Gilda

Yes, she was 17.

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

hrandani

Over the course of this thread I have really grown to respect you, Gilda.

martinguerre

Yes. Gwen was 17 when she was killed. Her assailants were Michael Magidson, 25, Jaron Nabors, 22, José Merél, 25 and Jason Cazares, 25. She had represented herself as being 19.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Martian

In the case of STD's of any sort there certainly is a moral obligation. I'm assuming for the sake of simplicity two healthy people.

It's not a two way street because regardless of what her perceived gender was, she was biologically a male. She still had a Y chromosome. We do not yet have the technology to turn a man into a woman. We can fake it really well, but we can't make the complete change and that's where the difference lies. Consider that there are differences between a biological woman and a transgender woman after SRS. Consider that these differences can be very life affecting for a long-term partner. Consider too that as I said there are men out there who would not feel comfortable being intimate with a transgendered female regardless of of whether she's had the surgery or not. I don't want to hear about a girl's yeast infection she had three months ago, because it's not relevant. An elongated clitoris or inverted nipples; well, if they're extreme cases, they should inform their partner beforehand just to prevent complications. And if a girl used to be a man, she should tell any potentical partners that as well. There's a big difference between telling someone you're about to have sex with and (as you put it) wearing a sign around your neck. And tyhe big difference, if you're interested, is tat there's a lot more at stake if you're transgendered. As a point of interest, I once encountered a girl with inverted nipples. I thought it was odd, but no lasting damage was done. Unintentionally being intimate with a transgendered girl, n the other hand, can cause severe emotional trauma by causing the right sort of man to question his own gender identity because of it. I'd say it's likely that a good deal of transgendered individuals went through that, which is why I think it's only moral for them to avoid possibly inflicting that on someone else.

I don't so much think that our society validates that idea so much as it is ill equipped for dealing with people who's physical sex and gender identity aren't the same.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

pig

Gilda,

First I'd like to say that I've really enjoyed this discussion. I know you have some unique insight and a different viewpoint on many of these issues than I do. Thanks for sharing your point(s) of view on these things.


I think this is a point of divergence for us that I find interesting. I think that someone whose gender identity and physical sex, to adopt your terms, are the same is exactly that: male of female, depending. I think that others, while being perfectly fine, unique individuals are not the same gender, or at least not in the same way, as the first category. I guess I believe that you can't call two objecs the exact same, if they have some striking differences - without expanding the definition of said thing. Thus, it could be that we are arguing over a question of semantics, wherein I am not particularly interested in donating equivalence to related set of items, and you are?


Neither do I, now that I more fully understand what I perceive to be your position. I just disagree with it, but I suppose such are the vagaries of life

So you would say that a person who was fully, 100% of the physical sex typically considered male, would be a female in your mind if he/she wanted to be designated as such? I am anticipated so - but to me this destroys the meaning of the words male and female. I don't say this to condemn the people who are somwhere in between the "traditional" definitions, only to say that I don't see any reason to expand these words so that they become, in my mind, less descriptive - but rather I would think it more accurate to add new words to more exactly describe reality. I'm not going to answer the next several points that followed, because I think that they essentially are mutations of this one.


Disagree here as well. I think that these events, at the time were perceived to be heterosexual, but in actually involved some level of homosexual activity. Which does not make the act itself heterosexual, but only the appearance heterosexual. Which I think begs the metaphysical question of whether or not perceptions of the truth and the truth are the exact same. I claim they are not in this case, because the participants are not limited by vocabulary to more adequate describe their situations; you might claim that, at least in this case, that truth and perception are identical?

From what I know, it wasn't really as rampant as we are sometimes led to believe, but was fairly common among the educated elite. Neato factoid: Did you know that the common way of intercourse among men was have one guy bend over at the calf, and the other to essentially calf fuck him? Actual anal sex was considered extremely taboo. (I had a roommate who studied Greek classics in graduate school)

I agree that their involvement did not make them homosexual, and thus I think this is a big problem of any reaction they would have had, because they would feel, with some justification I think, that they had just participated in a sexual act that involved some level of homosexuality.


I think you are taking an opinion, which may or may not be strongly held in certain circles, and presenting it as fact. edit Or more accurately - I think you are confusing "gender identity" and just straight up gender. I don't think they are the same. As a smartass example, I might psychologically think I'm Mickely Mouse, but that doesn't make it so - no matter how much I really believe it.

I agree, but we disagree on what happens to the nomenclature within the mixture cases.

See above for my viewpoint on this.

You really have no need to keep reiterating that any deep seated emotional reaction these guys (or a theoretical guy / group of guys) might have to this situation does not defend the extent of their reactions. I don't see that as a part of the argument. Thus, I will also quit stating that I don't mean to condone their actions - I think we can all agree there. This discussion, as I envision it, is something that is almost becoming a "Coming Together" Thread in the sense that I think that Forum was created.

Or that I participated in homosexual sex, even if I don't think it makes me gay, although it might understandably make me question my sexual orientation. Maybe questioning one's orientation is a good thing, but I don't think that's the point here. Another interesting point concerning connections to racism, and what if I found out my girlfriend actually had some x in her blood. Well, for me it wouldn't be a problem because I don't have a problem with interracial sexual contact. I don't equate the two - racial "orientaton" and sexual "orientation." Although I suppose that I could understand someone being upset if they explicitly or implicitly made it known, or there was a reasonable expectation that it was important to them, that they only wanted to have sex with members of certain race, and another person intentionally withheld that information from them for their own self gratification. I think that if Gwen had felt that there was no problem with how her condition would be perceived, she would have told them at some point during the months, or the little baron would flown his biplane out of the hanger at some point. The fact is she held it away from them, precisely because I think she knew that the reasonably would feel that she wasn't a woman.

I think we handled this above.

I only threw the Trojan horse plan in to explain how it might happen, like Uther Pendragon slipping into Tintagel at night. The important part if you perceive a violation if you found out after the fact that a person you slept with, while under the impression they were female, turned out to in fact be male. I'm guessing you would say yes, but in this case it wouldn't be a (theoretical) problem because you would feel the person was a female, despite the presence of male genetalia?

Agreed and agreed. Have a nice weekend. I'm a hitting the hay. Once again, thanks to both you and martin and ye olde martian and even ustwo (even though I usually disagree with him quite hardily ) - thanks for the discussion. I find this quite interesting.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

jorgelito

I think I get it. I think what Gilda and MartinGuerre are trying to tell us is that:

1. Sex - that is a person's sex is determined biologically; male or female (xy or xx). Typically evidenced by the xx, xy chromosomes and human sex organs (genitalia) as well as other physical traits.

2. Gender - is a social construction - That is, non-physical attributes are ascribed, especially in areas of behavior, social interaction, what not. Also, I suppose, there would be some sort of range of archetypically defined masculinity and femininity in which people are expected to fall within the sexual order.

We are a relatively young species so it wouldn't surprise me that we are still "evolving" or expanding our variations. As such, with any change, it is often a "painful" process, like growing pains. Our social or society, at times encounters difficulty in understanding things such as gender, race etc - that is, socially constructed race which contributes to conflict.

Human sexuality is a fascinating thing which need more study and understanding - it's too bad we are so afraid of it.

But, gender may also have genetic guidance, or "hard-wired". I think in this way, sexual preference may be inaccurate and instead, sexual orientation would make more sense as presumably, an individual did not make a conscious choice, but rather, felt "naturally inclined to orient towards one gender over another etc..

I don't know, I tries but I think I'm confused again. Maybe I will think more clearly after a beer or five....

martinguerre

i know i'm budging in on gilda's response...but i just wanted to add.

The question here is authority. What authority do you recognize to mediate disputes of gender, sex, and idenity? Who decides who Mickey Mouse really is? The patent holder? I could draw something (no i couldn't, but let's pretend i have talent), and a child would recognize it as mickey mouse. Is is someone in a costume? Is it a picture? Is it a video? Is it an idea? Did the true mickey mouse die with Walt Disney?

edit: Go imagine that "this is not a pipe" Or google it. The server had an accident.

Is this a pipe? Is Gwen a woman?

i am strongly committed to the idea that we as human beings have the awesome freedom to determine our own idenities in conversation with the communities that love us. Her friends, her family, including more conservative elders, accepted her as Gwen. They saw that she smiled, loved her life, and was who she wanted to be.

If you had female genitalia, say an extra vagina, and you in no way idenitified as female...would you use that in sexual encoutners? It's a bad way of putting it, but what i'm getting at is that if this physical remnant of being born male, Gwen would have no reason to use it. By all accounts she idenitified and behaved in very feminine ways. Why would she want to use genitalia that didn't represent her idenity? I'm sure that she was in some way aware that these men would not be happy to find out...but i'm just trying to break the assumption that sex for someone who has a penis has to involve it. If you mentally and emotionally do not identify with it, you won't use it.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Gilda

Definitions change and evolve to fit new information, new ways of thinking.

I would do any person who wanted to be considered female the courtesy of referring to her in that way, regardless of whether I believed she was actually female. If she were living completely as a female, with a female identity 24/7, then yes, I'd consider her to be female despite her physical sex.

I know a young woman who fits this description pretty closely. She's a MTF transsexual, who unfortunately has type 2 diabetes. This means that female hormones and androgen blockers are potentially deadly, and no surgeon will perform any of the common surgical procedures. Other than laser hair removal of her beard, body, and leg hair, which was fortunatly quite effective, she cannot get any medical or surgical treatment. She works in a predominantly male job, and typically dresses in women's slacks, polo shirt, and sneakers at work. That's pretty much the extent to which she can alter her body to be more female; hair removal and clothes, and even her clothing tends to be somewhat androgynous. Her life partner is another woman.

Nonetheless, she thinks of herself as female, has adopted a female name and persona, and gotten as much of her identity legally changed to female as she can, without genital surgery.

I have no problem whatsoever thinking of her as a woman.

I disagree. I think it enhances the precision with which they can be used, to make a distinction between sex (physical) and gender (identity).

Oh contraire, by making a fine distinction between sex and gender, we can use these words with far more precision and be much more descriptive with them.

I disagree. You had straight males and a straight female, and therefore all of the contact was heterosexual.

I claim that gender identity and orientation are internal psychological constructs, most likely hardwired into the brain, and not determined by outside factors. If I'm attracted sexually to people I believe to be female, that makes me homosexual, regardless of what genitals they have.

Rampant, no, but readily accepted among the upper classes, even moreso than heterosexual sex. My point, though, was that the degree to which homosexuality is accepted by individuals in a society is often determined as much by cultural factors as by inborn factors. The reaction of Gwen's killer's wasn't natural, it was learned. I think if homosexual contact between males weren't so demonized in our culture, we'd have a lot more male bisexuality, and a lot fewer gay males and transsexual women murdered or assaulted because it caused some man to question his sexuality.

I've explained my position on this quite thoroughly, so I'll just let it stand.


I'm presenting my interpretation of the evidence, both psychological and physical, an interpretation that is shared by a majority of the therapeutic community that deals with transsexuals, and which matches my personal experience at having grown up with a transsexual woman. The science backs me up. In 1995, a group of Swedish scientists studied the brains of a group of normal men, normal women, and transsexual women, and found that a particular structure related to sexuality, the BSTc, was the same size in transsexual women as it was in natal women, while normal men had a BSTc that was about 50% larger than in both natal and transsexual women, regardless of orientation, and regardless of whether the transwomen had undergone hormone therapy or had genital surgery.

The presumed cause is that the hormone flood that occurs at about the 12th-13th week of gestation is somehow faulty, resulting in the formation of female brain structures in a male body. Obviously it would be unethical to test this thoery on humans, so a study on rats was conducted, in which male rat fetuses were infused with female hormones. If the theory of brain sex was true, we would expect that these physically male rats would behave like typical female rats. And that is precisely what happened. I unfortunately cannot find an online citation for this study.

I'm not confusing anything. I've clearly defined my terms. Sex, or physical sex, refers to biological sex. Gender, though frequently used interchangably with sex, I am defining here as internal psychological states and their modes of expression, specifically gender identity [one's internal sense of being male or female] and gender expression [how one's gender identity is expressed externally].

It isn't possible for a human being to be Mickey Mouse, while it possible for a human to be female. Male and female are different ends of the gender spectrum. Mouse is off of it altogether.

Except for the "reasonably", I agree, that was probably her motivation for concealing it.

The nature of my anatomy would preclude me from being able to perform a sex act on another person without interacting with that person's genitals, and in any case I much prefer to be the bottom in a sexual relationship, so a precise parallel would be impossible here. On the other hand, if a transsexual woman were to have performed oral sex on me and done it well, I can honestly say I wouldn't give a damn if she had a penis, so long as she didn't try to stick in in me anywhere.

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Gilda

Feel free. I'm enjoying the philosphical discussion that's going on here.

No, that is a painting of a pipe.

Actually, it's a photograph of a painting of a pipe.

To be more precise, it's a computer image of a photograph of a painting of a pipe.

Even more precisely, it's a link to a computer image of a scan of a photograph of a painting of a pipe.*

Gilda

*[size=1]With all due credit to Scott McCloud.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Ustwo

Ack, the news story I read claimed it was NJ. I was confused because it also mentioned it being a small town.....

Thanks for the clarification, remind me not to trust one source

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Ustwo

Just a point of evolutionary procedure.

We are a 'young' species but we are an ancient life form. Our sexuality has been male/female since before the dinosaurs. We are not changing a pattern over 100's of millions of years old in a matter of a few hundred thousand years.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Ustwo

Many of us conservatives believe sexuality is hard wired into the brain. Even the epitome of evil, Rush Limbaugh, has stated so many times. Not all of we conservatives are bible thumpers. I am an atheist, swinger who holds a tree hugging degree plus a few more. We too are a diverse bunch

I have no doubt that to Gwen, his brain said 'she' when his body said 'he'. It’s a shame that such a congenital defect, and yes I think of it as a defect from a biological stand point, caused him such pain in his life and eventually cost him his life.

Regardless the issue isn't how one perceives themselves, but what one IS that most often matters. He was a HE not a she, he wanted to be a she, but he was SOL. Despite that he tricked a couple of mouth breathers into having sex with HIM. He was very stupid, and it cost him his life. This is not a justification of his murder, but he put himself in a very stupid situation to be in.

Is it common for transsexual to try to deceive straight men into having sex with them?

Hmmmm I just had an interesting thought (to me) and I don’t' want to start another post since it will be very spammy.

If a man is about the same size as another man, wears the same cologne, and sneaks into this other mans bedroom and has sex with his 'willing' wife in the dark, was it a rape? She went along with the sex under the pretext the sex was with someone else, her husband. To me this is as much a rape as holding her at gunpoint. It was a violation of her body by someone who was not what they pretended to be.

Now lets take Gwen pretending to be a female when he was in fact male. The mouth breathers went along willing under the pretext that Gwen was indeed a female and had sex with him as if he was a female. As such did he rape them? Like the first example the sex was not forced, but Gwen was not what he pretended to be. He tricked them into having sex.

The Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary defines rape as

1. sexual intercourse with a woman by a man without her consent and chiefly by force or deception

Despite the fact that men can't rape other men apparently (based off several definitions) I have to wonder if the defense attorneys of the men went in this direction. I can shoot some holes in this myself, and will do so later if others don't, but it does take a interesting spin doesn't it?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Strange Famous

I would have to disagree. In my opinion all people are naturally bisexual, to exclusively feel attraction to one gender is a socially engineered characteristic, it is ultimately a deviation from true and essentia human nature.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

pig

Interesting position,SF. I feel that the expression of sexual orientation adjusts itself to social climate, which I don't mean to invalidate the very real emotions involved by all parties. Aside from that, I view it as one of the many things which can viewed as occurring along a spectrum, or a Boltman distribution curve. You've got some extremes, and then you've got a majority of people who fit somewhere in between. If you mean bisexual, with some exhibiting a vanishing amount of either extreme, then I don' think that there is any way to argue with your statment. I believe, that to argue for it's truth in the absolute sense will prove to be a very daunting task, as you will have to essentially prove the invalidation of a the sexual orientations and emotions of a fairly large number of people. I do think it's an interesting concept, however.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

martinguerre

Her. The correct pronoun is her. I assume you just forgot.

And if someone has such a problem from birth, and successful treatment is available...why is there such an issue that this woman was already in transition?


It's an inflammatory statment to be sure. But it's not borne out by any of the fact in the case. These men consented to all of the sexual encounters that occured between them.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Ustwo

No the correct pronoun is in fact he. Boys have penises, girls have vaginas, very early lesson in life. HE may have felt he should have been a she, but he was in fact a he. Using 'she' may help make 'him' more sympathetic, but I'm sorry he was a boy. Gender is specific and based on anatomical criteria, regardless of what you want to identify yourself as.

So if you concent, under deception, it is in fact not rape? So to you the wife in my first example was not in fact raped?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

martinguerre

I think you know you're being offensive. I certainly hope you are not doing so for the sake of being so.

That's the really interesting statement that you make. Gender or sex has nothing to do with if we find something to be a tragedy, or have sympathy for a victim of violent crime. It's odd that you would suggest that a female victim of crime would be more sympathetic than a male one. In addition, you do have medical training, iirc, and should know that gender expression at birth is not nearly so clear cut. Many children have incompletely or malformed genitalia, or ones that do not reflect their karyotype. Around 1 in 2000 live births presents with ambigious or mixed sexual anatomy. Nor is it a binary after birth.

Beyond that, use of the proper pronoun is simply a matter of respect. As stated before, her entire family recognized her as Gwen. I have no reason to believe that anyone has a right to revoke such a recognition. And short of that, i think the common and decent thing to do is to address others as they ask to be.

As for the rest. The law, and i think fairly so, states that fraud as to the essential nature of the act can qualify an encounter as sexual assualt. In fact, there's a special subsection to cover the wrong spouse deception you're talking about. CA 261.a.5, fwiw.

But i don't believe that a material deception took place. The essential nature of the act did not involve Gwen's male genitalia. She represented herself as a woman, and by all available accounts, believed herself to be telling the truth in doing so. She offered, and they accepted consensual sex. Beyond this, i don't think i have anything left to say to you.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Gilda

Thank you for this concession. Based on this criterion, post-op transsexuals should be considered female. I agree.

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

analog

I actually managed to read the whole damn thing since my last post, before martinguerre and Gilda got involved and the whole thing blew up (in a good way, it's been a great discussion), and I just had two issues I wanted to see about:

If everyone was consenting, then I'd readily accept this definition for sex acts they mutually entered into. However, since the nature of this case is specifically the problem of the two men reacting to what they perceived as a homosexual experience, I don't think it would be fair to call this a strictly heterosexual experience. Clearly, under consent from deception, these events took place under false pretenses- if you are having sex with two straight males, I would think that, if nothing else, it would simply be rude to "leave out" the part that your sex is male, even though your gender is female. If I put my penis through a hole in a wall and got a blowjob, being told a woman was on the other side, it does not make it a heterosexual experience just because I was tricked into thinking so. When all is said and done, regardless of the other person's gender, the sex is male, and that makes it a homosexual experience. That is what they reacted to. If everyone knew what was going on, and the gender and sex differences were mutually known and accepted, then I'd very easily accept this as heterosexual.

Seeing as the sex was not consentual (the sex happened as a result of deception), I would simply call it "non-consentual sex", and ignore any notions of gender/sex implications of "hetero-" or "homosexual sex" on the events, since there's simply no reason to assign those labels.

The lines of thinking that go, "if you have a penis, you're male, no matter what you say you are" and "if you have a vagina, you're female, no matter what you say you are" only work if you live on a planet inhabited only by straight people, whose sex and gender are always the same thing.

Since we live on a planet with both straight and gay/bi people, whose sex and genders don't always match, this line of thinking is incorrect.

You are not your arm, or your foot, any more than you are your penis or your vagina. We don't walk around projecting, "I am a penis" or "I am a vagina" (though I have seen some guys whose behavior has caused me to refer to them as a walking penis, but that's different). We convey ourselves in terms of our gender, our sexual identity.

The bottom line is, people can be attracted to sexes or genders, in any combination. If I like the female gender specifically, I may be perfectly fine with a female whose sex is male, if sex doesn't matter to me, just the gender. Most "straight men", for example, are attracted to the female sex and gender. You can like one and ignore the other, you can like one and be specific about the other. You could be a woman who doesn't care what gender the person is, as long as the sex is male- and I know one such woman, personally.

Ustwo

Gay people still refer to themselves as female/male based on their parts for the most part. I've never had a gay friend refer to his partner as 'she'.

As such I'm not going to be calling someone who feels they SHOULD be female a she, when they are quite clearly a he. I'll live with my insensitivity. It was this pretending to be female that got him killed in the first place. Perhaps more people should have stressed that he was in fact a he until he was old enough to understand people better and avoid those that would do him harm.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

martinguerre

analog...i think i understand the point that you're making. i don't think sex is immaterial to the orientation involved in a sexual encounter. and i can think of deception regarding that, that would make an encounter non-consensual. i think we've all heard jokes that have the punchline: "that's not my finger." I won't say more...

But the flip side of that is that gender is, imo, more material in determining the orientation of an encounter. and that's what i've been saying here. not to be crude, but a mouth is a mouth...an ass is an ass. What they mean to us is usually a product of our gender, orientation, and identity. a lot of (straight) boys don't even think about their ass, for instance. They don't think of it as sexual, never focus sexual play in that area, and certainly they don't dress to highlight it. Their aesthetic doesn't see the male ass as sexual or beautiful. The female ass, however...straight men see as total object of fascination. To them, it's totally different. Go figure. But after a wax job and a few workouts? I'm just saying...

I should be serious for a moment. Honestly, the way this all happened is distrurbing to me. The idea of having an encounter so removed from the context of a relationship that this kind of disclosure and intimacy would not have taken place...it's confusing to me. And as far as choice of partners...

Nobody doubts that this was a situation that in part, Gwen got herself into. We can rightly take this as guidance that should impress upon us the critical need for evaluating potential partners, and providing safe spaces for talking about issues like gender and sex. But the very bright big line that i want to be very clear about not crossing is marking this down as Gwen's fault in such a way that deminishs the criminal responsbility of the perpertrators. We've all been 17, we've all made poor choices about relationships, though maybe not these ones. We didn't deserve to die for them, and neither did she.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16