(no subject)

[yagathai]

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.

Comments

[redstapler.livejournal.com]

I am willing to agree to disagree on your second point, but on your first, I want to try and explain my reasoning:

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*

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

The problem is that this line of thinking is culturally taught. You are taught revulsion and distress to this situation.

Until the reaction to the discovery of a person's trans-status is no worse "Oh, sorry, that's not my bag," in the same way that some people don't like their lovers to have tattoos, facial hair, or the wrong body type, jokes reflecting trans panic, and even yes--a person's deciding to disclose is not your right.

I agree that in a happy shiny world, that info could be given freely and without issue. But that's not the world we're in.

[yagathai.livejournal.com]

First of all, I don't know if I agree that sexual preference for cispeople is culturally taught. I believe someone's sexual preferences are hardwired more or less from birth, and those preferences go far beyond simply gay/straight/bi.

But OK, even if I agree with you, and I concede that not wanting to fuck transpeople is a learned trait -- so what? A person still has the right to exercise choice about their sexual partners based on a learned trait. You may not agree with their sexual preferences, but that doesn't mean that their sexual preferences shouldn't be respected. Our bodies, our choice, right?

Bottom line, just because that revulsion is culturally taught does not make it wrong for a person to feel revolted where their sex life and their sexual choices are concerned. I frankly cannot believe you are coming down against a person's sexual sovereignty here.

(This verges into point 2), but I'm going to bring it up because it also speaks directly to your point:)

Your argument, that a transperson is at such high risk of getting the shit kicked out of them that their risk level trumps their partner's right to informed consent, only holds water if those are the only two choices -- either come out and almost certainly get bashed, or lie to your partner and let them make a decision based on false pretenses. In that case, fine, you've got an argument. I still don't know if I buy it, but it's a much stronger position.

But there's a world of choice that occurs between those two options. You could, for example, not fuck the person you know wouldn't fuck you if s/he knew you were trans. That's the most obvious choice. That way you don't risk getting bashed, your potential partner doesn't have his or her sexual identity potentially violated and everyone's happy. Or you could look for someone that's trans-friendly in the forums that we now have available to us where people like that congregate. If you meet someone in a trans-friendly chat room, for example, the odds of getting transbashed drop precipitously.

So no, I'm sorry, I don't buy it. If I know that you'll be upset if you know the truth about me, but I go ahead and let you assume a falsehood anyway just so I can fuck you -- that's not right, Jill. It's wrong!

[redstapler.livejournal.com]

I am not saying that a sexual preference for cis-people is culturally taught.

I'm saying that a revulsion and disgust for the discovery of trans-status *is.* The danger trans-people live with is the result of long-standing, systemic, culturally-ingrained hate.

I'm not saying everyone needs to go fuck everyone regardless of one's preference. I'm saying that we need to change the fact that disgust and revulsion is the response.

[yagathai.livejournal.com]

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.

[yagathai.livejournal.com]

Listen, in that cartoon Brian did not vomit because he discovered that Quagmire's dad was a transwoman. He vomited because he had been fucking Quagmire's dad, the transwoman. And then he refused to tell anyone about it because he was ashamed, and showered compulsively but still felt dirty and violated, and couldn't have any sexual feelings without intense shame and depression.

You watch the show. Do you think that the character of Brian, written consistently as a fairly comfortable middle-class liberal intellectual, would have vomited if he'd found out that Quagmire's dad was trans when he met her at the bar? Do you think he'd have showered compulsively if he'd been hanging out with with Quagmire's dad at a party and found out she was born a man? I would likely say, not.

Again, I submit that Brian's reaction was not to the simple fact that Quagmire's dad was trans, but rather because his sexual identity had been seriously violated and as a result he'd been psychologically traumatized.

[yagathai.livejournal.com]

So yes, I agree with you -- we should do something about the fact that in our current culture the reaction to trans-status is often revulsion and disgust, but I don't think that the change you describe can be reasonably expected to carry over to someone who finds out that the person they've been fucking is not the person they thought they were fucking.

[cynic51.livejournal.com]

>>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.

[yagathai.livejournal.com]

"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.

[stegoking.livejournal.com]

I agree with you entirely, Mike.

(And I love me some tranny porn.)

[ornythopter.livejournal.com]

Um. Who gets to decide what information is required for the consent given to be informed as opposed to, you know, like you say, the act becoming a form of rape?

"So you didn't tell the young lady you were a saxophone player prior to intercourse?"
"No, your honor, I did not."
"Welcome to the Sex Offender Registry. Hope you don't live near a school..."

[ornythopter.livejournal.com]

On a more relevant note, does anyone find it strange that Brian, THE DOG has sex with humans AND other dogs?

[yagathai.livejournal.com]

I'll repost what I said over on the other thread:

Here's where you draw the line with consent: If you know, or can reasonably assume, that a person would not consent, or at least would have major second thoughts about consenting, if they knew something about you that you chose not to reveal -- that's depriving them of informed consent.

Like anything else, it's a sliding scale with a lot of grey. Would most guys care if a woman was a bottle blonde instead of a natural blonde -- or at least care strongly enough not to fuck her if she was otherwise acceptable? In other words, would the peroxide 'do become the dealbreaker? Probably not. Would most women care if a guy was married to their sister, and might that concern be a dealbreaker? Probably so. Are there situations where the opposite of both scenarios might be true? Yeah, you bet, but most people don`t hear hoofbeats and expect zebras, you know?

In general, I think the average person living in our culture can assume that a straight man or straight woman would want to know whether or not their potential sexual partner was trans, and would weigh that factor in whether or not to give consent for sex. Consequently, I think that it's something that goes on the disclosure list.

[yagathai.livejournal.com]

It's one of those things like whether or not everyone can understand Stewie talking. Family Guy is no paragon of internal continuity.

[arya.livejournal.com]

Having not seen the show, I think that post-coital transphobia usually stems from sexual orientation. "I fucked a girl who used to be a guy, OMG I'M NOT A FAG, BUT NOW I FUCKED A DUDE, *puke.*"

So, Mike, you're right that the reaction was not unheard of or unrealistic. Thinking it's not unrealistic doesn't make you transphobic or homophobic or a terrible person (you're a terrible person because you bust up your evil twin when she's vulnerably post-surgery!). But redstapler is also correct that media portrayal such "realism" contributes towards how people learn such behaviours.

[arya.livejournal.com]

"I didn't know she was crazy when I fucked her."

[yagathai.livejournal.com]

Nah. I knew it and liked it. ;)

[catvalente.livejournal.com]

Wait, isn't Brian the dog? Isn't that grosser? And why should a cartoon dog be held up as a reasonable model of a straight human male?

Also I don't buy that barfing is a common reaction to something you don't like having happened, at least as common as movies and TV would have us believe. Shit gets real, I don't spontaneously ralph, and I've never seen anyone do so.

But straight up? Family Guy is offensive all the time on every level and is not funny. Color me not shocked that they were not funny and offensive again.

I'm still thrown by it was the dog? Having sex with someone's dad? What?

[catvalente.livejournal.com]

Ok, but most everyone agrees that the Arab guy who told the Jewish woman he was Jewish in order to have sex with her was not actually guilty of rape and that it's ridiculous that he was convicted of it--so I'm not really sure that it's as black and white as all that. If that's not rape, neither is not disclosing that you're trans.

Most people do not disclose the many things that would make someone not sleep with them. That's a pretty good evolutionary tactic.

[yagathai.livejournal.com]

The dad was a retired fighter pilot that had late-life sex-reassignment surgery. The A-plot of the episode was Quagmire unable to come to terms with the fact that his hyper-macho dad was a transsexual woman.

Brian is treated inconsistently based on the comedy needs of the episode. Sometimes he's treated like a dog, but in recent seasons they've been treating him like a human most of the time, with the occasional surreal gag that points out the fact that he's a dog. But he drinks martinis, has human girlfriends, drives a car, wrote a crappy pretentious novel that got panned by the New Yorker, etc. Basically anytime they need a straight man for a romance subplot, or a male character that isn't a buffoon like Chris or Peter, they use Brian the dog.

Within the fiction of the show, it's not at all unusual for the dog to be having sex with a human woman.

[catvalente.livejournal.com]

I think it makes it worse. Even a dog wouldn't sleep with you, etc...

[yagathai.livejournal.com]

It's always a question of degree, but I think there are things that are firmly on one side of the line or the other. Wearing a toupee? A kind of lie, but probably not rape. Pretending to be your twin brother so you can fuck his wife? Rapey McRaperton of Rapeville, Rapechigan.

[yagathai.livejournal.com]

Nah. I see where you're coming from, but again, within the fiction of the show nobody seems to take it amiss that Brian dates human women.

[catvalente.livejournal.com]

I think the Arab/Jew thing is very applicable. He knew she would never sleep with him if he told her, so he lied. And yet the whole internet says no way did he rape her. I think that's the same level of disclosure we're talking about here.

[yagathai.livejournal.com]

Yeah, and I think the Arab/Jew thing is really damn borderline. He also told her he was single when he was married.

Now it's really more complicated than a simple "he claimed he was a Jew" -- it's right in the grey area that I mentioned. If I recall, they had semi-public sex in a doorway or something very shortly after they had met, which is hardly the kind of situation where you do a lot of getting to know each other and pre-sex negotiation, and some of it is a he-said-she-said situation. But that being said, if he knew she wouldn't have sex with a married Arab, and he misrepresented himself as a single Jew... without considering any kind of mitigating circumstances I'm going to come down on her side of this. I'm not going to say he should wind up behind bars for twenty years, but he definitely didn't give her a chance for informed consent.

[arya.livejournal.com]

Your predilection for stickin' it in The Crazy aside, I'm saying "I didn't know she wasn't factory original" just doesn't hold any more weight than "I didn't know she was crazy."