Full disclaimer: I am a cis-gendered male, bisexual. Pre-, Post- whatever transsexual doesn't bother me. That means that I have this. And I like this and this. (One of these days I'm going to figure out how to post pictures...)
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's get to the important stuff below the little orange squiggle-thingie...
I never figured out what Seneca Doane meant in his diary even after 200- plus comments. I'm not calling him out I just want to start a more rational thread.
In each case, Q wants to have what, if Q identified as male, would be garden variety coitus with P. Q will wear a condom; Q notes that P already let her use the very realistic strap-on on her and says that this won't feel much different to P at all, but that this is how Q can reach an orgasm, which a moment ago is what P said she wanted to happen.
Now one might ask, with respect to each of these cases, at what point P is justified in feeling perturbed at Q, who presented from the pubic bone up (let's assume she kept her bra on and begged off being touched there) as a woman, and in all cases claims that her gender identity is female (or, for Q3, very likely so.
Is it fair for P to have gotten upset when Q started chatting her up in a lesbian bar? When she took Q home? When they started making out? When Q strapped on and the sex play started? When Q proposed that they have the only kind of sex that would give her an orgasm and not present P with what Q realized would be an offensive phallus in hand or head? Or, what if Q had only pretended to use the strap-on, instead using some sort of rarely useful strap-on approximating condom?
Don't bother answering. If you had to think about it even a millisecond, you get labeled a bigot, because according to the "simple rule" you cite the answer is that all that matters is what Q professes to P about her gender identity. So, believing that Q is a woman (and assuming that the strap-on and the condom-clad penis are somehow identical in the dark), the only reason she has for suddenly deciding that this was not the sexual experience she wanted is that P didn't believe quite strongly enough that Q was enough "really" a woman for P's desires. My view is, shall we say, more nuanced, and I am certainly less willing to criticize P.
So, it's good to be prejudiced against people who have had genital-reconstructive surgery?Someone who has spent tens of thousands of dollars to make themselves look like who the are, and BTW, match your expectations of what they should look like naked?
Seneca's Ps and Qs make my head spin, please follow the link and read his original diary. It gives me a headache, but maybe you will be a fan. I don't know what prompted him to post this diary, but whatever. Kinsey didn't consider trans-folk, they were not in his radar.
As for me, I'm not that fussy about parts. If you're kind and not a Republican, and generally a nice person, boy/girl/in-between, I'll boink you. Take off your clothes and surprise me.
So, my purpose was to start a more rational thread.
Updated by BobSmith415 at Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 08:02 AM PDT
Okay, not understanding DK4 so much, my point was and is, that people should be able to say "Hey I'm a boy," or "Hey, I'm a girl" and that's okay with whatever is in their pants, or under their skirt.
Really. We're all naked under out clothes anyway.