Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal tomhudson's Journal: New poll: Would you bang her? 258

Journal by tomhudson
Update: 2004-08-23: Her site, bio, better pix, etc... :-)
Also a better picture

Update: 2004-08-14: According to the accepted rules of internet debate, OnLawn lost his part of the debate against same-sex marriage earlier today. Details are in this journal entry, along with the necessary links.

===============================================

On Lawn refuses to accept that the world is changing, and that traditional concepts of sex, gender, and family, etc., have to be revised.

He's extended his bashing from gays and lesbians to transsexuals, calling them male crossdressers http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117177&cid=9921527

So, I think we need a new poll:

Do you want to bang her? http://newyorkish.typepad.com/newyorkish/transsexual.jpg
Please keep in mind that 2 transsexuals (that I know of) will be reviewing your answers :-)

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New poll: Would you bang her? More

New poll: Would you bang her?

Comments Filter:
  • At first glance, yes I probably would. If I found that there was a "surprise" down below, I'd probably have to think about it for a bit since I am the kind of person to try anything once to see if it's any fun. From what I see in the picture, I am guessing that this is a tranny. But a damn fine looking one. :)
    • She's a 27-year-old pre-op transsexual, who did a tv show to get the $$$ to finish the "body mods".

      Now the question is, how would we make this into a slashdot poll?

      Options like:

      1. ...must ... resist ... AGGGGH!
      2. sound of one hand "clapping"
      3. is it real or is it Photoshop?
      4. WTF - that's my wife!
      5. imagine a boewulf cluster of those :-)
      6. in Soviet Russia, tranny does you!
      7. that's CowboyNeal, you insensitive clod!
      • WTF - that's my wife!

        Will you STOP ruining my keyboards!

        As for my answer: I probably would not, no -- even though I'm quite happy to support someone's right to have their op and live as they please, just as I support gay rights, that does not mean I have to want to sleep with them. ;-)

        Cheers,

        Ethelred

  • Too dangerous. I prefer my female swimsuit models without the lump between the legs- and given recent health problems in the homosexual community, it's far better to be celebate than to even attempt it, as celebacy is the only true prevention for AIDS.
    • ... does that mean you'd reconsider in the case of post-ops who are also virgins?

      (I know, I ask all the tough questions ... :-)

      Here's something to consider - you've probably met at least a few transsexuals without even knowing (current estimates are now about 1/5000, as opposed to earlier estimates of 1/35000; and there is a decided clustering effect in the IT world, so there are probably well over 100 slashdotters who are eitehr pre- or post-op).

      Now before you say "impossible - I would know", ask yourse

      • In my younger days- yes. Now- I need more. I need the fertility in a mate, I need the complementary viewpoint of the female mind, I need more than just sex. None of which a tranny can give me. NONE of the MTF trannies I've met (and I agree with your estimates, including the theory of clustering, as IT seems to attract all sorts of people with emotional problems (including myself- I've got Asperger's Syndrome)) have that extra ability to multitask, that special something that means mother- or for that ma
        • Interesting that you said "look at the hands" - the 2D-4D ratio. Many m2f transsexuals have the same ratio as genetic women.

          So I guess you wouldn't always be able to tell :-)

          As for the complementary viewpoint of the female mind, primary m2f transsexuals )as opposed to autogynephiles) have that as well.

          • Really? They have index fingers MUCH longer than the ring finger?

            Also, none of my tranny friends seem to have the same mind as my wife- which seems to work entirely differently from any man I've ever met. Loads less logical, hops subjects like a flea on a hot tin roof, way more emotional.
            • Index fingers longer than ring fingers - type 1 (primary) transsexualism caused by excess estrogen exposure in the womb during the first trimester.

              As opposed to the male pattern - ring fingers longer than index fingers.

              Maybe your tranny friends (the ones with the same finger pattern as men) are what are known as autogynephiles. Or maybe not. In any case, their brains wouldn't be expected to function like a womans because the site in the brain that controls gender identification wasn't exposed to the high

              • I'm not s familiar with the genetic freaks as I am with the mental ones. Probably because I'm a bit of a mental freak myself.
  • Big Brother UK was won by Nadia [channel4.com], she used to be a man. The public knew this from the start.

    She won the show with a record breaking 76% of the final vote!

  • on the answer to the question "pre or post operation". I don't have many firm requirements on a prosepective sexual partner, but I'm afraid the correct answer to 'innie or outie?' is one of those.
  • Personally, I don't think the question should be "Would you Bang Her". I don't believe that the point of this is somehow trapping innocent heterosexual males into sleeping with another man, which is how the question comes across to me.

    I have to imagine that this woman has the same plans as all of us - she wants to find relationships that satisfy her, and she wants to be able to walk down the street and be treated as an attractive member of the species.

    She wants second looks, from everybody. She wants to

    • I don't believe that the point of this is somehow trapping innocent heterosexual males into sleeping with another man, which is how the question comes across to me.

      If you read my preamble to the question, I am trying to point out that attitudes have changed regarding gays, lesbian, and transsexuals :-)

      the world is changing, and that traditional concepts of sex, gender, and family, etc., have to be revised.

      I hope that covers it, and it seems that most people have taken it that way.

      The real question

      • Absolutely, I agree with everything you've said - it's just that by asking if you would screw her, you are really posing a prerequisite question, which is "would you have sex with a man".

        And I can see that getting in the way for some people. Which is too bad. You are right though - this is a well-educated group of people, so perhaps I'm not giving them enough credit...

        I think she's gorgeous, btw.

        Pixie
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • ... ummm ... there's a difference between a transvestite and a transsexual. Transvestites almost never identify as the opposite of their genetic sex; most are heterosexual, marry, have kids, etc.

            Transsexuals, on the other hand, identify as the opposite sex. So, whereas your transvestite friend does not feel trapped in the wrong body, a transsexual does.

            Oh, BTW, type 1 diabetes has proven to be curable. Testng of transplanting micro-encapsulated insulin-producing cells has been successful, sometimes partia

            • But that's all irrelevant to what I really want to know, which is whether society (as exemplified by the slashdot crowd) has moved forward enough to accept gays, lesbians, and transsexuals as part of the norm - in other words, can they marry, have sex, raise kids, etc., without the rest of us getting bent out of shape over it.

              No- and the reason is pure statistics. Gays, lesbians, and transsexuals are easily at least 2 sigma off the bell curve that defines "normal", and therefore will never be a part of t
              • Homosexuality is more than 50% curable though. Some studies suggest that homosexuality is more than 70% curable.

                Though I should put that in another way, more than 50% (and even as high as 70%) of people who wish to leave the lifestyle are successful [narth.com] with heterosexual relationships. That is a better rate than hypochondriacs.

                And here [narth.com] is an analysis of the finger-length study that Tom points to.

                Also, the 10% homosexuality claim is also bad science. Probably less than a tenth of a percent even. That is no re
                • It doesn't matter- 10% or 2% or .1%- they're all so far outside of the norm that to wish to be thought of *as the norm* is just that- wishful thinking that will never be fullfilled.

                  • 10% might be sizable enough to consider somewhat normal. A power of ten below that is outside that, but most likely it is two-three powers of ten smaller than that.

                    And they can be as much a minority as they want. I am tired of hearing people cry out for the government to do something for them because they have a persecution complex. If they were being persecuted that would be one thing. If they are just asking for Big Brother to take care of them, that is pathetic.

                    • 10% might be sizable enough to consider somewhat normal. A power of ten below that is outside that, but most likely it is two-three powers of ten smaller than that.

                      The correct term is order of magnitude, not "power of ten below" (D'uh!). To say that anything is "three powers of ten smaller" is an attempt by a poser to look like he knows what he's talking about ...

                      On the other hand, to say that the gay and lesbian population is 3 orders of magnitude smaller than 10% (ie 1 in 1000) is delusional or, in

                    • Even 10% is outside of first sigma. Heck- anything outside of 20% earnings for Microsoft gets outsourced as being not part of the core business.

                      And they can be as much a minority as they want. I am tired of hearing people cry out for the government to do something for them because they have a persecution complex. If they were being persecuted that would be one thing. If they are just asking for Big Brother to take care of them, that is pathetic.

                      Now that's where you and I part ways- if anything the gay
                    • The correct term is order of magnitude, not "power of ten below"

                      Of all the inane ways to feign intellectual superiority, you have to take a scientific buzzword you read on a post on slashdot somewhere and pass it off as "the correct term".

                      Yes you can say "order of magnitude" for just about any step in exponent, including powers of 10. That you claim otherwise shows you as a poser. But that isn't the only place.

                      I still remember you posed to be a lawyer (people ask you advice you said), scientist and doct
                    • OnLawn Trolls Again [slashdot.org]

                      Of all the inane ways to feign intellectual superiority, you have to take a scientific buzzword you read on a post on slashdot somewhere and pass it off as "the correct term".

                      Sorry, but up here we are taught this back in high school. Or didn't you get as far as grade 10 physics? (or was it grade 8 math)?

                      I still remember you posed to be a lawyer (people ask you advice you said)

                      How does people asking me for legal advice equate to me posing as a lawyer? You are a Troll, OnLawn [slashdot.org]

                      As for

                    • Sorry, but up here we are taught this back in high school.

                      Taught what? [wordwizz.com]

                      How does people asking me for legal advice equate to me posing as a lawyer?

                      As if Lawyers don't give legal advice. You are truely hilarious sometimes. Where was that quote again? Where did you say people ask you for legal advice again?

                      What I said was that, in my jurisdiction,

                      Wow, you are posing as much more than a lawyer, you are posing as a judge. Are you a judge? If so then why do you say that something called the "Divorce Ac
                  • They don't have to be thought of as 'normal' for it to be considered 'natural'. There's nothing wrong with them being gay, after all. And they don't want to be thought of as 'the norm', they just want to be accepted for who they are.

                    That's hardly an unreasonable request.

                    • They don't have to be thought of as 'normal' for it to be considered 'natural'.

                      They don't even have to be considered 'natural' to be given the deference to their desired lifestyle choices that you request.
                    • And they don't want to be thought of as 'the norm', they just want to be accepted for who they are.

                      Where the heck did you get this idea? Have you SEEN the stuff they're teaching to pre-teen children lately? The pro-gay-rights movement passed "just want to be accepted for who they are" a long time ago- now they want to be considered normal- to the point of having our children who haven't decided yet feel that it is OK to lust after somebody of the same sex.

                      And THAT, to me, is an unreasonable request- yo
                    • Equality is not deferance. Equality is equality.

                      And homosexuality is 'natural', in the sense that it is part of biology, so you point is moot, anyway.

                    • they just want to be accepted for who they are.

                      That is deference.

                      Equality is not deferance.

                      True.

                      And homosexuality is 'natural', in the sense that it is part of biology

                      Ah. Thats all you mean. Like I said, it does not even need to be called natural or normal to earn deference.
                    • M: they just want to be accepted for who they are.
                      Y: That is deference.
                      Websters: 1. Submission or courteous yielding to the opinion, wishes, or judgment of another.
                      2. Courteous respect

                      Heh. You're right for a change. It is deferance (definition 2). It is definatly not deferance (1), which is what I assumed your meaning to be. Accepting who they are is being courteous and being respectful of their identity.

                      M: Equality is not deferance.
                      Y: True.

                      You're trying to imply that we're submitting to

                    • Since someone brought up the topic of trnasvestism, consider this: according to the standards of a couple hundred years ago, almost 100% of women in the US are transvestites - they wear men's clothing at one time or another (pants and jeans, for example).

                      If something is natural behaviour in the species, even if it is only natural behaviour for a portion of that species, then it is part of the norm by definition, since it is natural behaviour, not abnormal behaviour.

                      Lots of people like ice cream. Some pe

                    • You're trying to imply that we're submitting to their wishes.

                      Howso?

                      You state that like it's an argument.

                      I state it as a conclusion.

                      We're trying to give them equality

                      Some more equality than others...

                      Also in this case for the definitions you provide 1 is no different than 2. Or at least they are not exclusive. You can have courteous respect and yeild to their judgement of how they want to live their lives. I suggest both. But they need to show the same. This isn't a contest of "the person with the
                    • The On Lawn Troll [slashdot.org] is just trying to get your goat.

                      He's pissed at me since I've proven he's a troll.

                      I figure he deserves to be treated like certain litigious bastards [sco.com]

                      So, why not remind everyone of whom they are dealing with by linking to it?

                      On Lawn the Troll [slashdot.org] or http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson/journal/80081 [slashdot.org] On Lawn the Troll

                    • in the sense that it is part of biology

                      I've yet to see the proof of this. I've heard that it is genetic- but does it breed true? Is it a recessive gene? How can it be called a natural gene if it needs genetic engineering help to reproduce (such as test tube babies for lesbians)?

                      And the only answer I get when I dig is even though the human genome project has been completed- nobody can tell me which gene, or even which chromosome, causes people to be gay.
                    • Actually, he doesn't need to post AC to be a troll.

                      I shouldn't have started replying to him, but it's hard to let someone who is just so wrong go, you know what I mean?

                    • "nobody can tell me which gene"

                      Of course not. Don't be deliberatly stupid... We can't even tell what gene regulates height, or metabolism yet. All the genome project does is document all the possible genes for humans - that doesn't tell us what they do any more than a map of the United States tells us that most of our biotechnology is in the Northeast. But homosexuality exists in other species besides even primates, so there's no question it is there for SOME reason, and is not strictly a 'choice' lik

                    • Heterosexuality seems to be a choice- at least it was for me. I don't see why homosexuality isn't a choice as well.

                      BTW- as somebody who grew up on a farm, I've yet to see either an exclusively heterosexual OR homosexual male mammal. The sex drive is strong enough naturally that any given male will, without conscious choice, fuck anything that moves and quite a few things that don't (never seen anything funnier than an Angus Bull trying to impregnate a gas tank...but it happens). The idea that human sexu
                    • If something is natural behaviour in the species, even if it is only natural behaviour for a portion of that species, then it is part of the norm by definition, since it is natural behaviour, not abnormal behaviour.

                      Where did you take mathematics? Natural is not the opposite of abnormal, normal is the opposite of abnormal- and both words have specific meaning in statistics. Normalization means to bring with 1 sigma on a bell curve. Thus, yes, normal ~=, but not always equals, majority, since the majori
                    • "The idea that human sexuality is not by choice is an extraordinary statement"

                      Huh? Man, you've got a weird way of saying 'is quite obvious'. Come on, do you really think that people would risk being tied to a fence and beaten, or tolerate the discrimination they do, if it really was a choice they could make? A lot of gay people spent years trying to be straight before they realized they were gay. Gay people who 'choose' to be straight fail - often. That's enough proof.

                    • I know exactly what you mean. The OnLawn Troll(tm) [slashdot.org] is a nutcase, for sure.

                      Funny, though, how his supporters seem to be mostly ACs :-)

                      Mind you, I have work to do, so I'm limiting myself to responding to just a few of the OnLawn Troll(tm) [slashdot.org]'s posts.

                    • Not at all- I'm just trying to be objective about it. The idea that people automatically risk being tied to a fence and beaten, or tolerate discrimination, ignores the perhaps hundreds of thousands of gays in the past who successfully hid/ignored/changed their behavior. Thus it is *subjective* evidence only- not objective. Since it's not objective evidence it isn't proof- any more than a miracle claimed by a believer in a religion is "proof" that God exists. We didn't allow the followers of David Koresh
                    • "why should we let homosexuals have special rights to a totally new form of marriage based on their belief that they didn't have a choice"

                      We're not... We're trying to let homosexuals have the same rights to the same form of marriage (2 people in a union*) that everyone else does. It doesn't even matter if it's a choice or not, even though it wasn't (why would gays hide/ignore their 'choice'. They don't like homosexuality, why would they keep doing it if it was a choice?). It's not subjective evidence.

                    • We're not... We're trying to let homosexuals have the same rights to the same form of marriage (2 people in a union*) that everyone else does.

                      That's not the same form of marriage everyone else does- there's ALWAYS been restrictions on marraige, age, gender, and genetic relation are the common three, but many societies added even more restrictions on top of that- you're not free to get married again if your divorce isn't final, for instance.

                • Homosexuality is more than 50% curable though. Some studies suggest that homosexuality is more than 70% curable.

                  Okay, everyone, I know this is the 21st century, but we still have people who are living in the 1800s, so:

                  1. Homosexuality and lesbianism are not medical conditions.
                  2. They are not diseases.
                  3. They do not require cures.

                  Suggested therapy - having to sit through a years' worth of "Will and Grace", followed by a season of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy".

                  • Okay, everyone, I know this is the 21st century, but we still have people who are living in the 1800s, so:

                    They way you rely on insults is comical sometimes. For instance here you place a sideways insult so that people will think you are dissagreeing with me when you are not...

                    Homosexuality and lesbianism are not medical conditions.

                    Correct, they are lifestyle choices.

                    They are not diseases.

                    Correct, they are lifestyle choices.

                    They do not require cures.

                    Correct, they are lifestyle choices that can
            • BTW, type 1 diabetes has proven to be curable.

              If gender identification is a physical disorder as you say, then such a cure can be found for them also. I don't think it reasonable to expect that changing the plumbing is a cure any more than amputation of organsor body parts cures cancer.
              • It appears that once the gender identification is set (in the first and second trimester), it is not reversable. They've tried. In the case of primary transsexuals, all they end up with is suicides.

                We can't rearrange the brain to agree with the plumbing, so what's so bad about doing what we can, and rearranging the plumbing to agree with the brain?

                Besides, rearranging the plumbing is less drastic than brain surgery. You can replace all sorts of body parts, and yet you are still you. Modify the brain,

                • It appears that once the gender identification is set (in the first and second trimester), it is not reversable.

                  You still haven't shown a study that says that gender is decided by any type of brain size. I find it funny that you continue to assert this as if it was scientific fact, even after the fallacy of it was pointed out to you. Truely one of the most stubborn "victory through ignorance" displays I've seen on slashdot.

                  We can't rearrange the brain to agree with the plumbing,

                  Another false assertion
          • So if a stranger were to see Norm on the street, would they see a man dressed as a woman, or a woman?

            I think that the idea isn't to force people to pretend not to notice that a person is a transsexual, the idea is to get people to take a second look at this idea that transsexuals cannot be alluring, attractive, feminine people. For you, Norm will never be any of those things. That's ok - most women aren't any of those things once you know them either. I imagine that some illusions are lost for the husba
            • the idea is to get people to take a second look at this idea that transsexuals cannot be alluring, attractive, feminine people.

              If the idea is that someone can construct a sex object from a man, or even mannequine, is not interesting. Heck, people find Laura Croft to be sexy. If the idea is if that person is "sexy enough to allure men" then that would be rather degrading to apply that metric to decide if they are females. It is as if to say that a female's most defining charectaristic is to arouse men.

              Tom
  • BANG her?
    Hell, purely from what I can infer from the wording of the poll, I decided not even to LOOK at [her?]!

    But that has nothing to do with my being [abcxyz]-"phobic".
    My personal principles of tolerance are that I (and society and government) should respect your right to be what you are (or what you want to be),
    and shouldn't persecute you or discriminate in PUBLIC matters (e.g. employment, housing, etc.).

    You DON'T, however, have some natural right to expect me to have LIKING (or any other particular me

  • yeah, she's gorgeous (Score:3, Insightful)

    by freejung ( 624389 ) * <webmaster@freenaturepictures.com> on Friday August 13, 2004 @12:44AM (#9955846) Homepage Journal
    and I'd definitely consider the possibility.

    However, this whole issue is a weapon of mass distraction, and I only post here to point out that we shouldn't be taking it too seriously. Do you think people with real power give a fuck about this issue one way or another? It's just another method of dividing the masses.

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close