[Rachel Bronwyn]

What is or isn't under her skirt is not your business.

Originally Posted by 100Proof

Feel free to have the last word...

I will.

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.

Bullshit. You're not entitled to know whether someone used to be a redhead nor are you entitled to know whether someone has a Y chromosome or used to have male genitals. It's none of your business, even if you're buying their product. so long as it plays no role whatsoever in their product. If their Y chromosome played a role in the product you purchased, it would be pertinent and relevant. It's not. You're demanding someone pander to others' homophobia by ensuring the customer doesn't accidentally enjoy their work. Heaven forbid men having to challenge their own homophobia! There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that someone should have to reveal a personal detail about their life that plays absolutely no role in their product. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THAT INFORMATION. If you were, it would be a lie. It's not.

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.

The customer is getting exactly what they ask for. It's only after the user finds out the person they just beat off to is biologically male that their homophobia kicks in. That homophobia is not the purveryor's problem.

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.

No, their preferences are precisely what cause them to make said purchase, all of which are fulfilled by the product. The homophobia is the customer's problem. Putting the onus on the purveryor is absurd.

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.

If it's completely irrevelvant, be it someone's biological state or the accident a car has been in that in no way negatively affects it, it's none of your business and is not lying. You're not entitled to irrelevant information simply to avoid challenging your biases. It's only false advertising if what's left unsaid can/will have a negative affect on the buyer later.

The comparison of transgendered people to damaged goods is pretty revolting, by the way.

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.

That was a pretty shitty thing to say. I've been profoundly reasonable and civil. I'm not going to act as though you're right though.

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.

Not really but sort of. I've repeatedly said partners are entitled to know if someone is transgendered and that it's in the best interest of the transgendered person to be open about it when it comes to intimate relationships.

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).

This entire premise is incorrect as advertising one's self as a woman when one is a woman and the irrelevent fact they carry a Y chromosome plays no role whatsoever in the product is not false advertising. This person is providing exactly the service the buyers seek.