yagathai | (no subject)

Recent comments by Seth McFarlane, creator and writer of Family Guy, have caused controversy in circles where such controversy is wont to occur. You can read about it in more detail here, but the short of it is that one of his straight male characters threw up after he learned that he'd had sex with a post-op male-to-female transsexual. McFarlane was criticized for saying that he didn't think that this was an out-of-the-ordinary reaction for your average straight dude.

I got into a bit of an ugly scrum over at

redstapler's LJ, where what I thought was a productive discussion with

redstapler quickly got derailed by your usual-type flailers and shriekers accusing me of being the devil, so I was hoping maybe we could have a more civil discussion of the topic here.

It remains to be seen if that's possible.

My points, briefly, are that:

It is not unreasonable for a straight male in modern Western culture to be distressed upon learning that someone he thought was a ciswoman, that is to say a woman that was born a woman, with woman bits, who was acculturated as a woman was actually a transwoman, that is to say a woman that was born a man, with man parts, acculturated as a man who later got top and bottom surgery and is now a woman*.

It is, further, wrong for a transperson not to notify their partner that they are in fact trans, and not cis, if they can reasonably assume that the fact that they're trans might affect their partner's decision to consent to sex. In other words, their partner has to be given an opportunity for informed consent. Without such a notification, their partner is incapable of informed consent and that's wrong, because sex without informed consent is a form of rape -- in fact, it's one of the primary definitions of rape.

The arguments against me, as best I can understand them, are:

A transperson should never have to reveal their trans status because they are constantly in danger of being transbashed, that is to say, violently assaulted because of their transsexual status. Concern for their personal safety overrides any other considerations, including their obligation to inform a potential sexual partner.

If you have sex with a transperson and you can't tell that they're trans, then what difference does it make? You never need to know, and they never need to tell you. No harm, no foul.

yagathai is a racist and a transphobe and a homophobe and a terrible human being**.

Discuss.

*Yes, there may be ways to be a transwoman that don't involve getting a whole bunch of surgery, but this was the scenario as presented in the TV show and it's the one I'm going with here.
**For the record, I think you could make a legitimate case for only one of those four things.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The reason this line of thinking is a problem is because it leads, as you acknowledged, to trans-bashing.

And really, what do you propose as an alternative? That it's NOT OK for a guy to be upset that he feels he was decieved into sex? That he should be fine with it, and that a professional satirist and provocateur should self-censor and pretend that he's fine with it too? That's just not smart or right or realistic.

I don't even think your argument against my point #1 makes sense from a strictly utilitarian point of view, even if you ignore the ethical implications which comprise my point #2. The way to eliminate transbashing and effect a cultural shift is not to have more transwomen fuck more unwitting straight guys. In fact, it's a great way to polarize popular opinion against transpeople on a grassroots level.

I guarantee you this, Jill. The average straight guy -- and even most of the not-so-average, fairly socially and sexual liberal straight guy -- that finds out that he unwittingly slept with a transwoman and liked it is not going to suddenly be OK with fucking transwomen. He will not be like a kid you tricked into eating and liking beets. He will, instead, feel betrayed, confused and upset -- maybe upset enough to throw up, maybe not -- and then he's going to be angry. Very, very angry, as only people who have had their sexual choice taken from then can be.

Think about all the guys that, if approached by a transwoman who tells them that she's a transwomen, would say either "no thanks, that's not my bag" or even "no, ew, get away!" and not proceed beat the living shit out of her. I think people are fundamentally good, and tolerant, and a lot of guys would have exactly that reaction. They might be amused, or disgusted, or indifferent, but not violent.

Now of those guys, how many would in fact beat the living shit out of her if she slept with them and then revealed her status?

Those are the folks whose support you are losing with your line of reasoning. Those are also an awful lot of transwomen getting bashed instead of just rebuffed.

>>I think people are fundamentally good, and tolerant

Really? You must be less cynical than I am. I hope that doesn't damage your rep.

"Good" is a relative term. Will most people steal twenty bucks from you if they think they can get away with it? Probably, yeah. Will most people beat the shit out of a woman if they learn she was born a man? Probably not, no.

Who decides when transpeople are "too worried" that they'll be assaulted? Who decides when transpeople are giving too much weight to their murder rate and need to just chill out and trust people?

And really, what do you propose as an alternative? That it's NOT OK for a guy to be upset that he feels he was decieved into sex?

There needs to be recognition that his revulsion toward transpeople is a question of the boundaries of his interest and not some inherent flaw or disgustingness in the transperson. It is possible to be straight and uninterested in what's gonna feel to you like gay sex without being revolted by the very possibility of it happening.

Lack of interest is not the same as revulsion. Period dot.

If I had a partner who needed me to wear a pony mask for him to enjoy himself, I might have to say, "Not that there's anything wrong with this mask, but it's not for me." If I had a partner who did not, in fact, have the penis I was looking for, I might have to say, "Not that there's anything wrong with this vagina, but it's not for me." I don't see why repulsion and disgust is the natural reaction, and not this. Is this really so hard?

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how obvious people like you and me think that tolerance is. It doesn't matter that you or I would think, "WTF why would you attack someone over that?" What matters is that it happens, and it is not for you or me to ignore the crazy transphobic madpeople, nor is it for you or me to tell transpeople that they're too worried about the reaction they'll get.

The approaching man could more easily warn potential partners, "Hey, just so you know, I'm transphobic," and thus avoid tricking women into sleeping with a bigot.

Also, a fundamentally good person would not say, "no, ew, get away!" when told that one woman has had a different life experience from many other women. Emotional abuse is still abuse.