LGBT Issues and Vidja Games

[Trev]

Yeah, we'd all like to think that men would just take it in stride and react in a mature, levelled way.

Instead, shit like this happens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Gwen_Araujo

That's the cold hard truth. There's a Trans* Day of Remembrance every year because shit like this is so common it's literally frightening.

I'd like to say it's not only men that can react negatively to that sort of reveal, though I realize it's been coming from a hypothetical example. The explanation for why a man's reaction might be more extreme is another topic.

I think that's a poor example. The second and third sentences of the account (cited with 10 and 11, not copied just in case people don't want to read it) really sounds like the wrong thing to do.

[Sir Legendhead]

I posted a pic of a trans friend in the Hottest Chicks thread once just to see if anyone would say anything. They didn't. I'd like to think it was because well, she was hot. She was a really good writer as well, went by Evil Pony Girl. Lived out in SF, some of you here may have seen her around or whatever, idk. Haven't spoken with her since the last time people actually used Myspace. Wonder how she's doing these days.

[Byronic Man]

Sure. Don't know how much, though. It's pretty simple. I know tons of girls with penises. I know tons of dudes with vaginas. Not every trans girl wants to have vaginoplasty. Not every trans guy wants to have a hysterectomy or attempt experimental surgery to give them a penis. For a lot of people, the identity of being a woman or a man itself is enough to relieve their dysphoria. They're still men and women, regardless of their parts, and as a result, any relationship they have with another man or woman would be perceived as either straight or gay, depending.

As I understand it, heterosexuality and homosexuality are determined by the sexes of the participants. It's all well and good to want to smudge gender roles but by conflating gender with sex, as is done through the liberal application of labels, runs contradictory to the nature of gender as a social construct.

[Dexter345]

Sure. Don't know how much, though. It's pretty simple. I know tons of girls with penises. I know tons of dudes with vaginas. Not every trans girl wants to have vaginoplasty. Not every trans guy wants to have a hysterectomy or attempt experimental surgery to give them a penis. For a lot of people, the identity of being a woman or a man itself is enough to relieve their dysphoria. They're still men and women, regardless of their parts, and as a result, any relationship they have with another man or woman would be perceived as either straight or gay, depending.

Is that really that simple? Suppose a trans woman with a penis is dating a cis man. For the trans woman, she's in a straight relationship. How do you define it for the cis man? Is it possible that one person in the relationship is in a straight relationship while the other is in a gay relationship?

[Sir Legendhead]

Posting image of the hot girl because it seems appropriate (to me, anyway)

Spoiler!

I'm only tagging that because the image is huge and I refuse to resize it.

[Analoge]

I'd like to say it's not only men that can react negatively to that sort of reveal, though I realize it's been coming from a hypothetical example. The explanation for why a man's reaction might be more extreme is another topic.

I've done a lot of studying on this, and there are no cases of a woman reacting to the news that their partner is trans* with violence on the level of men. It's because when a man finds out the woman he was attracted to used to be male-bodied, they fear they may be gay. Violence is an acceptable response for men in this situation because it re-secures his masculinity. In the case of a woman finding out the man she's with was born female-bodied, the cis-woman's femininity is called into question by herself. Violence would only escalate that masculinity. The problem can't be solved until society stops encouraging violence as a positive masculine act.

As I understand it, heterosexuality and homosexuality are determined by the sexes of the participants. It's all well and good to want to smudge gender roles but by conflating gender with sex, as is done through the liberal application of labels, runs contradictory to the nature of gender as a social construct.

damn strait it does! That's the problem the nature of gender as a social construct is inherently flawed. There literally is no gender binary.

Is that really that simple? Suppose a trans woman with a penis is dating a cis man. For the trans woman, she's in a straight relationship. How do you define it for the cis man? Is it possible that one person in the relationship is in a straight relationship while the other is in a gay relationship?

The cis man is dating a trans woman. It's helpful to realize that "transgender" is an adjective. It's no different than being attrafted to a white woman, or a large-breasted woman. If a man in a relationship with a trans woman is laboring under the delusion that he is in a gay relationship with another man, that man is in for some seriously bad sex. Primary sex organs are not the defining factor in a person's male or femaleness, especially if an individual has been taking hormones. Hormones don't just make you look pretty or grow you a beard. They change EVERYTHING, not least the way in which you experience attraction and arousal.

[Byronic Man]

damn strait it does! That's the problem the nature of gender as a social construct is inherently flawed. There literally is no gender binary.

You kind of dodged my whole point. The fact of the matter is there is a gender binary. It's wholly constructed, but to deny its existence is to deny the current state of society. For instance, gender may be a construct but that doesn't mean there isn't widespread sexism.

Furthermore, you can't claim that gender is irrelevant, fluid, nonexistant while at the same time employing gender centric labels to rigidify it into theory - trans*, cis, genderqueer, etc.

But to the point of which I was enquiring, sexual orientation is based on sex, not gender. Conflating the two in existence (or claims of non-existence) is to employ a fallacy.

Lastly, on the point of it being about identity foremost: unfortunately, not only is that to advocate a tautology, but it actively contravenes the identity of straight people, gay people, men, women, etc. As an analogy, it might be like the co-opting of other cultures under the guise of multiculturalism.

[Trev]

I've done a lot of studying on this, and there are no cases of a woman reacting to the news that their partner is trans* with violence on the level of men. It's because when a man finds out the woman he was attracted to used to be male-bodied, they fear they may be gay. Violence is an acceptable response for men in this situation because it re-secures his masculinity. In the case of a woman finding out the man she's with was born female-bodied, the cis-woman's femininity is called into question by herself. Violence would only escalate that masculinity. The problem can't be solved until society stops encouraging violence as a positive masculine act.

Men generally do not form the same sorts of friendly relationships as women, and displays of platonic affection between men are generally frowned upon. They are under greater pressure to maintain a certain identity. For heterosexual men, that significant other is likely to be the only person with which they share that level of intimacy while others are kept at arms length. There is also greater stigma against homosexual men. Not only are they dealing with what might be viewed as a betrayal of a very special level of trust, but the destruction of their identity as well as losing the only person that they could even discuss that betrayal with. And then, of course, if they let that distress lower their performance elsewhere, they're painted as pathetic and unable to deal with it as is expected of them. It's more than just encouraging violence as a masculine act.

[DpadJoe]

You would also have learned that men generally do not form the same sorts of friendly relationships as women, and displays of platonic affection between men are generally frowned upon. They are under greater pressure to maintain a certain identity. For heterosexual men, that significant other is likely to be the only person with which they share that level of intimacy while others are kept at arms length.

Yeah from my experience this is very prevalent in society, the amount of guys who tell me they won't even hug their own father is staggering. Edit: although occasionally that can be a personal space issue.

[Sir Legendhead]

Yeah from my experience this is very prevalent in society, the amount of guys who tell me they won't even hug their own father is staggering.

There's even a military term for that. PDA = Public Display of Affection. It's generally frowned upon, within their particular circle.

[Trev]

There's even a military term for that. PDA = Public Display of Affection. It's generally frowned upon, within their particular circle.

Not just the military. That term was used in my high school.

[Sir Legendhead]

Not just the military. That term was used in my high school.

Yeah...I caught that after posting. Evidently it's in the common vernacular. First time I heard it was in basic training (ours was co-ed btw).

[DpadJoe]

Yeah...I caught that after posting. Evidently it's in the common vernacular. First time I heard it was in boot camp (ours was co-ed btw).

Think it may be an American thing? the first time I heard it was in scrubs and I had to research it to see what it meant, never heard anyone over here say it before.

[Revuhlooshun]

I've done a lot of studying on this, and there are no cases of a woman reacting to the news that their partner is trans* with violence on the level of men. It's because when a man finds out the woman he was attracted to used to be male-bodied, they fear they may be gay. Violence is an acceptable response for men in this situation because it re-secures his masculinity. In the case of a woman finding out the man she's with was born female-bodied, the cis-woman's femininity is called into question by herself. Violence would only escalate that masculinity. The problem can't be solved until society stops encouraging violence as a positive masculine act.

http://whycantibehim.tumblr.com/post/536267618

[…] once they stripped him naked and forced him to shave his entire body, while they were recording. It was a way to steal one of his male secondary sex characteristics (body hair) […] They also dressed him up as a girl with high heels and a miniskirt, something they knew he rejected, and threatened to pimp him out as a prostitute.

Finally, on the night of August 29, the cis women beat him to death.

“Roberto was found murdered on September 1, 2007 at his home, naked, on a mattress on the floor without sheets, without a pillow, filled with urine and feces; his body, which showed clear signs of malnutrition, was full of bruises of varying degrees, and his face with open, unhealed wounds was disfigured by apparent blows with one of them ending his life”

But please, enlighten me more with your definitive statements and bigoted generalizations.

[Byronic Man]

To be fair, neither of the two women in that report were partner to Roberto, so the point yet stands.

[Revuhlooshun]

If we want to split hairs, sure. But to suggest even indirectly that violence against transgender people (or violence in general) is an inherently masculine quality, or that women are not capable of the violence of a man, is absurd. The fact that we don't know if they were ever partners--that this was not based upon emotions in the heat of the moment, but cold, premeditated hatred--doesn't quite help the "men are violent, women are innocent" angle to this conversation.

Analoge's statement put the onus of violence on men. Women can be just as violent and cruel, if not moreso. Men commit violence against transgender people more often when you look at the statistics, but the act is not beyond the imagination of women (as it is seems to be implied here, with the "men are taught to be violent, that's how they reinforce their masculinity" crap).

We need to stop looking at people as part of a group and start judging them as individuals.

[Byronic Man]

If we want to split hairs, sure. But to suggest even indirectly that violence against transgender people (or violence in general) is an inherently masculine quality, or that women are not capable of the violence of a man, is absurd. The fact that we don't know if they were ever partners--that this was not based upon emotions in the heat of the moment, but cold, premeditated hatred--doesn't quite help the "men are violent, women are innocent" angle to this conversation.

Analoge's statement put the onus of violence on men. Women can be just as violent and cruel, if not moreso.

I'm quite sure that nobody made any such claim, directly or indirectly. That's my definitive political opinion on the matter.

[Revuhlooshun]

And you're entitled to your opinion. I have my own. Perhaps there was some confusion.

[DpadJoe]

"men are violent, women are innocent" angle to this conversation.

Analoge's statement put the onus of violence on men. Women can be just as violent and cruel, if not moreso. Men commit violence against transgender people more often, but it the act is not impossible for women as it is seems to be implied here.

To me it doesn't look like that's the angle to this conversation, I got the impression that it was around violence towards Transwomen being more accepted in todays culture, with a side assessment that physical dominance over someone else is unfortunately currently being shown as a positive masculine trait. This conversation appears now to be in a nice civil state and your post has an antagonistic tone to it, let's please keep this thread from going down that route again.

[Sir Legendhead]

Think it may be an American thing? the first time I heard it was in scrubs and I had to research it to see what it meant, never heard anyone over here say it before.

Well yeah. US Army, 91G. That's behavioral science, for the uninitiated. Never have completed the training.