You make some good points, Rachel, but it's clear we disagree fundamentally in a couple of key ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel Bronwyn
That’s no different than me discriminating against brunettes who have a recessive red head gene. It does not affect their appearance nor does it affect who they are. But, ewww, they have an icky gene!
|
No, that's not the same. If the person had red hair for the first 18-25 years of their life and then had their hair surgically altered to be brown, then yes, I'd say it was the same. The red hair will never come back and there's nothing wrong with that person calling themselves a brunette, but not admitting that you were once a redhead is a lie of omission. A relatively unimportant one, but a lie nonetheless.
Quote:
|
It’s only important that this person identify as a transgendered female because after wanking to her, some of the guys who find out she’d biologically male might feel icky due to latent homophobia. Tough shit. It is no one’s job to pander to anyone else’s homophobia. What’s being asked of this person is that she indulge the irrational biases of her customers. Bullshit. You’re not entitled to know personal details about this person. If you feel icky later, it’s entirely due to your homophobia and is your responsibility to get over.
|
People SHOULD get over their biases. But this involves money changing hands. The fact of the matter is that a lie of omission occurs and the people buying the product might not be getting what they asked for. Should they "get over it"? Probably. And perhaps in time people will. But when you're dealing with a sale of services rendered (particularly of this nature), their biases are precisely what causes them to make said purchase in the first place.
I'm generally pretty good with analogies, but I'm coming up pretty empty here. How about this one? When I look to buy a used car, I always make sure to ask for a vehicle history report to make sure the car has never been in a major accident. The car may be completely rebuilt, look fine, run perfectly well, and do everything I need it to do for years. But I will never buy a car that's been in a major accident. Am I missing out by having that somewhat irrational personal rule? Probably. But if someone sold me a car without telling me that, that's a big no no.
Judging from your tone, I can tell you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. Which is fine. Progress is only made through civil discussion. Here is where I believe we differ:
You feel that a TG woman is exactly the same as a woman from birth post-surgery, should be treated as one, and should have the option to not self-identify in every conceivable situation: what the male apes don't know won't hurt them and they're the ones with the problem anyway.
Edit: It would appear we only disagree on one of these.
I feel that a TG woman is exactly the same as a woman from birth post-surgery, should be treated as one, and should have the option to not self-identify in all situations save for two: where romantic love is involved with another person (as trust and honesty are the foundation of any romantic relationship) and where money is being exchanged under the pretense of sexual services rendered (because of the basic rules of the bartering system re: false advertising).
Feel free to have the last word...