LillyBoPeep
Posts: 6873
Joined: 12/29/2010 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stellauk quote:
ORIGINAL: Awareness Basically what I'm saying is that if a M2F is so good I can't detect it, then I don't care - If you cannot detect something, then how can you be aware that it exists? Or are you just talking about some abstract concept here? I think that is what he's saying -- if he can't detect it, i.e. can't tell that it exists, and can sufficiently believe it doesn't exist, then it doesn't bother him, because the person goes into the "woman" category. so basically, yeah, it's like "if it doesn't seem to exist, then it's okay." i think that's the way a good chunk of people are; regardless of whether or not they use the information to decide to be mean to a TG, or to be nice to them. people still quantify it based on how close you seem to be to "the goal," whatever that is. a lot of non-trans-people assume that you want to look as closely as possible, so they judge it based on how close you are to that. quote:
ORIGINAL: stellauk quote:
ORIGINAL: Awareness unless we head into intimate territory - in which case, if I don't get a warning up front, I'll be mega-pissed. That's unlikely to happen, especially here, seeing as you've flagged up a massive warning to anyone who is transgendered. But please don't let me disturb you in making your assumptions. There was a question posted on Fetlife that asked if a TG woman who seduced a stereotypically intolerant straight man (the question defined particular parameters), and then told him, after sex, that she was born a man, was partially responsible for getting beat up for it. It was kind of a touchy topic (though it didn't descend to CM-style madness, at least while I was paying attention. Most people agreed that there was a lie of omission on part of the TG, but that the man overreacted in his response, and should be held accountable for that. Some people likened it to sexual assault, and some people thought that the TG didn't have any responsibility to be upfront, ever. I think the man would have a right to whatever his feeling was, even if it was negative. If he was angry, whatever, BUT by over-reacting and beating up or killing a person, he puts himself officially in the wrong. quote:
ORIGINAL: stellauk The other thing is, nobody is under any obligation to be eye candy for anyone else - irrespective of whether they are transgendered or not. This is very true, but unfortunately many people, particularly men, don't see it this way. I think this kind of thinking is why less-than-attractive women get treated badly -- they aren't doing their job of being a physically pleasing female for the random male gaze. quote:
ORIGINAL: stellauk Almost invariably, and consistently throughout my own experience of being transgendered, the people who do have issues with the transgendered aren't being malicious towards them, they are just voicing their own issues when it comes to gender per se. This comes from having a very narrow or rigid (read inflexible) view of what gender actually is and what gender actually isn't. Their firm conviction that they are right and assumption that most people think like them prevents them from gaining any sort of real awareness or understanding of what it is actually all about. It's the exact same way of thinking when it comes to people who object strongly to same sex relationships, the 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' brigade. Generally speaking coming across someone who is transgendered isn't the norm (there's so few in relation to the wider population and as Awareness rightly points out people judge others on the way they look and this is instinctive) and it does take some people out of their comfort zone. This becomes more true and much more consistent the more intimate the perceived relationship or interaction becomes. Human nature, we become much more selective about those we wish to become intimate with the greater the intimacy. However how the cisgendered person i.e. non-transgendered responds to this depends almost entirely on them and their personal outlook on life. While most cisgendered people probably wouldn't have a primary relationship with someone who is transgendered, or indeed share any real level of intimacy, they do recognize them as human, and once they've worked it out and worked out how they can relate to that person without making them feel uncomfortable, the problems disappear. They also recognize that, even if they're not able to pass, even if you can tell or detect easily that they're transgendered, the simple fact that you can see them makes it clear that they are coping with life the best they can, facing up to their issues, and 'dealing with their shit'. All of this -- most people I know, even if they don't agree with the TG's "TG-ness," they recognize that this is a human, the most important thing, and this person has a lot to deal with already on her plate, so why add more? Relate to that person as one human with issues to another human with issues. Nobody's life is perfect and neatly tucked away in nice little labeled boxes; some issues are thankfully not as apparent and broadcast to the world, as TG-ness can be. MtFs have problems, i believe, because of this extremely narrow view of what constitutes "acceptable femininity," and if that definition were wider, I think there would be fewer problem. Hausboy mentioned a friend of his who was a biological woman but was constantly assumed to be MtF because, even though she was biologically female, she had features that people considered "unacceptable" for femininity. I think if people can certainly go after whatever type of woman they want, but they should also be accepting of the basic humanity of women who may not be sexually appealing in the way they desire. Ultimately, i think that a lot of the problem is because of this. "Can I be sexually attracted to this person? No?! What the fuck?!!!" You turn someone else's existence into an issue about you, and that's wrong.
_____________________________
Midwestern Girl "Obey your Master." Metallica
|