This type of survey-argument is a bit like a magic trick that puts the sexual rabbit in the hat to pull it out again.

I mean asking whether a Trans-woman is a woman or not assumes from the beginning a definition of womanhood. In the lack of such a definition, the answer to such a survey can only be biased, i.e. it presupposes the generalities of how one defines THE woman. This is the primary problem; how to define TRANS is secondary. Of course, one can always say, THE woman has a vagina, wears dresses, likes pink, etc. and THE man has a penis, wears pants, and likes blue, but then one is beginning with a stereotype, then attempting to say, “it’s Ok” if someone called TRANS, identifies with a stereotype or not. But doesn’t this sound a bit dumb?

Of course, these sexual stereotypes can always be found in tantric women’s circles, locker rooms, dating sites, or even Burger King. But does the use of these public spaces as the criteria by which one defines sex or explains its causality avoid the real question of sex altogether? For me, such descriptions of sexual relations devolve into a generalized peep show having little to do with sex or the TRANs.

Counter this way of proceeding, I would pose this as reflection: if sex were to actually get into such locker room talk or tantric circles beyond a reference to a fetish, a vagina or a penis, then such rituals would implode and cease to exist. For don’t such rituals avoid speaking of sex as much as they claim to boast and explore it?

just a thought,

$