not legalizing gay marriage. I'm not a crazy bible-thumping Christian stuck on the sanctity of mmarriage, but I do not believe young children should be subject into environments like this. The more society gives, the more the homosexual community wants to spread. When do we draw the line?

I wasn't sexually abused. Suggesting that I was is extremely offensive to me and my family. Fuck off with this bigoted, clearly agenda-driven bullshit ("pro-homosexual media"). Those abuse statistics are clearly untrue too. Now, I think arguments for a gay gene or whatever are weak, but clearly orientation is on a spectrum and determined by a number of pre-natal, biological and environmental factors. It's probably difficult to pin down a cause because a single one simply doesn't exist. Binary sexuality in general is probably a socially-convenient collective deception. Posting this vile shit asserting that every case of non-heterosexuality is caused by childhood sexual abuse is abhorrent, inexcusable and clearly untrue. "Vile" and "abhorrent" are words I'd use for you as well, as it happens.

Enjoy the ban.

(Before I'm jumped on by a mod, I implore you to actually read what he quoted and highlighted. I am not going to sexually abuse children, I was not abused, I am not a threat. I do not need to be shunned and forced into reparative therapy. This is the most disgusting post I've ever read on this forum.)

Edit edit: Not that I'm implying that any case of homosexuality is caused by childhood sexual abuse, I was just furious to have him throw this shit at me personally. Disgusting.

 

[Simplet]

You should just back the fuck out since you've displayed a clear anti-homosexual agenda.

*sigh*

 

[Pollux]

http://home60515.com/3.html




It's this kind of stuff that makes me agree with not legalizing gay marriage. I'm not a crazy bible-thumping Christian stuck on the sanctity of mmarriage, but I do not believe young children should be subject into environments like this. The more society gives, the more the homosexual community wants to spread. When do we draw the line?

You're source...is HETEROSEXUALS ORGANIZED FOR A MORAL ENVIRONMENT...you must be joking.

Wow...

 

[Devolution]

*sigh*

You and Sparrow have pretty much shat up a thread about transgenders with your willfully ignorant bullshit about homosexuality.

 

[Yagharek]

Speaking on the topic:

I agree for the most part with Vince. Its fairly situational.

In the context of a relationship, I'd say yes. Not because I view transgenders differently, but that kind of secret is going to come out anyways when the relationship becomes physical. Further, if you're trying to having a relationship, isn't better to be up front and open to your partner?

In the context of a fling/one-night stand/whatever I'd suggest doing so, not out of obligation, but because it would avoid awkward situations that could become hairy depending on the other person's reaction. I'm not saying transgenders need to walk up and introduce themselves as such, wear badges or whatnot, but it might be wise that if/when interacting with someone and its clearly headed to being physical, it would be best to make sure they know where its headed.

Pretty sure we are reading off the same page here, as I agree with your comments too. Lots of factors to consider.

If I may take a minor detour with respect to captain sparrow...

As far as I know, the science says that sexuality is down to genetics, hormones and environmental factors. Maybe there is a choice component in the cases of borderline people, I don't know. My gut feeling is that its an innate quality of a person, irrespective of how.

But where am I taking this? All I think is that whether its a matter of nature, nurture or personal choice, it doesn't matter. If someone is g, l, b, t or s, or anything in between, it doesn't matter so long as they enjoy what they've got, enjoy what they like and do it consentually.

All these nutters thinking non-heterosexual behaviour is something to be "cured" are being unreasonably bigoted.

Now I just hope I've explained myself clearly.

 

[charlequin]

Sorry about that, folks, I had to help some friends move.

 

[cutmeamango]

"Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences... Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood."

eh?

It comes to a time that you must ask yourself: "Is it worth discussing this at this moment?", most of the times the answer will be "hell no", and this is one of those moments.

An undisclosed amount most likely is 'born' (in a wide sense) homosexual, another undisclosed amount choose to (and his choice may very well be tied to pre-natal and/or genetical reasions), and even another undisclosed amount may have chosen for enviromental reasons only.
If we understand that, discussing who the majority is or isn't or may be is not of much worth.
We all know being homosexual isn't and shouldn't be treated as a burden to them or us.
We all know being homosexual isn't a social disruptive condition/choice/phenotype.

Why discuss it here where it is not edifying for anyone? Just realize that some things may bring comfort to others, and let it slide. Unless you are a champion of reason and an empirical warmonger. Then you are up to a fight that won't end soon and no sides (if there is any, this is so confusing right now ) has the ability to advance research on the subject.

Well, that's it, basically.

EDIT: Banned, oh well

 

[Yagharek]

Cutemeamango said what I tried to say in a far clearer manner.

 

[QuickSilverD]

OK, it looks like we can now return to discuss the topic of this thread.

There may be some small disagreement but I would dare say most people here on all sides of the issue would agree that the condition of transexuality is one to be revealed sometime before the act of sex in a potential comited relationship.

Now when it comes to one night stands, should a sexual partner who you may or may not meet again be informed of your condition? I am of the opinion of "what I don't know, does not hurts me" so I would say a transgirl, and I am assuming here that she can pass without being detected, then I think that's ok, so long as the guy doesn't finds out.

 

[charlequin]

You're assuming that people are logical and rational.

No, I'm assuming that people are sentient beings who can transcend instincts, genetics, gut responses, emotional baggage, and cultural preconceptions in order to make decisions, as hard as all that might be.

I can't blame people for having an unconscious visceral negative reaction to the idea of dating a trans person -- the idea of transgender itself is pretty complex and requires a significant mental shift to really wrap your mind around on a conceptual level, and that's before the emotional level (which is illogical and unpredictable) gets involved. What I do think is that it's very much worth pushing past that discomfort and visceral reaction to look at the question in different ways and consider whether there's anything underneath, and whether one's position about being forthcoming on this topic in a sexual relationship line up with one's positions on other issues of importance.

I've seen posters actively defend using faggot as a slur and denying that its basis as an insult has anything to do with bigotry towards gay men in particular and not get banned.

Just for the record, if you see anything like this going forward, please do notify a mod, because under our policies that would be absolutely unacceptable.

That said, however, not telling the other person before things get overly physical is inconsiderate

I honestly wonder how much of an unspoken issue in these discussions is people thinking about situations where they want to have sex with other people right away after meeting them.

In a somewhat... protracted dating/courtship process, there's time for this kind of stuff to come out at a relaxed pace and for potential dealbreakers (including major life history elements like being trans) to be revealed after there's already some rapport and mutual interest, without having to be some checklist-style warning blurted out upfront. But I could imagine people creating this imaginary scenario about meeting someone, sleeping with them right away, and only later finding out that this whole weird "deception" idea is spun out? I dunno, I'm not really current on how people understand the modern dating scene to work.

 

[Daimaou]

No, I'm assuming that people are sentient beings who can transcend instincts, genetics, gut responses, emotional baggage, and cultural preconceptions in order to make decisions, as hard as all that might be.

I can't blame people for having an unconscious visceral negative reaction to the idea of dating a trans person -- the idea of transgender itself is pretty complex and requires a significant mental shift to really wrap your mind around on a conceptual level, and that's before the emotional level (which is illogical and unpredictable) gets involved. What I do think is that it's very much worth pushing past that discomfort and visceral reaction to look at the question in different ways and consider whether there's anything underneath, and whether one's position about being forthcoming on this topic in a sexual relationship line up with one's positions on other issues of importance.



Just for the record, if you see anything like this going forward, please do notify a mod, because under our policies that would be absolutely unacceptable.



I honestly wonder how much of an unspoken issue in these discussions is people thinking about situations where they want to have sex with other people right away after meeting them.

In a somewhat... protracted dating/courtship process, there's time for this kind of stuff to come out at a relaxed pace and for potential dealbreakers (including major life history elements like being trans) to be revealed after there's already some rapport and mutual interest, without having to be some checklist-style warning blurted out upfront. But I could imagine people creating this imaginary scenario about meeting someone, sleeping with them right away, and only later finding out that this whole weird "deception" idea is spun out? I dunno, I'm not really current on how people understand the modern dating scene to work.

I don't think it's so much a "checklist" so much as disclosing information that may be relevant to the person before going forward with something. As you say, this topic has a large range of baggage attached to it, with most of if not all of which being irrational. I wouldn't personally blame a transgender person for not wanting to reveal the information, but if they don't, they should know that there may be fall out down the line should the other party find out.

On the topic of one night stands, it's a very risky sort of behavior to begin with, and if someone doesn't want to run the "risk" of sleeping with a transgender person, then they probably shouldn't engage in the activity to begin with.

 

[Gaborn]

I don't think it's so much a "checklist" so much as disclosing information that may be relevant to the person before going forward with something. As you say, this topic has a large range of baggage attached to it, with most of if not all of which being irrational. I wouldn't personally blame a transgender person for not wanting to reveal the information, but if they don't, they should know that there may be fall out down the line should the other party find out.

On the topic of one night stands, it's a very risky sort of behavior to begin with, and if someone doesn't want to run the "risk" of sleeping with a transgender person, then they probably shouldn't engage in the activity to begin with.

I think if that is the standard though you're getting into some really slippery areas.

Suppose a woman who had an abortion when she was a teen is now dating someone who is very strongly pro-life, a value she now shares. You could argue that the information is "relevant to the person" but I don't think anyone thinks there is an obligation for a woman to disclose that information. I mean, I understand the impulse and I think ideally a person should trust their partner enough to disclose that when the relationship is serious, but I don't think it's an obligation.

It's clearly a difficult and sensitive subject for a variety of reasons to disparate groups of people but I think the word "obligated" has to meet a pretty high standard if you're going to say that.

 

[FoneBone]

No, I'm assuming that people are sentient beings who can transcend instincts, genetics, gut responses, emotional baggage, and cultural preconceptions in order to make decisions, as hard as all that might be.

I can't blame people for having an unconscious visceral negative reaction to the idea of dating a trans person -- the idea of transgender itself is pretty complex and requires a significant mental shift to really wrap your mind around on a conceptual level, and that's before the emotional level (which is illogical and unpredictable) gets involved. What I do think is that it's very much worth pushing past that discomfort and visceral reaction to look at the question in different ways and consider whether there's anything underneath, and whether one's position about being forthcoming on this topic in a sexual relationship line up with one's positions on other issues of importance.

And it gets really frustrating to see that gut reaction wrapped up in disingenuous baggage about "deception" and "the essence of who you are." At least acknowledge what it is.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

OK, it looks like we can now return to discuss the topic of this thread.

There may be some small disagreement but I would dare say most people here on all sides of the issue would agree that the condition of transexuality is one to be revealed sometime before the act of sex in a potential comited relationship.

Now when it comes to one night stands, should a sexual partner who you may or may not meet again be informed of your condition? I am of the opinion of "what I don't know, does not hurts me" so I would say a transgirl, and I am assuming here that she can pass without being detected, then I think that's ok, so long as the guy doesn't finds out.

Why?

If you're unlikely to want to sleep with your partner (whom you've just realised is transgendered) then isn't it fair to assume you wouldn't want to begin a relationship with them in the first place, much less an intimate one? If so, how can we justify relegating the "need to know" to this late into the relationship?

 

[Gaborn]

Why?

If you're unlikely to want to sleep with your partner (whom you've just realised is transgendered) then isn't it fair to assume you wouldn't want to begin a relationship with them in the first place, much less an intimate one? If so, how can we justify relegating the "need to know" to this late into the relationship?

If you don't have a problem dating them as they are what difference does knowing they're TG make? You're talking about a mental block that only applies when you KNOW. It's like me with onions, I'm usually fine eating something if I don't taste them but if I'm told they're there even if I had been enjoying it my mind will start rejecting the food as WITH ONIONS so I usually don't want to know because it's silly to deny myself good food just because I don't like tasting onions.

As I said earlier, if you really want to know then ask every girl you want to sleep with if they were born with a penis before you try to have sex with them. See how they react.

 

[Jaffaboy]

If you don't have a problem dating them as they are what difference does knowing they're TG make? You're talking about a mental block that only applies when you KNOW. It's like me with onions, I'm usually fine eating something if I don't taste them but if I'm told they're there even if I had been enjoying it my mind will start rejecting the food as WITH ONIONS so I usually don't want to know because it's silly to deny myself good food just because I don't like tasting onions.

Probably the best analogy in the entire thread Can you be blamed though for the mental block? How would you get past such a thing if onions disgusted you so much?

 

[Gaborn]

Probably the best analogy in the entire thread Can you be blamed though for the mental block? How would you get past such a thing if onions disgusted you so much?

I don't think people should be blamed for having a hang up about something like this, but I think it's important for people to educate themselves and work through their issues. My accommodation with onions is I simply don't want to know. For a person with an issue with dating TG people does it really matter to you if you never know? Aside from that the key is to understand I think that the mental block against this IS irrational.

 

[Daimaou]

I think if that is the standard though you're getting into some really slippery areas.

Suppose a woman who had an abortion when she was a teen is now dating someone who is very strongly pro-life, a value she now shares. You could argue that the information is "relevant to the person" but I don't think anyone thinks there is an obligation for a woman to disclose that information. I mean, I understand the impulse and I think ideally a person should trust their partner enough to disclose that when the relationship is serious, but I don't think it's an obligation.

It's clearly a difficult and sensitive subject for a variety of reasons to disparate groups of people but I think the word "obligated" has to meet a pretty high standard if you're going to say that.

I'd agree, but I don't consider it an obligation, morally or otherwise. I think all people have a right to keep private what they feel they need to keep private, barring extreme circumstances that would lead to the endangerment of other people. (Example, someone with HIV/AIDS is morally obligated to tell their partner before engaging in sexual relations)

What I'm saying is that it's inconsiderate of the other person's feelings, and that they may have to live with the consequences if the person finds out later. Note that I'm not saying that this condones violence on the part of the other person if they do eventually find out, merely they must realize that this is a possible outcome of remaining silent.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

If you don't have a problem dating them as they are what difference does knowing they're TG make? You're talking about a mental block that only applies when you KNOW. It's like me with onions, I'm usually fine eating something if I don't taste them but if I'm told they're there even if I had been enjoying it my mind will start rejecting the food as WITH ONIONS so I usually don't want to know because it's silly to deny myself good food just because I don't like tasting onions.

As I said earlier, if you really want to know then ask every girl you want to sleep with if they were born with a penis before you try to have sex with them. See how they react.

If I'm understanding you correctly, are you insinuating that don't need to know?

 

[Gaborn]

Utterly ridiculous

Why?

I'd agree, but I don't consider it an obligation, morally or otherwise. I think all people have a right to keep private what they feel they need to keep private, barring extreme circumstances that would lead to the endangerment of other people. (Example, someone with HIV/AIDS is morally obligated to tell their partner before engaging in sexual relations)

What I'm saying is that it's inconsiderate of the other person's feelings, and that they may have to live with the consequences if the person finds out later. Note that I'm not saying that this condones violence on the part of the other person if they do eventually find out, merely they must realize that this is a possible outcome of remaining silent.

Oh I agree, there is no moral obligation to tell. I'm just saying that ideally if I was in a relationship with someone I was REALLY close to I'd be comfortable telling them that information. It's nothing they would have to disclose, but, say I was with a guy for 20 years and I finally find out he was born female. The fact that he was born female wouldn't bother me much, the fact that it took that long to trust me to that extent... I'd be bothered. More from an empathetic "I can't imagine how hard a decision it was to go through, and I can't imagine what you went through before your transition, I wish you had told me sooner" sense rather than a "this is a betrayal of trust!" sense.

Just like, for example, if someone was raped in college they NEVER have to breathe a word of it to me or anyone they don't want to, but it's something I would hope a future partner would tell me about so I could support them. Ideally I would be close enough to a person they would hopefully tell me if they needed my support. That's all I meant.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Why?

Updated my post

 

[Jaffaboy]

I don't think people should be blamed for having a hang up about something like this, but I think it's important for people to educate themselves and work through their issues. My accommodation with onions is I simply don't want to know. For a person with an issue with dating TG people does it really matter to you if you never know? Aside from that the key is to understand I think that the mental block against this IS irrational.

Agreed. It is totally irrational, but so are many more things, especially much more trivial things when involving dating/sexual attraction, which I guess could be said is under the guise of 'preference', but this isn't challenged very often concerning other topics as much as it has been here. I feel that it's just the way it is and we've all had to go through rejection, so changing the way people thing about these things is going to take a long time.

Also, Daimaou's post above sums it up a lot as to what I think too.

Spoiler

You should reconsider onions though G, they're delicious!

 

[Gaborn]

If I'm understanding you correctly, are you insinuating that don't need to know?

Pretty much, yes. If you can't tell then what difference does it make?

 

[dudeworld]

Pretty much, yes. If you can't tell then what difference does it make?

babies versus no babies is a pretty big difference