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

16:08 / 22.01.02

About the adam's apple thing: It has worked so far, no unpleasant surprises. Resist the temptation of leveling the dabate with sitcom references/quotes, Haus. It's silly.

Oh,and if I'm not updated with the latest cosmetic cirurgical advances in transgendering, I'm really not to blame. I have other areas of interest.
About the other questions:

do you feel wronged/violated?

I think the other person should have shown hir respect for me telling in advance about hir appendages.

Would you want to keep it quiet?

yes. "Sorry, this won't do"

Say you'd already become friends with this person - would you consider staying friends with this person once you'd explained to them that your sexuality prevented you from taking it any further?

Not with someone that wasn't willing to be honest about it first.

I'm leaving the office now (damn). Hopefully tomorrow this thread won't have died down.

pointless and uncalled for

16:08 / 22.01.02

I considered strongly putting this in conversation. However two major factors disuaded me from doing so. The first being that the stem thread is in the head shop (little did I realise that this was the reason that my motives and beliefs were bought into question) and also the general responses to recent who are you/what do you like threads in conversation led me to believe that I would encounter a wide range of thread rotting.

I guess this thread is too far beyong anwers to have it moved to conversation now.

I thought that a seperate thread in the same section would avoid problems.

Ganesh, go where you will with the personal reference. i have mde my point and will stick to it.

It has ye to be explained to me as to why there are continued introductions of references to other physical attributes beyond genitalia. As far as I can see genitalia are the only physical attributes that are solely gender/sexuality related.

Haus, as with many abstracts, an opinion of what perverts a thread can vary widely.

As in terms of sexuality and gender, my opinion and has been for a long time that these are similar to instinct, they are a natural reaction of the self to the environment. I expect you to tell me that I am wrong.

16:11 / 22.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Flyboy:
IE, say that you get chatting to a pretty girl in a club, sit down in a dark corner, get to kissing and caressing, slide your hand up her skirt only to encounter Mr John Thomas (I apologise for being crass here) - do you feel wronged/violated? Would you want to keep it quiet? Say you'd already become friends with this person - would you consider staying friends with this person once you'd explained to them that your sexuality prevented you from taking it any further?

This is probably a more useful way of framing the original question, as it avoids too many assumptions (that gender=genitalia, that presenting a transgender appearance = conscious and deliberate "deception") and gives a sense of situation.

I suppose the nearest equivalent, for me, would be getting friendly with a gay-identifying female-to-male transexual, eh? Someone who presented as stereotypically male but... what? A surgically-created penis? A vagina? Breasts?

I'm not sure how I'd feel, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be outraged by the degree of deception - but then, the kind of sex I enjoy most isn't predicated particularly on my partner having a penis (although penises are nice...). And female genitalia hardly repulse me. And that's assuming I'd assumed we were going to have sex.

I think I'd feel a bit surreal, but I doubt I'd feel particularly cheated or my "sexual integrity" harmed in any way. In fact, I'd probably want to explore the situation a little.

That's from the transgender angle. I'm assuming you want us to stay on this tack rather than diverging into the realms of "straights who act gay", "gays who act straight" and "bisexuals who can't be trusted"?

16:16 / 22.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots:
It has ye to be explained to me as to why there are continued introductions of references to other physical attributes beyond genitalia. As far as I can see genitalia are the only physical attributes that are solely gender/sexuality related.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you equating genitalia with gender? Penis=man, vagina=woman, yeah? Surely you can see that, for many (if not you, yourself), gender and sexuality are more complex than this?

pointless and uncalled for

16:31 / 22.01.02

No, I am not saying that at all.

And yes I can see that.

[ 22-01-2002: Message edited by: Wisdom of idiots ]

17:03 / 22.01.02

Are you saying, then, that genitalia are the only true signifiers of a person's maleness or femaleness?

I'm trying to see why you're puzzled by the introduction of gender reference-points other than physical genitalia.

17:10 / 22.01.02

It occurs to me that some people take themselves far to seriously (try & deny it then go back & re-read this thread :P). As a gay man I have no interest sexually in someone without a dick. Sorry but that's the way it is.

But say this deception occured and we got as far as stated in the first post. So what? It's certainly a topic of conversation! Frankly I'd probably laugh. Then feel a bit miffed (I've been misled as I understand it. The other person knew my preferences & didnt say anything). However, now we're here lets see what happens eh? They obviously find you hot enough to get this far & you obviously find them pretty hot in some ways or you wouldnt be here either, so why not?

pointless and uncalled for

17:10 / 22.01.02

Not saying that either.

Not puzzled by the introduction of gender reference points. Puzzled by the introductions of non-gender reference points.

17:12 / 22.01.02

trumpeted from the trunk of lovely Ganesh:
quote:but then, the kind of sex I enjoy most isn't predicated particularly on my partner having a penis (although penises are nice...)

can I just mention here, if it isn't too contrary to your argument, Beloved, for public information purposes, that my penis is very nice ~ just redundant on some occasions when we do <ahem> stuff.

re: genderfuck issue ~ I have had sex with many people who had dicks and exactly three who did not. I would say, given these experiences, that dicks do not guarantee good sex but that, without another dick to play with, I have never enjoyed having sex.

I have never been beguiled, even after vast quantities of intoxicating substances into bed with a transgendered person, so I find it hard to assert confidently what my response would be.

someone I liked enough to go home with would presumably be someone I was happy to chat with /share some experience and time with.
in that case, I would no doubt have a good time, whatever.

comes the moment (if it did and it probably would) when I began the big headfuck, I can't see why a transgendered person would not be as equipped as any other to rise to that (cerebral) challenge.

if it then got physical <pause while I put an Olivia Newton John cd on>, I think I'd find a rough, hairy, masculine body to do stuff with, which excited me, dick included...

or I would quickly detumesce and probably get the giggles on discovering a smooth, frontal-bumps-included, dick entirely absent scenario laid before me.

at that point, I would aspire to Ariadne's well mannered suggestion:
quote:I wouldn't run screaming for the door, but I'd probably go and put the kettle on, make us some tea and then call her a cab.

have never knowingly met a female to male transsexual but I'm equal opportunities-minded, given the sine qua non of a penis. no penis: no sex. no penis: cup of tea and a good natter.

it's not about philosophy or sexual politics, it's entirely about me getting a stiffie.

and my partner is 400 miles away. <sigh>

17:13 / 22.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots:
Not puzzled by the introduction of gender reference points. Puzzled by the introductions of non-gender reference points.

Oh, c'mon, please. Spell it out for me. What d'you feel's been introduced to the discussion that should've been left out? Which "non-gender reference points"?

[ 22-01-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]

17:19 / 22.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Sleeperservice:
It occurs to me that some people take themselves far to seriously (try & deny it then go back & re-read this thread :P). As a gay man I have no interest sexually in someone without a dick. Sorry but that's the way it is.

No apology required. As a gay man with numerous kinks, I'm more sexually interested in what they do to me - which may but equally may not involve a penis.

This is the Head Shop, though; "serious" is what we do here...

[ 22-01-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]

pointless and uncalled for

17:44 / 22.01.02

Well, tell me which one's you think are related to gender.

The wooden legs?

Build?

Obesity/skinnyness?

Hairy Chests?

Really?

All of them?

So what gender are you if you have a wooden leg then? I honestly have no idea.

17:47 / 22.01.02

Quote:

This is the Head Shop, though; "serious" is what we do here...

Fair point. But I was thinking of the 'seriousness' of some peoples resonses to getting 'genderfucked' as well. Seems I'll have to elaborate my posts considerably! I have enough trouble making people understand me face to face let alone when all I can do is type. *sigh*

The only issue that would concern me from the original post would be the deception on the part of the other person. But having said that, how far would you go to get someone you fancied into bed? Seems thats whats happend in this situation. The other party finds you attractive but fears they wouldnt get far with you if you knew all the facts. People do far weirder things to get sex.

17:53 / 22.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots:
Well, tell me which one's you think are related to gender.

The wooden legs?

Build?

Obesity/skinnyness?

Hairy Chests?

Really?

All of them?

So what gender are you if you have a wooden leg then? I honestly have no idea.

These were used by other posters (mainly Haus, it seems) in analogies to illustrate points relating to deception. They're not signifiers of gender (neither, as has been pointed out, is genitalia) but all have been relevant theoretical examples of ways in which one might feel "tricked". That seems to have been the purpose of including those examples within your thread.

pointless and uncalled for

17:54 / 22.01.02

I'll take my definition of relevance elsewhere then.

17:58 / 22.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Sleeperservice:
I was thinking of the 'seriousness' of some peoples resonses to getting 'genderfucked' as well.

The only issue that would concern me from the original post would be the deception on the part of the other person. But having said that, how far would you go to get someone you fancied into bed? Seems thats whats happend in this situation. The other party finds you attractive but fears they wouldnt get far with you if you knew all the facts. People do far weirder things to get sex.

Ah, I get your meaning. I agree that the concept of "genderfucking" should be a neutral one, really, rather than a negative one. I thiiink it's generally being used neutrally within this thread.

18:00 / 22.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots:
I'll take my definition of relevance elsewhere then.

You do that, dear. Put it with my definitions of "analogy" and "illustration".

19:30 / 22.01.02

I am impressed by the number of people who are absolutely convinced they've never had sex with a transperson (because none of their lovers had adam's apples, etc.) If you've had at least one one-night-stand, how do you know they weren't post-operative? If you've ever had your knob through a glory hole, how do you know what the guy on the receiving end had in his crotch?

Anyway - I wouldn't be particularly upset in such circumstances, and more than likely turned on more than I had been. If I may suggest why so many people arced up about this thread, it's that you chose an extremely unlikely hypothetical which paints transfolk in a pretty unflattering light (as having to maliciously deceive people to get a root). I know it's *just* a hypothetical, but the point of a hypothetical is to think about the possibility in your own life, thus generalising the point - especially for people who don't (know they) know any actual transfolk.

It might have worked better if you'd opened a thread generally about realising you've been tricked and/or mistaken about some personally important characteristic of a lover - i.e., guys who imply they're rough leather tops only to get you home and just want to go down on you. (Just thought I'd mention that pet peeve - not that it's a huge, widespread problem or anything...)

Disco is My Class War

00:25 / 23.01.02

I can't be bothered posting a big long rant about how genderfucking is wonderful and sexy and cool on this thread, since most of the complaints about 'deception' seem to come from a sense of ickiness or squicking, which is all of your own business to interrogate and have challenged. I can say, though, that the best crushes I get are on people whose gender I am unable to ascertain at once. If someone had 'misled' me, I think I'd probably be turned on by it. Actually if they'd come across as a big nasty top and then gotten home and wanted to be all fluffy and nice, I'd be far more pissed off. To me it's what you do with your junk, not what junk you've got. And really the more diverse the junk, the better.

But this begs another question. In my experience, I've taken people home who have looked to all intents and purposes like a boy/girl -- with so-called 'appropriate' genitalia -- and when I got home with the said person, they morphed into what I would call a fairly genius representation -- approaching reality, and certainly fooling *me* -- of behaviours/body-language indicating the sex that did not appear to match up with said genitalia. The point being that you can be a man and still have all the genitalia of a woman... Or vice versa. This turned me on too.

02:16 / 23.01.02

I get kind of close to that myself, actually. (The first time I saw Perry Farrell on stage was pretty hypnotic. I honestly couldn't tell whether there should be an "i" at the end of his name or a "y." Kind of ruined it by taking his shirt off for the encore.)

I'd be much more put off by, say, someone asking me for money afterwards than someone unveiling something unexpected during. I think. Hasn't really come up, and, now that I think of it, isn't really likely to.

09:10 / 24.01.02

In response to the original question, 'cause I've only got a few minutes and I've not digested all the information properly, I think it'd be neat.

That's all.

Zoom.

09:10 / 24.01.02

Originally posted by SleeperService

quote: The other person knew my preferences & didnt say anything

I think this is the crux of the matter. I'm not sure if it's stated in Wisdom's original question, or just implied. If the other person knew my preferences and still played along, I suppose you could call it a genderfuck (or perhaps "genitaliafuck") in the derogatory sense of the term. However, if the person did not know your preference, perhaps assuming you knew somehow or didn't care, then it can't be seen as a malicious thing. Something to be chuckled at, perhaps embarassed, but certainly not upset.

There, that's my two cents. I still think it'd be kind of fun but without experiencing said situation it's really hard to say.

Zoom.

[ 24-01-2002: Message edited by: Captain Zoom ]

pointless and uncalled for

11:05 / 24.01.02

Thanks for understanding me Zoom.

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

11:17 / 24.01.02

(Slowly and carefully, as is increasingly common)

We all understood it, Wisdom. Some of us just decided to look at it in a different way. If I were to post a thread saying, let's say....

"So, which group is more naturally prone to criminality? Latinos or Jews?"

I think anyone who simply considered the question as it stood would be letting the side down a bit. Likewise, since your questin was framed in a way which highlighted certain very obvious problems you were having with the ideas of gender and transgender, it seemed perfectly reasonable to offer examinations of the assumptions implicit in the question.

pointless and uncalled for

11:26 / 24.01.02

{reeves and mortimer}You just wouldn't let it lie.{/reeves and mortimer}

I was refering to him answering the question as opposed to picking it apart which was reserved for later.

13:46 / 24.01.02

by Ganesh: quote:Entirely off-topic, but I'm interested in why you felt the need...

You know, I just got a whiff of the depiction of all heteros as panick-inclined spazes who would run down the stairs screaming. So I sort of had to say: "You know, not all of us are that imature".

Now, Flyboy, I don't see why I should re-estate my comment that I was speaking for all the heterosexuals. I re-read the way I put it, and found nothing there that could make my statement untrue or ilogical.

The attraction for the opposite sex and NOT the same sex is what defines heterosexuality , isn't it? So I think I didn't miss the point in speaking for them (for us).

P.S.: I would say "sorry" for having answered WIO's question the way I did, in a manner more appropriate for The Conversation than for The Head Shop, but I don't think this is the main point here. It's more like a weak, irrelevant gambit brought up by Haus.

In most cases, when someone posts something that is tacitly regarded as insignificant, isn't it usual to just ignore the innocuous post, and prevent further thread-rotting?

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:54 / 24.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Marquis de Jade:
The attraction for the opposite sex and NOT the same sex is what defines heterosexuality , isn't it? So I think I didn't miss the point in speaking for them (for us).

This has already been covered in this thread, and elsewhere, Marquis de Jade, but I'll go through it again: someone who does not identify as the same sex as me, for example a pre or post-op male-to-female transexual, or someone who considers themselves another gender/sex entirely, one that cannot easily be shoehorned into either 'male' or 'female' - this person is not the same sex as me. It would be insulting to claim that they are. Therefore they are a different gender and sex. Therefore falling under the definition 'hetero'. See?

Or as Lord Fanny more concisely put it: "A girl with a dick is still a girl". Apart from when s/he's a boy. Or something else entirely.

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

pointless and uncalled for

14:00 / 24.01.02

So clarify this again for me.

Should a pre-op transgender persons sexuality be determined by their genitalia or identification?

Sorry, I seem to have missed this thoughout the course of the conversation.

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

14:12 / 24.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots:
So clarify this again for me.

Should a pre-op transgender persons sexuality be determined by their genitalia or identification?

Well,

A) "Pre-op" presupposes that everybody undergoes a process where they
i) Decide they are the "wrong" gender.
ii) Decide to undergo surgery to correct this.
iii) Arrange surgery while dresing and acting as the "opposite" gender, during which stage they are "pre-op"
iv) Have surgery which removes their own genitalia and replaces it with a facsimile of the "right" gender's genitalia, and performs whatever surgical processes are necessary and available.
v) Be a "post-op".

"Transsexual" is, I believe, the term most commonly to describe somebody who has undergone gender realignment surgery. However, transgender people are precisely that - lying across the standard "silo" model of gender. They may or may not have had surgery, drugs, etc, to a greater or lesser degree. They may or may not "live as a woman/man", insofar as those terms are relevant. Many FTMs, apparently, never bother with the surgery to get a penis (who needs one when you already have a phallus, as somebody once pointed out).

As for B) determining their gender...well, forgive me for stating the obvious, but isn't that perhaps something you might want to ask them about? As I believe has been mentioned, it's a bit more complicated than "cock=boy, vagina+breasts=girl, cock+breasts=darts player"

[ 24-01-2002: Message edited by: The Haus of Rain ]

14:13 / 24.01.02

Just answer me this and I'll be satisfied: How do you call a man who feels attracted by women, and not by other men?
Because I have the feeling that either:

a)My concepts are inadequate, outdated and biased, and will have to be thrown away. I'm taking this as my fault, since I'm not updated about the last theories about sex politics (and I mean it, seriously, so I'm gonna stop posting in this thread).

Or
b)That your last post might be nothing more than just an attempt to blur the lines that delineate sexual definition, so the whole discussion will freeze into semantic accuracy and theory-bitching about queterosexuality. (I've just seen the "or something else entirely" thing on your post).

I'm not taking the piss (even though I was, previously). You got me curious, here.

(edite just to say that I'm answering to Flyboy)

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

pointless and uncalled for

14:17 / 24.01.02

That's all well and good Haus, but I was asking about sexuality.

The gender bit has been written quite extensively but not, as far as I can determine, sexuality.

Unless you are saying that gender and sexuality are the same, though it's 100% clear, hence why I'm asking.

14:19 / 24.01.02

Wow. We need a set of definitions for this thread.

I think a pre-op trans-sexual should be considered their preferred gender. Are we in agreement?
Their sex, in purely technical sense, should be determined by their plumbing (indoor or outdoor).
Their sexuality is really the question though. How does one determine anyone's sexuality without knowing them? I have a lot of friends who don't realize that I'm bisexual. They assume that since I'm married and have a child that I'm "normal".

(That was not meant to incite anything. Just to exemplify the way I'm perceived by people who haven't seen me snogging some guy)

Their assumptions of my sexuality are based on what they see of me. They don't see me making out with guys. They do see me showing Public Displays of Affection (throws match on gasoline) with my wife. A person's intentions towards you can become quite clear after only a few minutes of conversation, but their sexuality is far more intimate. As Ganesh alluded to in the PDA thread, and as we're all aware, there are people out there who would be pushed to violence at the merest mention or display of homosexuality. I can see the revelation of one's (technical) sex by a trans-gender individual to be nerve-wracking and potentially dangerous. I think it really comes back to whether or not this person was aware of your preferences.

Ugh. Sorry. My brain just completely blanked. Happens every now and then when I realize that what I'm typing may well have nothing to do with what we're talking about. I really don't know where this thread's headed anymore. Anyone care to put me back on track?

Zoom.

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

14:23 / 24.01.02

So, if I understand you, your question is:

"If a transgendered person is attracted to women, do we call hir a lesbian or a heterosexual man? Does it dependon whether they have a penis or a vagina, or whether they identify as female or male?"

14:26 / 24.01.02

Ok, sorry, I quit. Off to the FUN! thread. Where things are FUN.

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:26 / 24.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Marquis de Jade:
Just answer me this and I'll be satisfied: How do you call a man who feels attracted by women, and not by other men?
Because I have the feeling that either:

a)My concepts are inadequate, outdated and biased, and will have to be thrown away. I'm taking this as my fault, since I'm not updated about the last theories about sex politics (and I mean it, seriously, so I'm gonna stop posting in this thread).

Or
b)That your last post might be nothing more than just an attempt to blur the lines that delineate sexual definition, so the whole discussion will freeze into semantic accuracy and theory-bitching about queterosexuality. (I've just seen the "or something else entirely" thing on your post).

I'm not taking the piss (even though I was, previously). You got me curious, here.

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

I call them heterosexual, probably. What I'm suggesting to you is that maybe your definition of 'women' is a little narrow.

Both a) and b) are probably true, I think. However, I'd take issue with two things: firstly, that you should stop posting in this thread because of a), where in fact I'd argue surely that's a reason to pay more attention to this thread, not less (it's certainly teaching me a lot). Unless you mean you plan to stop posting but keep reading, which is fine, I guess.

Secondly, "blur[ring] the lines that delineate sexual definition" sounds good to me - why do you think it would "freeze" the discussion? Surely blurring lines actually opens up a whole new world of possibilities... (And this isn't about semantics, it's about real people.)

Page: 1 2(3)4 5 6