Question for the guys

[Babykat]

I am full aware of Agent j's record here. Even though he never backs his claims that does not mean that he still isnt required too.

The law does nothing for how I feel about having sex with a transgender person. I do not identify as a heterosexual who has sex with transgender people. I identify myself as only having sex with people born the opposite sex than me. Certainly it should be my right to never have sex with a transgender person. If they lie/omit I still never gave consent. Going by the premise of the OP I was tricked into having sex with a transgender person, once that happened I went against my own sexual preference and had I have known I would never have given my consent.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread this has zero to with the legalities of transgenderism. And I as understand it, legally after transition you are legally a transgender women not just a women. I only have sex with women not transgender women and it is my right to do so and it is my right not to be tricked into having sex with a transgender women. The Transgender person in the OP never had the right to lie to obtain sex from an unwilling partner. ANd as stated no matter the circumstances I am not ever willing to have sex with a transgender person period, and nothing anyone can say can convince me otherwise.

I have nothing against transgender people; I just do not want to **** them since that is not how I identify sexually speaking. Again your rights stop where mine start and in the case of the OP, my rights were violated.

There is a difference between right and responsibility. So take for example. If a man had sex with an underage girl. But she lied about her age to him and the law gets involved. Is he going to jail or is she. If you consent to sex without verifying what you have been told it’s your own fault. Also just a point after they have had their birth certificate changed they are a women.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wan]

LMAO
Translation: you CANT make an argument that holds water for your nonsensical claims of sexual assault and rape keep trying and or denying it though its fun to watch!

Maybe having had sex with a tranny who didn't disclose is not sexual assault/rape, however I think that in our particular culture, the Western culture, this is serious enough that it warrants the involvement of laws. A lot of men are disgusted by the thought of having had sex with a tranny. So, for a tranny to fail to disclose her trans-ness in order to have sex with a man, the man should be able to sue her for the mental distress she caused him.

I saw an episode of Ally McBeal where a customer was suing a restaurant for serving him horse meat. There was nothing wrong with eating horse meat, however in the West, a lot of people are grossed out by the thought. So this guy sued for damages. It's the same principle.

 

[Babykat]

1.) what "argument" you have none. Your statement was actually wrong, that was proven ad it still is factually wrong LMAO
2.) no, i called it wrong because facts prove it wrong
3.) nothgin you posted here chage the fact your statement was wrong
4.) nope thats your assumption real and nothing else
5.) lol more lies . . i factually did answer it, just cause you dont like the answer doesn't change anything..

lets reflect . .

Facts:

your statment was and remaisn factually wrong

Reasonable assumption is defined as a assumption made using reason, logical supposition.
So while my statement may have lacked some details. Which made it actually wrong. It was still reasonable. You whole argument is that I didn’t include in my statement that they would also have to take proof of the surgery to the court and then take the court order to the health Department. It like if I said I went to the store and bought a gun. It would be reasonable to assume that I had and passed a background check also. But I have never really known you to be reasonable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

What I am asserting is that I m not fine with a transgender person lying to me to have sex with me, and according to the law that is a form of sexual assault.

The transgender person in the scenario in the OP can easily be assumed to have not told the other person about being transgender since doing so probably would have resulted in no consent to have sex. The evidence being that the transgender person then admitted to being transgender only after they had sex. The OP does not present an voluntary informed consent, the decision was not made by anyone other than the transgender person (they were the only one truly informed and thus maliciously hide information in order to have sex). That is called sexual assault.

You claim that "No measurable harm has been done to you" if a transgender person lies (omission is a form of lying) to have sex with you. How did you come to that conclusion? Did you consider the mental harm that such knowledge can have a person? You seem to be only projecting your own bias. Sure there are some people who would not care and more power to them. But for those who do care; what of their rights? Remember your rights stop where my rights begin. A transgender person has the right to their privacy. But they do not have the right to deceive their partner in order to have sex with them. Of course not all of the states have rape by deceit laws, but that does not bar civil lawsuits. Certainly it can be shown to be harmful to a persons mental condition. For many men waking up everyday and realizing that you has sex with some who used to be a man them self, cuts to the core of their personal inner self. It could certainly cause PTSD syndrome.

First off omission is not automatically lying. Your claim of a right to know something has yet to be supported. It is also based upon your own preconceptions. If the person has already gone through full SRS, in their mind they are a woman, and the point of mentioning they are transgendered might seem moot to them. The reason for saying so later could be any number of reasons. Since the OP was so vague that the situation could be a one night stand turned into a long term relationship. For a one night stand, unless it would be a direct affect upon your health, then you have no right to know anything about her medically. Hell, even with my legal wife, unless she is incapable of making her own decision, I have no right to know anything about her medically, past or present. You can make all the points you want about honesty and trust and whatnot, but it still does not provide a right to know.

As to such an act causing PTSD, you need to back that up. Any actual cases of a male developing PTSD from finding out that a woman he banged was once a man? I'd be very interested in reading about such cases. Would it make any difference if you found out 5 years later? 10? This is all aside from the fact that you really don't know how you'd react. You can guess, but unless you have some basis to pin that on, it is pure conjecture. It's amazing how much we think we will react one way, and then react completely different when it actually happens.

 

[maquiscat]

Apples and oranges. You are comparing two ridiculous situations to one that is can especially serious to many people.

Actually if your point of rape by deception is to be considered valid, then any deception would count. Why would it be any less valid if your only reason with sleeping with the woman was that she was rich, and then you found out she wasn't? Well maybe not only reason, but still a major one. Seriously, if you want to use the deception bit, then you need to remain consistent and not cherry pick.

I take it that you see no problem and would have sex with a transgender person, but that is your decision based on your own personal state of mind. Not all people are you and this may feel dramatically different than you. Stop pretending that everyone is as accepting of transgenderism as you are. Personally I do not care what adults want to do with their bodies as long as it does not involve me. If you want to become transgender whatever the hell I do not care, but once you lie to me to have sex I do care..a lot. You now involved me in something that I would never in a million ****ing years consent too, and you probably knew that since you lied in order to **** me.

The idea that they lied presumes both that they knew you would have such an issue with it, and that they felt that it was something you needed to know immediately. I mean do you ask every woman that you might sleep with if they were previously a man? Short of that, then at least the first time, they are under no obligation to release anything medically to you. It will not affect your physical health and it is very doubtful it would cause PTSD.

Just out of curiosity, what if what you were told that they did indeed have a Y chromosome, but no mention as to whether or not they used to be a man?

 

[maquiscat]

Maybe having had sex with a tranny who didn't disclose is not sexual assault/rape, however I think that in our particular culture, the Western culture, this is serious enough that it warrants the involvement of laws. A lot of men are disgusted by the thought of having had sex with a tranny. So, for a tranny to fail to disclose her trans-ness in order to have sex with a man, the man should be able to sue her for the mental distress she caused him.

This still does not show where there is an obligation to reveal that they are trans. What right do you have to know their medical history if that is no physical harm that would befall you? Yes, failure to disclose most STI's would count because most STI's can cause various sicknesses and even death eventually. Short of having an STI, what physical risk does the trans woman put you at?

I saw an episode of Ally McBeal where a customer was suing a restaurant for serving him horse meat. There was nothing wrong with eating horse meat, however in the West, a lot of people are grossed out by the thought. So this guy sued for damages. It's the same principle.

Well now that all depends. Was the horse meat listed as some other type of meat? Is horse meat legally know as another type of meat? If it was listed in the menu as horse meat, or the meat type is not listed at all, then there was no real basis for the suit. If it was fraudulently listed as something else that horse meat is not legally know by, that is when you have another situation. And for that matter, if it was sold to the restaurant as say beef, then the restaurant isn't being deceptive in calling it beef, because they believe it to be so. And therein is part of the parallel. First off a transgender truly believes themselves to be of that gender. So to claim it is not a deception. Furthermore they are not under obligation to disclose their status to you. Unless you ask and they then lie, not disclosing is their choice.

 

[Wan]

This still does not show where there is an obligation to reveal that they are trans. What right do you have to know their medical history if that is no physical harm that would befall you? Yes, failure to disclose most STI's would count because most STI's can cause various sicknesses and even death eventually. Short of having an STI, what physical risk does the trans woman put you at?

Not everything is measured by "physical" risk. There is also the man's mental health at stake. A lot of men are grossed out by the fact they unknowingly had sex with a tranny. The tranny is under no obligation to tell but the guy should be able to sue her for causing him mental distress.

First off a transgender truly believes themselves to be of that gender. So to claim it is not a deception.

So if I truly believed I was only 16, I could have sex with other 16-year olds and not be charged with statutory rape? I mean, I truly "believe" that I am 16, and that's all that counts, right?

 

[maquiscat]

Certainly it should be my right to never have sex with a transgender person.

Says who? Where do you derive such a right? By your logic, it is my right to never have sex with a black person. So if a black person is one of those whose skin is so light as to easily be mistake as a white person, then also by your logic they are require to tell me that they are black.

If they lie/omit I still never gave consent. Going by the premise of the OP I was tricked into having sex with a transgender person, once that happened I went against my own sexual preference and had I have known I would never have given my consent.

That is only your perception of the OP premise. Regardless, as noted I don't even have a right to know my wife's medical history, unless she is incapable of making her own decisions. Hell I have had to sigh releases to allow my doctors to talk with my wife about medical issues. Now I am pretty sure that such was more doctor CYA than legal requirement to have a signed statement, but the reality is that if she doesn't want her doctor to reveal medical stuff to me, he can't. I have no right to it. You have no right to her medical history, including what she was born as.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) Maybe having had sex with a tranny who didn't disclose is not sexual assault/rape
2.) however I think that in our particular culture, the Western culture, this is serious enough that it warrants the involvement of laws.
3.) A lot of men are disgusted by the thought of having had sex with a tranny. So, for a tranny to fail to disclose her trans-ness in order to have sex with a man, the man should be able to sue her for the mental distress she caused him.
4.) I saw an episode of Ally McBeal where a customer was suing a restaurant for serving him horse meat. There was nothing wrong with eating horse meat, however in the West, a lot of people are grossed out by the thought. So this guy sued for damages. It's the same principle.

1.) based on normal circumstance, no its not
2.) i dont, the laws are already there if needed. You arent going to be able to get peoples personal medical history.
now could i invent a scenario where a suit might work? sure but it would be very specif and unlikely,
Meeting at a bar and hooking up is never going to be rape based on not disclosing what gender one was born
3.) nope thats meaningless . . many man would be grossed out over a number of things like maybe how many partners the girl had, if she was republican/democrat, racist or if she use to be unattractive but now she is . . surgery, weight etc . . not grounds for LAWS
4.) no, thats not the same principle neither is ally mcbeal real life LMAO

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Reasonable assumption is defined as a assumption made using reason, logical supposition.
So while my statement may have lacked some details. Which made it actually wrong. It was still reasonable. You whole argument is that I didn’t include in my statement that they would also have to take proof of the surgery to the court and then take the court order to the health Department. It like if I said I went to the store and bought a gun. It would be reasonable to assume that I had and passed a background check also. But I have never really known you to be reasonable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey look a bunch of meaningless words that changes nothing LMAO
Facts dont care about your feelings :shrug:

The act remains your statement was and is wrong.

let me know when that fact changes, thanks!

 

[maquiscat]

Not everything is measured by "physical" risk. There is also the man's mental health at stake. A lot of men are grossed out by the fact they unknowingly had sex with a tranny. The tranny is under no obligation to tell but the guy should be able to sue her for causing him mental distress.

So what exactly are we talking about for mental distress here? Can we sue for anything that causes mental distress? My taxes certainly cause me mental distress, can I sue the IRS over that? Or maybe Congress since they are the one who are actually to blame? Go back to post 108 and tell me if I can sue a person because their skin color was deceptive and it caused me to have mental distress to have had sex with a black person.

So if I truly believed I was only 16, I could have sex with other 16-year olds and not be charged with statutory rape? I mean, I truly "believe" that I am 16, and that's all that counts, right?

So let's take this question to the next logical step. Person A is 34, but has the mental capacity of a 10 YO. Person B is 16 of normal mental capacity for the age. Which one is guilty of statutory rape? Are we counting the physical age, or the mental one? Therein will be the key to your answer. And I make no claims that it will be a simple answer.

 

[Wan]

Meeting at a bar and hooking up is never going to be rape based on not disclosing what gender one was born
3.) nope thats meaningless . . many man would be grossed out over a number of things like maybe how many partners the girl had, if she was republican/democrat, racist or if she use to be unattractive but now she is . . surgery, weight etc . . not grounds for LAWS

But people sue each other for causing them mental distress all the time, maybe not specifically for the instances you listed, but these types of lawsuits exist and people have won compensation for it. This tells me that mental serenity is a valid concept and if someone does something to upset my mental serenity then I have a basis for suing.

4.) no, thats not the same principle neither is ally mcbeal real life LMAO

Did I say Ally McBeal was real life? Or you just can't control your jeering just like how an epileptic can't help but spasm?

 

[maquiscat]

Why would anybody have the surgery and then not take a copy of their medical records to the court to get their court order. So they can take that to the health Department and have their birth certificate changed. That’s like running a 2 year race and stopping in site of the finish line.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe because they don't need nor care what the legal record is. Their goal was to stop the gender dysphoria. Maybe some do need that mental component of the changed birth certificate, but probably most do not.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)But people sue each other for causing them mental distress all the time, maybe not specifically for the instances you listed, but these types of lawsuits exist and people have won compensation for it. This tells me that mental serenity is a valid concept and if someone does something to upset my mental serenity then I have a basis for suing.
2.)Did I say Ally McBeal was real life? Or you just can't control your jeering just like how an epileptic can't help but spasm?

1.) and there has to be intent and or reasonable negligence. You havent provided any based on a GENERAL scenario so no its not a valid concept in this case
2.) nope just pointing out how its not the same principle out how stupid it is to refer to that show as if it had meaning:lamo

 

[maquiscat]

So it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that if they have had the surgery then they also have changed their birth certificate. Right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually it would be unreasonable to make that assumption unless you had something that showed that most do. It is reasonable to assume that a person is most likely right handed. It is reasonable to assume that a person is most likely cis. It is reasonable to assume that a person is most likely straight. That is because these are the most common occurrences. As long as you recognize that there is a chance that they are not what is most likely, then the assumption is reasonable. So the question is, what do you have to show us that this would be a reasonable assumption?

 

[Wan]

So what exactly are we talking about for mental distress here? Can we sue for anything that causes mental distress? My taxes certainly cause me mental distress, can I sue the IRS over that? Or maybe Congress since they are the one who are actually to blame? Go back to post 108 and tell me if I can sue a person because their skin color was deceptive and it caused me to have mental distress to have had sex with a black person.

Then this is where the doctrine of "reasonable-ness" comes in. I know it would be very difficult to determine it, as different people have different standards, but one thing that I hope you can agree with me is that mental serenity is a valid concept and 2. if someone does something to seriously upset my mental serenity, then I have a basis for a civil suit. People sue each other for causing mental distress sometimes, and people have won compensation for it.

So let's take this question to the next logical step. Person A is 34, but has the mental capacity of a 10 YO. Person B is 16 of normal mental capacity for the age. Which one is guilty of statutory rape? Are we counting the physical age, or the mental one? Therein will be the key to your answer. And I make no claims that it will be a simple answer.

Let's not get carried away with even more hypothetical situations. My point is that we don't simply go by what a person feels he/she is on the inside. Doesn't matter how strongly she feels. There are real, physical, objective things that help us determine things. And with a tranny, the objective thing is that she was born with a penis. And to a lot of people, me included, that means "she" is a man. I could care less how much she screams that she feels like a woman on the inside.

 

[Wan]

2.) nope just pointing out how its not the same principle out how stupid it is to refer to that show as if it had meaning:lamo

Did I say it "had meaning"? Secondly, how hard was it to keep your opinion to yourself? Would it kill you to not say that you thought my post was stupid? Kids as young as 6 know not to be rude to others. Why can't you do the same? Do you know what the word "manner" means?

And now I am counting how long it will take you to say my feelings are "worthless".

 

[maxparrish]

Let's imagine that you had sex with a "woman", and "she" only told you about her trans-ness after you had slept with her. What would your reaction be?

Let's be honest.

Can't imagine it happening. I'm very good at spotting fake women BEFORE I even talk to one. If anything, I have likely thought a few actual women as possible TG's.

If it happened, I'd likely feel disgusted for not having detected it earlier.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) Did I say it "had meaning"?
2.) Secondly, how hard was it to keep your opinion to yourself?
3.) Would it kill you to not say that you thought my post was stupid?
4.) Kids as young as 6 know not to be rude to others. Why can't you do the same? Do you know what the word "manner" means?

And now I am counting how long it will take you to say my feelings are "worthless".

1.) thats why you posted it or are you just claiming you were just sharing meaningless examples? because then i agree
2.) dont like it find a safe space where they dont discuss opinions
3.) didnt say your post was stupid i said referring to Ally was stupid after you had a triggered meltdown and said i was havign a spasm LMAO
4.) sweet irony . . keep it coming!!!

anything else?

 

[Wan]

1.) thats why you posted it or are you just claiming you were just sharing meaningless examples? because then i agree
2.) dont like it find a safe space where they dont discuss opinions
3.) didnt say your post was stupid i said referring to Ally was stupid after you had a triggered meltdown and said i was havign a spasm LMAO
4.) sweet irony . . keep it coming!!!

anything else?

If you want people to talk to you, you have to act civilized. I am giving you one last chance, to post like a normal, reasonably civilized person, before I put you on ignore (you probably wouldnt care, I realize that). I have had enough of you and your garbage. You don't debate, you just jeer and make fun of the other person.

 

[maquiscat]

Then this is where the doctrine of "reasonable-ness" comes in. I know it would be very difficult to determine it, as different people have different standards, but one thing that I hope you can agree with me is that mental serenity is a valid concept and 2. if someone does something to seriously upset my mental serenity, then I have a basis for a civil suit. People sue each other for causing mental distress sometimes, and people have won compensation for it.

I am not going to say that it can't, but as I noted with FFA, I believe, you need to show where it has actually caused complications. Somehow I doubt you would go as far as to claim PTSD over it as he did, but still, there has to be a "reasonable-ness" of how much this disturbed you.

Let's not get carried away with even more hypothetical situations. My point is that we don't simply go by what a person feels he/she is on the inside. Doesn't matter how strongly she feels. There are real, physical, objective things that help us determine things. And with a tranny, the objective thing is that she was born with a penis. And to a lot of people, me included, that means "she" is a man. I could care less how much she screams that she feels like a woman on the inside.

There are lots of possible real objective things that could be out there. Most of the time people don't want to think about them or even look to see how common they might actually be. Now as an unrelated example of how something might be more common than had been previously realized, it has been relatively recently discovered that women might miscarry a lot more than we initially thought. Not everything frequent is easily visible.

Shifting back to related, a person can have a Y chromosome and not been born with a penis. Are they a man or a woman? How about chimeras? So far the prominent cases, all the DNA sets were of the same gender, but since the prevailing thought is that chimeraism is caused by one fraternal twin dying while still in the zygote stage and being absorbed by their twin, AND given that male/female fraternal twins are not uncommon within the commonality of fraternal twins, could not the sense of self be developed by the one set, while the genitals are formed by the other? These are objective things.

Furthermore, how do we apply your view to other disorders, such as, say, depression? Does depression as a disorder objectively exist? Actual PTSD?? And if these disorders do objectively exist, then why can't transgenderism objectively exist?

I do get that to you and others, the presence or previous presence of a penis is cause for issue, the degree of which would vary from person to person. And that is a valid concern. But that in no way means that deception was what the trans person engaged in. Nor does it mean that your discomfort with such a situation warrants legal action.

 

[AGENT J]

If you want people to talk to you, you have to act civilized. I am giving you one last chance, to post like a normal, reasonably civilized person, before I put you on ignore (you probably wouldnt care, I realize that). I have had enough of you and your garbage. You don't debate, you just jeer and make fun of the other person.

more sweet irony!! LMAO

 

[maquiscat]

I'm very good at spotting fake women BEFORE I even talk to one.

ROFLMFAO!!!!!

If only I could have a dollar for every male I've heard say this shortly before or after they started hitting on my transwoman friend. I could retire.

 

[Babykat]

Actually it would be unreasonable to make that assumption unless you had something that showed that most do. It is reasonable to assume that a person is most likely right handed. It is reasonable to assume that a person is most likely cis. It is reasonable to assume that a person is most likely straight. That is because these are the most common occurrences. As long as you recognize that there is a chance that they are not what is most likely, then the assumption is reasonable. So the question is, what do you have to show us that this would be a reasonable assumption?

I didn’t say it would be reasonable to assume some is transgender. I said if you knew some had sex reassignment surgery wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that they would also have changed their birth certificate. Given that the whole point of transitioning is to become a woman or man. Not just to look like one. Plus given that a majority of people who have sex reassignment surgery have their birth certificate changed as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wan]

I am not going to say that it can't, but as I noted with FFA, I believe, you need to show where it has actually caused complications. Somehow I doubt you would go as far as to claim PTSD over it as he did, but still, there has to be a "reasonable-ness" of how much this disturbed you.

Agreed. Although from what I have observed in this thread, some people seem to be saying that just because they themselves are not bothered by it (having slept with a tranny), that it means other people should not, either. In real life, a lot of guys would be seriously disturbed but the vocal minority (mostly made up of liberals) simply dismiss it. Not saying you are one, of course.

There are lots of possible real objective things that could be out there. Most of the time people don't want to think about them or even look to see how common they might actually be. Now as an unrelated example of how something might be more common than had been previously realized, it has been relatively recently discovered that women might miscarry a lot more than we initially thought. Not everything frequent is easily visible.

I don't disagree with any of this, but I fail to see how it's relevant. I never said there are (or aren't) objective things out there or that things are not as previously thought. My point is that we should not go by what people feel on the inside. Because if we do this, then we will end up with all kinds of absurdities. What if someone really, really, REALLy thinks he is POTUS? Should we humour his fantasies?

Shifting back to related, a person can have a Y chromosome and not been born with a penis. Are they a man or a woman? How about chimeras? So far the prominent cases, all the DNA sets were of the same gender, but since the prevailing thought is that chimeraism is caused by one fraternal twin dying while still in the zygote stage and being absorbed by their twin, AND given that male/female fraternal twins are not uncommon within the commonality of fraternal twins, could not the sense of self be developed by the one set, while the genitals are formed by the other? These are objective things.

I acknowledge that chimeraism exists, however it is an instance of a rare abnormality. When it comes to most healthy humans, it is very easy and straightforward to determine their sex. And the criterion "if you are born with a penis, you are a man" is not unreasonable to me at all.

Furthermore, how do we apply your view to other disorders, such as, say, depression? Does depression as a disorder objectively exist? Actual PTSD?? And if these disorders do objectively exist, then why can't transgenderism objectively exist?

I never said transgenderism does not exist. I know trans-gendered people exist. However, I simply refuse to call them a woman (or man, as the case might be), just based on how they feel on the inside.

I do get that to you and others, the presence or previous presence of a penis is cause for issue, the degree of which would vary from person to person. And that is a valid concern. But that in no way means that deception was what the trans person engaged in. Nor does it mean that your discomfort with such a situation warrants legal action.

How about "misleading"? Or non-disclosure?

It doesn't matter that they did not deliberately lie. The issue of being a trans-sexual person is serious enough that I expect trans-sexuals to have the decency to disclose it to their would-be lover. This is so that they can make an informed decision about whether to take things further. And if they are worried that if they told the guy, he would run away, then it's all the more reason to tell him.