Who am I in sex

[Whitedragon]

First off, this is not a religious debate or a place for sexist remarks; any of these elements in the thread will be removed.

Purely, this discussion will gravitate around how people identify themselves, sexually. When someone changes their sex to transgender/example, shemale, they no longer identify as male. However when they engage in sexual activity, the question becomes, are they still performing a homosexual act? Seeing that they are no longer male, but identify themselves as transgender, does homosexuality still apply?

Your thoughts

[Fooloso4]

Seeing that they are no longer male, but identify themselves as transgender, does homosexuality still apply?

If it is about how people identify themselves, shouldn’t the question be: do they still apply the label homosexuality?

As I understand it, gender fluidity has to do with breaking free of traditional categories.

[Whitedragon]

Seeing that they are no longer male, but identify themselves as transgender, does homosexuality still apply?

If it is about how people identify themselves, shouldn’t the question be: do they still apply the label homosexuality?

As I understand it, gender fluidity has to do with breaking free of traditional categories.

It is breaking free, but one could argue that a shemale is still in some respects a male anatomically. The question becomes which takes precedence, how we identify ourselves in gender, or how our initial gender applies. A shemale still has a penis and no female genitalia. In order to copulate she might choose another woman, but if it is a male the anal sex makes it a homosexual act; but the question is, is it a homosexual act if a shemale has sex with a man? Is she still man despite the gender altercations? Does how we view our sexuality decide whether someone who once was male, having sex with a male makes it a homosexual act?

[Fooloso4]

It is breaking free, but one could argue that a shemale is still in some respects a male anatomically. The question becomes which takes precedence, how we identify ourselves in gender, or how our initial gender applies.

One could argue a great many things. The question was about how people self-identify.

… is it a homosexual act if a shemale has sex with a man?

That is not a question about gender self-identity. It is about how others might classify it.

Does how we view our sexuality decide whether someone who once was male, having sex with a male makes it a homosexual act?

If you mean does the individual’s view of sexuality determine that person’s view on a particular sexual situation, the answer is, of course it does. The person’s view of the particular is part of his view of the general.

You start by saying this this is a discussion about how people identify themselves sexually, but that is not what it is about. It is about how you and others “decide whether someone who once was male, having sex with a male makes it a homosexual act”.

[Whitedragon]

You start by saying this this is a discussion about how people identify themselves sexually, but that is not what it is about. It is about how you and others “decide whether someone who once was male, having sex with a male makes it a homosexual act”.

No, the question is whether our views of ourselves or our anatomy determines it. Can it be both homosexual, while at the same time our identities of ourselves remain important and valid?

[Fooloso4]

Whitedragon:

No, the question is whether our views of ourselves or our anatomy determines it.

Purely, this discussion will gravitate around how people identify themselves, sexually.

‘Ourselves’ means us. ‘Themselves’ means them not us. Your concern seems to be with how you or we should label others. As I said, how they define themselves may have nothing to do with the way you classify sexuality. If your concern is with how you want to label them that is a very different question.

[Whitedragon]

Whitedragon:

No, the question is whether our views of ourselves or our anatomy determines it.

Purely, this discussion will gravitate around how people identify themselves, sexually.

‘Ourselves’ means us. ‘Themselves’ means them not us. Your concern seems to be with how you or we should label others. As I said, how they define themselves may have nothing to do with the way you classify sexuality. If your concern is with how you want to label them that is a very different question.

It is not about how we label people, that in itself makes it sounds like we are judging, we are not judging. It is quite simple is a shemale having sex with a man a homosexual act or not? Technically it is still homosexuality, but philosophically the way people see their gender it might not be. The question really is, does becoming a shemale really change your sex, or are you just a man with breasts, pumped full of hormones? Can we say in this context that intercourse between male and shemale is not a homosexual act, or is he/she still a man?

[Fooloso4]

Whitedragon:

It is quite simple is a shemale having sex with a man a homosexual act or not?

The title of the thread is “Who am I in sex”. Unless your question is about how you should define yourself and your sexual activity, I do not see how this question relates to the topic.

It is not about how we label people, that in itself makes it sounds like we are judging, we are not judging.

It does sound like you are judging. Why are you so concerned whether this is a homosexual act?

[Present awareness]

The definition of homosexual, is sex between two animals with the same sex organs, and has nothing to do with what fantasy is playing between their ears. Regardless of how hard a shemale tries to be a woman, the physical reality is that they are not a woman, simply men with breasts and make up. Of course, none of that really matters to the people involved, because other people's opinions have no effect on their own realities.

Words and labels are simply the way we classify things. Each person is intitled to adjust the definitions to suite themselves.

[Whitedragon]

The definition of homosexual, is sex between two animals with the same sex organs, and has nothing to do with what fantasy is playing between their ears. Regardless of how hard a shemale tries to be a woman, the physical reality is that they are not a woman, simply men with breasts and make up. Of course, none of that really matters to the people involved, because other people's opinions have no effect on their own realities.

Words and labels are simply the way we classify things. Each person is intitled to adjust the definitions to suite themselves.

How about if the hormones they have been taking have transformed them biologically to be more female or the fact that their brain has female qualities. Some times it is not just a fantasy playing between the ears, but hormonal from birth and a gender change merely helps them to conform to their natal orientation, which is more female.

Fooloso4, There is not judgement here, you misunderstand. Our new blogger seems to have a firm understanding of the thread's intentions.

[Sy Borg]

If a person changes their sex, then the important word is "change". In truth, a sex change is simply an individual's attempt to harmonise themselves in their environment, just as everyone endeavours to do. "Environment" includes a person's own body and mind. There is no "delusion" involved at all - that's just sniping from the outside and a most naive view, that completely ignores human mental and emotional diversity. If a genetic female, for instance, takes testosterone, grows a beard and muscles, gets a deeper voice, has boobs removed and a grafted penis substitute installed, then that person is clearly more male than his/her former peers.

The issue is a very small one, though, inflated and cartoonised by the sensationalism around the coverage of Caitlin Jenner's public spectacle. As with sexuality, gender variance is usually meaningless spiritually. It's just "stuff" that some humans go through in their journey, as opposed to myriad other "stuff" that others go through. Sexuality and gender identification tell us nothing of a person's capacity for honesty, sanity, decency, kindness, competence, reliability or wisdom, although these things are generally assumed to to lacking in unconventional people generally. It's just fear and distrust of the unknown.

[Whitedragon]

If a person changes their sex, then the important word is "change". In truth, a sex change is simply an individual's attempt to harmonise themselves in their environment, just as everyone endeavours to do. "Environment" includes a person's own body and mind. There is no "delusion" involved at all - that's just sniping from the outside and a most naive view, that completely ignores human mental and emotional diversity. If a genetic female, for instance, takes testosterone, grows a beard and muscles, gets a deeper voice, has boobs removed and a grafted penis substitute installed, then that person is clearly more male than his/her former peers.

The issue is a very small one, though, inflated and cartoonised by the sensationalism around the coverage of Caitlin Jenner's public spectacle. As with sexuality, gender variance is usually meaningless spiritually. It's just "stuff" that some humans go through in their journey, as opposed to myriad other "stuff" that others go through. Sexuality and gender identification tell us nothing of a person's capacity for honesty, sanity, decency, kindness, competence, reliability or wisdom, although these things are generally assumed to to lacking in unconventional people generally. It's just fear and distrust of the unknown.

We are in agreement, it does feel like once someone has "changed" they should not be confined to stereotype thinking anymore. So despite that their intercourse, (of male between shemale), is traditionally and logically homosexual; can we say that gender change makes the classification invalid? It does seem that a transgender woman could be more woman than man, especially if her physical mind was different from birth and also because of the hormones and breasts. We should also not forget the psychological mindset of the individual. Yet the question remains, is that enough to override a clinical fact?

[Sy Borg]

We are in agreement, it does feel like once someone has "changed" they should not be confined to stereotype thinking anymore. So despite that their intercourse, (of male between shemale), is traditionally and logically homosexual; can we say that gender change makes the classification invalid? It does seem that a transgender woman could be more woman than man, especially if her physical mind was different from birth and also because of the hormones and breasts. We should also not forget the psychological mindset of the individual. Yet the question remains, is that enough to override a clinical fact?

Gay men are not going to be interested in post operative transsexuals as they are missing certain apparatus. It really then depends on how the people themselves perceive it. Sexuality labels are pretty pointless, though. It's all just humans just trying to get through life. I suspect that when we are on our deathbeds we will not consider the various sexual labels floating around to describe "this or that" to be very important parts of life.

[Whitedragon]

Hi, Gretta,

In response to your last post: Of course we will not consider these things on our deathbeds. We will most likely want to be surrounded by our loved ones and make as much of life as we can. However, hopefully none of us are discussing this topic while on a deathbed, assuming we are all philosophers or at least ponderous, seeking clarity, in reasonable good health; we have time to debate the matter.

Is homosexuality a label or just a scientific/logical fact? Does our few of sexuality make the logic less important or not? Do our views change logic, is the most important question, perhaps. Is a shemale, shemale/female enough to change the logic itself? Are they homosexual/transgenders, or have they indeed changed to such an extent that they are categorized so uniquely in a new sex that logic has to be reevaluated?

[Woodart]

Do our views change logic, is the most important question, perhaps.

I think you are narrowing your question down – but not quite there yet. You ask “do our views change logic” – should be – do our views change our logic. I think the answer is – yes. Then we ask, do our views change empirical/objective logic? For example, if I say I am an artist – then that is true for me. However, if I never produce any art – whatsoever – am I still an artist to the objective world. Not really, maybe I am a bull-**** artist. If I say I am a caterpillar and wear a costume – does that make me a caterpillar?