Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Genderfuck you.

Page: 1 2 3(4)5 6

14:30 / 24.01.02

By Flyboy: quote:Unless you mean you plan to stop posting but keep reading, which is fine, I guess.
Yeah, that's what I meant.
And the "freezing" thing is reflected on cap. Zoom's post.
"Look, before we can go on, we have to define what every thing means to everyone. THEN we can proceed with the discussion. (Hey, I didn't said it was a bad thing in itself, only if it was being used as a diversionist tactic, which I accused you of in the b) option. )

[ 24-01-2002: Message edited by: Marquis de Jade ]

pointless and uncalled for

14:31 / 24.01.02

quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Rain:
"If a transgendered person is attracted to women, do we call hir a lesbian or a heterosexual man?

Within the parameters of example, yes.

quote:Does it depend on whether they have a penis or a vagina, or whether they identify as female or male?"

Tentatively I am going to say yes, although I reserve the right to correct myself should I then find out i misunderstood you.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

14:33 / 24.01.02

I think Marquis is saying that when he says Heterosexual, he means that he is attracted only to people who are phenotypically "female" - that is, possessed of what looks like the physical appearance of the chromosomes that create something which could be idenitified as possessing the *sex* "female". So, biologically female women are sexually attractive to heterosexual men, as are MTFs who have received sufficiently developed modification to resemble women to a certain degree of specificity.

Therefore, for Imperator a woman with a dick is *not* a woman for the purposes of heterosexual attraction, whereas a man with a vagina is. Unless MTFs give off a male "aura" which repels heterosexual men...

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

14:34 / 24.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots:

Tentatively I am going to say yes, although I reserve the right to correct myself should I then find out i misunderstood you.

OK. Have you thought about asking them?

pointless and uncalled for

14:38 / 24.01.02

OK, I'm going to put in a call for laymans terms.

I'm really trying very hard to understand all that is being said but it's hurting my tiny little brain and I think that I'm missing a lot.

Just a little dumbing down if you please.

Many thanks.

14:39 / 24.01.02

quote:Therefore, for Imperator a woman with a dick is *not* a woman for the purposes of heterosexual attraction, whereas a man with a vagina is. Unless MTFs give off a male "aura" which repels heterosexual men...

No, Haus, you're absolutely right! If the guy pulls the trick, anyone would fall for it. Why do you think that my bloody hormones would be smarter than I am(which isn't already that much)?

You're moving this to a whole new area: "What would you do if you discovered that the person you just slept with is (sorry, can't fucking name it cos I'm confused about the terminology)?"

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

14:44 / 24.01.02

"was born with sexual characteristics different to the ones that they have now?"

One might gently point out that many of our most revered sex symbols have have surgery to alter their sexual characteristics - boob jobs, butt lifts, electrolysis...would it be all that different from sleeping with, say, Erika Eleniak?

pointless and uncalled for

14:45 / 24.01.02

quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Rain:

OK. Have you thought about asking them?

So is this to mean that it's an individual choice thing and that there is no standard?

If so then why the bitching about the theoretics.

If not then I'll counter with saying that I really don't come into contact with them at the moment and don'treally think it would be appropriate to go looking simply for the purpose of asking. Seems a bit rude to me. Especially when I have a fine repository of such information right here at my fingertips.

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:45 / 24.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots:
OK, I'm going to put in a call for laymans terms.

Okay.

Q: What do you call a transgender person of any kind?

A: Anything they want you to.

Do me a favour, Wisdom, and clarify for me, in layman's terms, what you mean by the term "bitching about theoretics".

[ 24-01-2002: Message edited by: Flyboy ]

14:48 / 24.01.02

Not a very good analogy. How the hell a butt-lift would... ok, no. Enough of that. As I said, off to the FUN thread.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

14:51 / 24.01.02

It wqas to point out that I'm in no position to speak for all transgendered people ever. And that one of the things about genderfucking is that it breaks down binary positions. If a woman has a cock, and she likes men with cocks, does that make her gay? And if it does obviously it has to make her a gay man, because a woman who is attracted to men is heterosexual. But she clearly isn't a gay man, because she is a woman. See how things could get confusing?

One could say that once genderfucking begins, the terms "straight" and "gay" become to a greater or lesser extent powerless. Which is where a real theory bitch question comes in - is all transgendered sexuality essentially queer?

pointless and uncalled for

14:52 / 24.01.02

Thanks.

I was refering more to this sort of thing.

[quote]sufficiently developed modification to resemble women to a certain degree of specificity.[quote]

I'm good up until the word woman and then I'm confused as to where "certain degree of specificity" is going.

I admit that I'm dumb on the big word combinations.

Sorry.

If you don't want to ease off here, I understand, I'm just trying to learn, that's all.

pointless and uncalled for

14:55 / 24.01.02

quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Rain:
See how things could get confusing?

Safe to say that I do more of the doing with confusion than the seeing there of.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

14:59 / 24.01.02

Fair enough - I was trying to express the idea that surgucal modification cannot at present make a "man" appear absolutely identical to a "woman" (DNA testing would reveal thatthey were born male, sort of thing).

So, to be attractive to a heterosexual as Marquis describes heterosexuality, a TG would have to be "convincing" enough to "pass" - no Adam's apple and breasts or the other way around - presumably well enough to continue to "pass" when naked and during sex, since we are talking about sexuality.

pointless and uncalled for

15:00 / 24.01.02

What I meant by "bitching about theoretics" was whereby you argue terms and definitions of people that can only be set by said people.

I would call it discussing but it seems to exceed my definition of discussion by inclusion of some nice peacock posts.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

15:02 / 24.01.02

You mean, you can't join in so it isn't really a discussion?

I'm lost. Layman's terms?

pointless and uncalled for

15:02 / 24.01.02

So Haus, are we essentially claiming a fourth gender here?

(Ducks in anticipation of flying theory plates)

pointless and uncalled for

15:11 / 24.01.02

More of I'm having extreme difficulty keeping up on this. I would like to understand the entirety, not just the easy bits.

Laymans terms, as in terms of the layman.

from dictionary.com

layman \Lay"man\n.; pl. Laymen. [Lay, adj. + man.] 1. One of the people, in distinction from the clergy; one of the laity; sometimes, a man not belonging to some particular profession, in distinction from those who do.

Not that I consider you to be professionals in sex/sexuality/gender and other stuff that is being discussed here, just far far more experienced in the terms and references.

Though this doesn't mean that you aren't professional, it's just that I don't know that and that would be professional in terms of employment over anything else. As implied by the posted definition.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

15:14 / 24.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots:
So Haus, are we essentially claiming a fourth gender here?

Sorry, what was the third?

pointless and uncalled for

15:17 / 24.01.02

Eunuchs have the claim on that one.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

15:25 / 24.01.02

OK, I don't know exactly whether it is because you forgot about Dre, but beg pardon? You struggle for 4 pages with the idea that a man can be a man without a penis, and then as soon as a man with a penis loses his testicles in a car-door accident they get a whole gender to themselves. I am now utterly lost again

pointless and uncalled for

15:33 / 24.01.02

What the fucks the car door accident got to do with the price of bread.

Holy shit, talk about diversity from the point.

Eunuchs, those guys that choose not to be guys for the purposes of religeon/position.

They're like a whole different caste in various asian/eastern cultures.

The whole point is that they don't want to be male or female and this was prior to the development of the concepts of transgender/sexual.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

15:42 / 24.01.02

Different caste, yes. Different gender, not the same thing.

Car door a humorous reference to the loss fo testicles. Thus, eunuch.

Also, often castration not a voluntary thing.

Also also, is your idea of "being a guy" so utterly tied up with having a pair of bollocks? Is that what makes a man?

Also also also, being a eunuch does not necessarily involve transgendering at all - it happens to in the case of a particular form of Hinduism, is all.

Also also also also, there is a transgendered character in the Mahabharata, at least three transgendered characters in ancient Greek mythology that I can think of offhand, before we even move on to hermaphroditic characters.

And, since hermaphrodites *do* occur in nature, they might have a far better claim of being a "third sex", if not a third gender, than eunuchs, who start out phenotypically male, if you're casting about for one.

Not to mention that the term "Third sex" has already been used by Del La Grace and others to describe a transitional stage between female and male...

[ 25-01-2002: Message edited by: The Haus of Rain ]

pointless and uncalled for

15:54 / 24.01.02

quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Rain:
Also also, is your idea of "being a guy" so utterly tied up with having a pair of bollocks? Is that what makes a man?

No really, as stated numerous times previously. But it stands to fact that a eunuch is specically a person that has been castrated and thus at one stage would have been a guy.

Unless you have can identify to me an instance of a non-hermaphoditic, non-conjoined twin female haveing been born with testicles.

It also remains fact that this is not a solely Hindu practice.

In terms of claim, unless you can provide me with a reference of anyone else doing so before them, then the claim of "Third Gender" goes to the eunuchs for calling it first.

I think Finder Keepers is good policy on that one.

Anyone else wants the term, too damned slow.

Hermaphrodites don't qualify as a seperate gender IMHO, more as multi-gendered.

God you can be so damned picky at times.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

16:04 / 24.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots:

No really, as stated numerous times previously. But it stands to fact that a eunuch is specically a person that has been castrated and thus at one stage would have been a guy.

AAARGHH!!

Am trying very hard not to give up on this in disgust.

Where in the paths of God does it say that somebody ceases to be "a guy" when they become a Eunuch?

You are referring (and I never said that the idea of castration was unique to Hinduism - read the post) to a society which is made up of eunuchs, but is not representative of any cultural tradition of eunuchs across the world and throughout the ages.

Think about it carefully. Is "eunuch" a Sanskrit word meaning "person with no testicles who exists outside mainstream society"? No. It is an ancient Greek word maining "bedroom attendant". You are talking about one group of people in one particular culture who *happen* to be eunuchs.

Stop trying to prove that you are right and try to think through some of the implications of having a third gender, but one which is specific to a very particular culture.

pointless and uncalled for

16:08 / 24.01.02

I am going to give up on this as by and large the relevance of eunuchs within this thread are nil.

I therefore ammend my previous question to this.

Are you then saying that there is an additional gender.

Regrettable Juvenilia

16:21 / 24.01.02

I think what he and I (and others) are saying is that there may be many. That the ideas about gender most of us have may be quite limited (and limiting).

Although this doesn't exclude the possibility that someone who is transgender may wish to consider themselves as simply the gender they have become/identify as - in other words, someone born 'male' may simply identify as a woman in a fairly traditional way - and this should be respected.

17:28 / 24.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Captain Zoom:
If the other person knew my preferences and still played along, I suppose you could call it a genderfuck

I don't see how it can be assumed that the other person automatically knows one's "preferences" unless one states them clearly at the outset eg. "I am a heterosexual male for whom female genitalia is important. If you've got a cock, I don't want things to go futher" - which makes for curiously clinical dating, no?

I don't see why sole responsibility for "upfront-ness" should be placed upon the transgendered person. How can they tell that the other party hasn't been attracted to them because their physical gender appears ambiguous? Plenty of straight-identifying men are attracted to chicks with dicks...

pointless and uncalled for

17:38 / 24.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Ganesh v4.2:

I don't see how it can be assumed that the other person automatically knows one's "preferences" unless one states them clearly at the outset eg. "I am a heterosexual male for whom female genitalia is important. If you've got a cock, I don't want things to go futher" - which makes for curiously clinical dating, no?

Admitedly this would be very clinical. However there are more subtle means, within conversation to determine preferences.

As for the upfront business. No I don't think that responsibility lies solely with the transgendered person. IMHO, being worth little as previously expressed in threads of this nature, I would say that it's a shared interpersonal responsibility.

I could go back to expectations and locations but that's just inviting far more commentary than I'm willing to answer to.

17:40 / 24.01.02

If this thread makes anything clear, it's the inadequacy of current terminology to describe or chart gender and/or sexuality. Talking about Third or Fourth Genders isn't helpful; both gender and sexuality fit are more fluid than that - and attempts to relate either to the presence or absence of physical genitalia is problematic in the extreme. It's also likely that sexuality, in particular, is a fluid entity, changing and evolving over time.

It's a while since we attempted a gender/sexuality mapping thread. Might go off and start one...

17:46 / 24.01.02

Alles Vergangliche
Ist nur ein Gleichnis;
Das Unzulangliche
Hier wirds Ereignis;
Das Unbeschreibliche;
Hier ist getan;
Das Ewigweibliche
Zieht uns hinan.

Not strictly relevant but no harm making room for the beautiful. Enjoy.

17:57 / 24.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots:
However there are more subtle means, within conversation to determine preferences.

I would say that it's a shared interpersonal responsibility.

Okay, now I agree with you 100%

What I would say, however, is that the situation - hypothetical or no - is not a clear-cut one, and is absolutely rife with potential for misinterpretation and misunderstanding on the part of both individuals concerned (particularly if they're eschewing "up-frontness" for subtlety). I don't believe one can reliably infer intent and motivation from circumstances alone (as I say, many heterosexual-identifying men are strongly attracted to transgender people because of their ambiguity) and the fact that one meets a prospective partner in a gay bar, straight pub, whatever cannot be held up as an absolute yardstick of "reasonable expectation".

So, within these parameters, I think it's incredibly hard to prove with authority that actual deception has taken place. I think that's the problem I had (and have) with your initial scenario.

pointless and uncalled for

18:03 / 24.01.02

No, it's never going to be clear-cut, this is, after all, humans we're talking about. But you have to try.

But outside of those parameters, if deception is indeed the case(by whatever exact determination), then would you be willing to respond to the question?

18:04 / 24.01.02

Being transsexual is somewhat like being Scandinavian.

18:28 / 24.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots:
No, it's never going to be clear-cut, this is, after all, humans we're talking about. But you have to try.

Maybe. I think explicitness often comes at the cost of "subtlety". I also don't believe it's possible - or even necessarily desirable - to make things that clear-cut. Not within the field of human sexuality, anyway.

quote:But outside of those parameters, if deception is indeed the case(by whatever exact determination), then would you be willing to respond to the question?

I thought I did respond to the question earlier in the thread, after Flyboy reframed it. I'll give it another go:

Okay, in order to be convinced that I'd been deceived, the other party would have to have actually lied to me (for example, assuring me they had a fully-functional penis if I'd asked them directly - which is highly unlikely). If I'd only been "led to believe" that my assumptions were correct, I guess I'd question my assumptions rather than thinking I'd been wronged in some way.

And, as I said, while a cock's a thing of beauty and perfection, I can have a perfectly good time, sexually speaking, without my partner having to whip it out. In reality, I'd be much more likely to be pissed off if, as Crunchy said, someone told me they were a heavy leather/bondage top and they turned out to want vanilla huggles instead. I'd be pissed off, sure, and disappointed.

Kink aside, I probably don't think of my sexuality so rigidly that I'd readily exclude people on grounds of absolute incompatibility through having the "wrong" genitalia. Depending on the relationship we'd already established, I might want to try out things I'd never done before.

If there'd been sexual contact before I "found out", it'd depend to what extent I'd enjoyed that sexual contact. Might want to carry on; might not.

Hope that answers the question to your satisfaction. There's a limit to how much I can fit myself into a hypothetical situation that's quite that alien...

[ 24-01-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]

Page: 1 2 3(4)5 6