|
On August 11 2013 23:19 KwarK wrote:
Hell, that's the argument that makes me okay with trans. Trans women are born with dicks but they tell me, and experts whom I trust to be reliable, that they are women. If we start invalidating experiences which we don't know or understand then being trans just got thrown out the window. Trans people tell me that they're a gender which seems odd given their bodies at birth but I accept their experience is valid and trust them on it.
It might make you okay with trans but it doesn't mean you can decide that for everyone else, that's the whole point.
Accepting somebody identifies with a certain gender that their body did not reflect at birth /= accepting trans in terms of your own sexuality either.
|
United States41957 Posts
On August 11 2013 23:26 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2013 23:19 KwarK wrote:
Hell, that's the argument that makes me okay with trans. Trans women are born with dicks but they tell me, and experts whom I trust to be reliable, that they are women. If we start invalidating experiences which we don't know or understand then being trans just got thrown out the window. Trans people tell me that they're a gender which seems odd given their bodies at birth but I accept their experience is valid and trust them on it. It might make you okay with trans but it doesn't mean you can decide that for everyone else, that's the whole point. Accepting somebody identifies with a certain gender that their body did not reflect at birth /= accepting trans in terms of your own sexuality either.
We agree. My point is the argument that an experience you do not or cannot share being invalid is good for trans going "fuck those people who only want to have sex with cis" but not good for trans people being treated as their gender. Trans people as a group are more dependent on alien experiences being accepted as valid than most.
|
On August 11 2013 23:07 KwarK wrote:
Trans people don't have a right to sex with strangers, nobody does. People do have a right to consent and, when lacking information that impacts their consent, informed consent (although I understand that you might not know what impacts them and what assumptions they're making). If you don't want to disclose then simply don't fuck strangers. Going "but how am I meant to fuck strangers if I can't deliberately exploit their knowledge of my status for personal gain according to your ethical system?!?!?" is not an argument because the ethical system is not built around letting you fuck strangers.
Trans status is something a lot of people do not want to fuck. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you then the goal is not to find a way to trick them into it, the goal is to not have sex with them.
I'm skeptical about overbroad notions of "informed consent". Let's look at some hypothetical scenarios:
Let's say a man has decided that he does not want to fuck short women. If a woman wears high heels and has sex with that man, and he later discovers that she is actually short, did he lack informed consent, and therefore, she raped him? How about the same scenario with ugly women who wear makeup or have had cosmetic surgery (an extremely relevant example to post op trans individuals)?
Let's say a woman decides that she only wants to fuck professional athletes. If a man presents himself as a professional athlete, and she later discovers that he is actually just an amateur athlete, did she lack informed consent, and therefore, he raped her?
Let's say a man decides that he only wants to fuck women over the age of 18. If a minor presents herself as 18, and he later discovers she is actually only 16, did he lack informed consent, and therefore, she raped him?
If you take "informed consent" to it's logical conclusion, you get a bizarre ethical system in which virtually all common forms of impression management and social white lies are forms of (or means to) rape. I'm not settled on how to figure this out either, but I think a better starting point would be that people shouldn't lie about their trans status if asked (though they can refuse to answer, and allow the other person to draw their own conclusions), but it isn't ethically required for them to otherwise disclose their status.
|
On August 13 2013 04:35 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2013 23:07 KwarK wrote:
Trans people don't have a right to sex with strangers, nobody does. People do have a right to consent and, when lacking information that impacts their consent, informed consent (although I understand that you might not know what impacts them and what assumptions they're making). If you don't want to disclose then simply don't fuck strangers. Going "but how am I meant to fuck strangers if I can't deliberately exploit their knowledge of my status for personal gain according to your ethical system?!?!?" is not an argument because the ethical system is not built around letting you fuck strangers.
Trans status is something a lot of people do not want to fuck. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you then the goal is not to find a way to trick them into it, the goal is to not have sex with them. I'm skeptical about overbroad notions of "informed consent". Let's look at some hypothetical scenarios: Let's say a man has decided that he does not want to fuck short women. If a woman wears high heels and has sex with that man, and he later discovers that she is actually short, did he lack informed consent, and therefore, she raped him? How about the same scenario with ugly women who wear makeup or have had cosmetic surgery (an extremely relevant example to post op trans individuals)? Let's say a woman decides that she only wants to fuck professional athletes. If a man presents himself as a professional athlete, and she later discovers that he is actually just an amateur athlete, did she lack informed consent, and therefore, he raped her? Let's say a man decides that he only wants to fuck women over the age of 18. If a minor presents herself as 18, and he later discovers she is actually only 16, did he lack informed consent, and therefore, she raped him? If you take "informed consent" to it's logical conclusion, you get a bizarre ethical system in which virtually all common forms of impression management and social white lies are forms of (or means to) rape. I'm not settled on how to figure this out either, but I think a better starting point would be that people shouldn't lie about their trans status if asked (though they can refuse to answer, and allow the other person to draw their own conclusions), but it isn't ethically required for them to otherwise disclose their status.
This might answer your question
You are not seeming to understand that transphobia is sufficiently common for it to be a reasonable assumption that a given partner could be transphobic. The entire issue here is based on a massive disparity of information, the trans person knows they are an extreme outlier which the other party would have no reason to suspect them of being. In your hypothetical you keep proposing disclosure of common statuses, common statuses are reasonable for the other person to specifically ask about and exclude.
There are two relevant numbers here. How common the hangup is and how rare the status is. I'll explain it for you in terms of the four potential situations.
Hangup is common, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status.
Hangup is rare, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status.
Hangup is common, status is rare, person with hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. Failure to ask cannot be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Person with the status can however anticipate the hangup, should disclose.
Hangup is rare, status is rare, person with a hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. However person with the status cannot anticipate the hangup, has no reason to disclose.
Only in the common hangup, status rare does the disparity in information create a moral obligation. In the first two the other party can be reasonably expected to look after their own interests, in the fourth one their interests are not known to the trans person so there is no obligation, in the third one however, the trans person suspects there might be a consent issue which their partner is unaware of. At that point they disclose.
An earlier explanation from KwarK on why you don't have to disclose everything.
|
On August 13 2013 04:35 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2013 23:07 KwarK wrote:
Trans people don't have a right to sex with strangers, nobody does. People do have a right to consent and, when lacking information that impacts their consent, informed consent (although I understand that you might not know what impacts them and what assumptions they're making). If you don't want to disclose then simply don't fuck strangers. Going "but how am I meant to fuck strangers if I can't deliberately exploit their knowledge of my status for personal gain according to your ethical system?!?!?" is not an argument because the ethical system is not built around letting you fuck strangers.
Trans status is something a lot of people do not want to fuck. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you then the goal is not to find a way to trick them into it, the goal is to not have sex with them. I'm skeptical about overbroad notions of "informed consent". Let's look at some hypothetical scenarios: Let's say a man has decided that he does not want to fuck short women. If a woman wears high heels and has sex with that man, and he later discovers that she is actually short, did he lack informed consent, and therefore, she raped him? How about the same scenario with ugly women who wear makeup or have had cosmetic surgery (an extremely relevant example to post op trans individuals)? Let's say a woman decides that she only wants to fuck professional athletes. If a man presents himself as a professional athlete, and she later discovers that he is actually just an amateur athlete, did she lack informed consent, and therefore, he raped her? Let's say a man decides that he only wants to fuck women over the age of 18. If a minor presents herself as 18, and he later discovers she is actually only 16, did he lack informed consent, and therefore, she raped him? If you take "informed consent" to it's logical conclusion, you get a bizarre ethical system in which virtually all common forms of impression management and social white lies are forms of (or means to) rape. I'm not settled on how to figure this out either, but I think a better starting point would be that people shouldn't lie about their trans status if asked (though they can refuse to answer, and allow the other person to draw their own conclusions), but it isn't ethically required for them to otherwise disclose their status.
The way I see it it depends on how severe the "lie" was. Yeah, people may be pissed off that someone obscured the truth to look more attractive, but it's not gonna be as "scarring" the same way those people perceive what having slept with a trans person means. I think their reasons are stupid myself, but I do think they should have a right to know.
I wouldn't call it rape, but it's still on the immoral asshole side.
I believe it *is* all subjective. If you yourself believe that the quality you have would be a dealbreaker for majority of the population AND it's also a big deal (my examples which from my perspective would be: being married, being trans), then you should disclose. If you truly don't believe people would care enough then you don't need to talk about all your dirty laundry. You kind of have to multiply the impact of how much the person would care if they found out AND what percentage of population would care, and then make some kind of subjective judgment if you should tell them or not.
Pretense and lying to yourself in the "Oh, it's not that big of a deal, right?.. I'm sure they wouldn't care even if they knew.." fashion, however, doesn't count.
|
On August 13 2013 04:40 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 04:35 sunprince wrote:On August 11 2013 23:07 KwarK wrote:
Trans people don't have a right to sex with strangers, nobody does. People do have a right to consent and, when lacking information that impacts their consent, informed consent (although I understand that you might not know what impacts them and what assumptions they're making). If you don't want to disclose then simply don't fuck strangers. Going "but how am I meant to fuck strangers if I can't deliberately exploit their knowledge of my status for personal gain according to your ethical system?!?!?" is not an argument because the ethical system is not built around letting you fuck strangers.
Trans status is something a lot of people do not want to fuck. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you then the goal is not to find a way to trick them into it, the goal is to not have sex with them. I'm skeptical about overbroad notions of "informed consent". Let's look at some hypothetical scenarios: Let's say a man has decided that he does not want to fuck short women. If a woman wears high heels and has sex with that man, and he later discovers that she is actually short, did he lack informed consent, and therefore, she raped him? How about the same scenario with ugly women who wear makeup or have had cosmetic surgery (an extremely relevant example to post op trans individuals)? Let's say a woman decides that she only wants to fuck professional athletes. If a man presents himself as a professional athlete, and she later discovers that he is actually just an amateur athlete, did she lack informed consent, and therefore, he raped her? Let's say a man decides that he only wants to fuck women over the age of 18. If a minor presents herself as 18, and he later discovers she is actually only 16, did he lack informed consent, and therefore, she raped him? If you take "informed consent" to it's logical conclusion, you get a bizarre ethical system in which virtually all common forms of impression management and social white lies are forms of (or means to) rape. I'm not settled on how to figure this out either, but I think a better starting point would be that people shouldn't lie about their trans status if asked (though they can refuse to answer, and allow the other person to draw their own conclusions), but it isn't ethically required for them to otherwise disclose their status. This might answer your question Show nested quote +You are not seeming to understand that transphobia is sufficiently common for it to be a reasonable assumption that a given partner could be transphobic. The entire issue here is based on a massive disparity of information, the trans person knows they are an extreme outlier which the other party would have no reason to suspect them of being. In your hypothetical you keep proposing disclosure of common statuses, common statuses are reasonable for the other person to specifically ask about and exclude.
There are two relevant numbers here. How common the hangup is and how rare the status is. I'll explain it for you in terms of the four potential situations.
Hangup is common, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status.
Hangup is rare, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status.
Hangup is common, status is rare, person with hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. Failure to ask cannot be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Person with the status can however anticipate the hangup, should disclose.
Hangup is rare, status is rare, person with a hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. However person with the status cannot anticipate the hangup, has no reason to disclose.
Only in the common hangup, status rare does the disparity in information create a moral obligation. In the first two the other party can be reasonably expected to look after their own interests, in the fourth one their interests are not known to the trans person so there is no obligation, in the third one however, the trans person suspects there might be a consent issue which their partner is unaware of. At that point they disclose. An earlier explanation from KwarK on why you don't have to disclose everything.
This explanation creates the untenable conclusion that it's rape only if most people have a hangup about it. So if you live in a racist society, then it's rape for you to hide your status as a racial minority, but if you live in a progressive society, then it's not rape for you to hide your status. I don't buy that as a legitimate ethical framework because it's inherently based on people's prejudices.
When you extend that to transgender individuals, you get the conclusion that transgender individuals are forced to disclose their status primarily because most people are transphobic. Seems like pretty sketchy "ethics".
|
On August 13 2013 05:04 MidKnight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 04:35 sunprince wrote:On August 11 2013 23:07 KwarK wrote:
Trans people don't have a right to sex with strangers, nobody does. People do have a right to consent and, when lacking information that impacts their consent, informed consent (although I understand that you might not know what impacts them and what assumptions they're making). If you don't want to disclose then simply don't fuck strangers. Going "but how am I meant to fuck strangers if I can't deliberately exploit their knowledge of my status for personal gain according to your ethical system?!?!?" is not an argument because the ethical system is not built around letting you fuck strangers.
Trans status is something a lot of people do not want to fuck. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you then the goal is not to find a way to trick them into it, the goal is to not have sex with them. I'm skeptical about overbroad notions of "informed consent". Let's look at some hypothetical scenarios: Let's say a man has decided that he does not want to fuck short women. If a woman wears high heels and has sex with that man, and he later discovers that she is actually short, did he lack informed consent, and therefore, she raped him? How about the same scenario with ugly women who wear makeup or have had cosmetic surgery (an extremely relevant example to post op trans individuals)? Let's say a woman decides that she only wants to fuck professional athletes. If a man presents himself as a professional athlete, and she later discovers that he is actually just an amateur athlete, did she lack informed consent, and therefore, he raped her? Let's say a man decides that he only wants to fuck women over the age of 18. If a minor presents herself as 18, and he later discovers she is actually only 16, did he lack informed consent, and therefore, she raped him? If you take "informed consent" to it's logical conclusion, you get a bizarre ethical system in which virtually all common forms of impression management and social white lies are forms of (or means to) rape. I'm not settled on how to figure this out either, but I think a better starting point would be that people shouldn't lie about their trans status if asked (though they can refuse to answer, and allow the other person to draw their own conclusions), but it isn't ethically required for them to otherwise disclose their status. The way I see it it depends on how severe the "lie" was. Yeah, people may be pissed off that someone obscured the truth to look more attractive, but it's not gonna be as "scarring" the same way those people perceive what having slept with a trans person means. I think their reasons are stupid myself, but I do think they should have a right to know. I wouldn't call it rape, but it's still on the immoral asshole side. I believe it *is* all subjective. If you yourself believe that the quality you have would be a dealbreaker for majority of the population AND it's also a big deal (my examples which from my perspective would be: being married, being trans), then you should disclose. If you truly don't believe people would care enough then you don't need to talk about all your dirty laundry. You kind of have to multiply the impact of how much the person would care if they found out AND what percentage of population would care, and then make some kind of subjective judgment if you should tell them or not. Pretense and lying to yourself in the "Oh, it's not that big of a deal, right?.. I'm sure they wouldn't care even if they knew.." fashion, however, doesn't count.
I take issue with the notion that "informed consent", and therefore, rape, is contingent upon the potential rapists' feelings on the issue.
Informed consent and rape are serious issues that should be objectively determined, not based on subjective feelings.
|
United States41957 Posts
On August 13 2013 05:26 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 04:40 packrat386 wrote:On August 13 2013 04:35 sunprince wrote:On August 11 2013 23:07 KwarK wrote:
Trans people don't have a right to sex with strangers, nobody does. People do have a right to consent and, when lacking information that impacts their consent, informed consent (although I understand that you might not know what impacts them and what assumptions they're making). If you don't want to disclose then simply don't fuck strangers. Going "but how am I meant to fuck strangers if I can't deliberately exploit their knowledge of my status for personal gain according to your ethical system?!?!?" is not an argument because the ethical system is not built around letting you fuck strangers.
Trans status is something a lot of people do not want to fuck. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you then the goal is not to find a way to trick them into it, the goal is to not have sex with them. I'm skeptical about overbroad notions of "informed consent". Let's look at some hypothetical scenarios: Let's say a man has decided that he does not want to fuck short women. If a woman wears high heels and has sex with that man, and he later discovers that she is actually short, did he lack informed consent, and therefore, she raped him? How about the same scenario with ugly women who wear makeup or have had cosmetic surgery (an extremely relevant example to post op trans individuals)? Let's say a woman decides that she only wants to fuck professional athletes. If a man presents himself as a professional athlete, and she later discovers that he is actually just an amateur athlete, did she lack informed consent, and therefore, he raped her? Let's say a man decides that he only wants to fuck women over the age of 18. If a minor presents herself as 18, and he later discovers she is actually only 16, did he lack informed consent, and therefore, she raped him? If you take "informed consent" to it's logical conclusion, you get a bizarre ethical system in which virtually all common forms of impression management and social white lies are forms of (or means to) rape. I'm not settled on how to figure this out either, but I think a better starting point would be that people shouldn't lie about their trans status if asked (though they can refuse to answer, and allow the other person to draw their own conclusions), but it isn't ethically required for them to otherwise disclose their status. This might answer your question You are not seeming to understand that transphobia is sufficiently common for it to be a reasonable assumption that a given partner could be transphobic. The entire issue here is based on a massive disparity of information, the trans person knows they are an extreme outlier which the other party would have no reason to suspect them of being. In your hypothetical you keep proposing disclosure of common statuses, common statuses are reasonable for the other person to specifically ask about and exclude.
There are two relevant numbers here. How common the hangup is and how rare the status is. I'll explain it for you in terms of the four potential situations.
Hangup is common, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status.
Hangup is rare, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status.
Hangup is common, status is rare, person with hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. Failure to ask cannot be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Person with the status can however anticipate the hangup, should disclose.
Hangup is rare, status is rare, person with a hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. However person with the status cannot anticipate the hangup, has no reason to disclose.
Only in the common hangup, status rare does the disparity in information create a moral obligation. In the first two the other party can be reasonably expected to look after their own interests, in the fourth one their interests are not known to the trans person so there is no obligation, in the third one however, the trans person suspects there might be a consent issue which their partner is unaware of. At that point they disclose. An earlier explanation from KwarK on why you don't have to disclose everything. This explanation creates the untenable conclusion that it's rape only if most people have a hangup about it. So if you live in a racist society, then it's rape for you to hide your status as a racial minority, but if you live in a progressive society, then it's not rape for you to hide your status. I don't buy that as a legitimate ethical framework because it's inherently based on people's prejudices. When you extend that to transgender individuals, you get the conclusion that transgender individuals are forced to disclose their status primarily because most people are transphobic. Seems like pretty sketchy "ethics".
Not in the least bit. Going "we don't like racism so we don't have to protect racists" is sketchy. Going "racists get their preferences taken into account regarding consent, same as everyone else" isn't in the least bit sketchy.
|
United States41957 Posts
On August 13 2013 05:27 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 05:04 MidKnight wrote:On August 13 2013 04:35 sunprince wrote:On August 11 2013 23:07 KwarK wrote:
Trans people don't have a right to sex with strangers, nobody does. People do have a right to consent and, when lacking information that impacts their consent, informed consent (although I understand that you might not know what impacts them and what assumptions they're making). If you don't want to disclose then simply don't fuck strangers. Going "but how am I meant to fuck strangers if I can't deliberately exploit their knowledge of my status for personal gain according to your ethical system?!?!?" is not an argument because the ethical system is not built around letting you fuck strangers.
Trans status is something a lot of people do not want to fuck. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you then the goal is not to find a way to trick them into it, the goal is to not have sex with them. I'm skeptical about overbroad notions of "informed consent". Let's look at some hypothetical scenarios: Let's say a man has decided that he does not want to fuck short women. If a woman wears high heels and has sex with that man, and he later discovers that she is actually short, did he lack informed consent, and therefore, she raped him? How about the same scenario with ugly women who wear makeup or have had cosmetic surgery (an extremely relevant example to post op trans individuals)? Let's say a woman decides that she only wants to fuck professional athletes. If a man presents himself as a professional athlete, and she later discovers that he is actually just an amateur athlete, did she lack informed consent, and therefore, he raped her? Let's say a man decides that he only wants to fuck women over the age of 18. If a minor presents herself as 18, and he later discovers she is actually only 16, did he lack informed consent, and therefore, she raped him? If you take "informed consent" to it's logical conclusion, you get a bizarre ethical system in which virtually all common forms of impression management and social white lies are forms of (or means to) rape. I'm not settled on how to figure this out either, but I think a better starting point would be that people shouldn't lie about their trans status if asked (though they can refuse to answer, and allow the other person to draw their own conclusions), but it isn't ethically required for them to otherwise disclose their status. The way I see it it depends on how severe the "lie" was. Yeah, people may be pissed off that someone obscured the truth to look more attractive, but it's not gonna be as "scarring" the same way those people perceive what having slept with a trans person means. I think their reasons are stupid myself, but I do think they should have a right to know. I wouldn't call it rape, but it's still on the immoral asshole side. I believe it *is* all subjective. If you yourself believe that the quality you have would be a dealbreaker for majority of the population AND it's also a big deal (my examples which from my perspective would be: being married, being trans), then you should disclose. If you truly don't believe people would care enough then you don't need to talk about all your dirty laundry. You kind of have to multiply the impact of how much the person would care if they found out AND what percentage of population would care, and then make some kind of subjective judgment if you should tell them or not. Pretense and lying to yourself in the "Oh, it's not that big of a deal, right?.. I'm sure they wouldn't care even if they knew.." fashion, however, doesn't count. I take issue with the notion that "informed consent", and therefore, rape, is contingent upon the potential rapists' feelings on the issue. Informed consent and rape are serious issues that should be objectively determined, not based on subjective feelings.
Nobody is saying it is rape. Not even me. All I was saying was that the defence some trans people were using "I can decide for them", "I want to get laid and not think about what they want", "what they won't know won't hurt them" and so forth were pretty rapey. I characterised it as that because they were arguing against consent as a principle in this context rather than disputing that there was a consent issue.
|
On August 13 2013 05:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 05:26 sunprince wrote:On August 13 2013 04:40 packrat386 wrote:On August 13 2013 04:35 sunprince wrote:On August 11 2013 23:07 KwarK wrote:
Trans people don't have a right to sex with strangers, nobody does. People do have a right to consent and, when lacking information that impacts their consent, informed consent (although I understand that you might not know what impacts them and what assumptions they're making). If you don't want to disclose then simply don't fuck strangers. Going "but how am I meant to fuck strangers if I can't deliberately exploit their knowledge of my status for personal gain according to your ethical system?!?!?" is not an argument because the ethical system is not built around letting you fuck strangers.
Trans status is something a lot of people do not want to fuck. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you then the goal is not to find a way to trick them into it, the goal is to not have sex with them. I'm skeptical about overbroad notions of "informed consent". Let's look at some hypothetical scenarios: Let's say a man has decided that he does not want to fuck short women. If a woman wears high heels and has sex with that man, and he later discovers that she is actually short, did he lack informed consent, and therefore, she raped him? How about the same scenario with ugly women who wear makeup or have had cosmetic surgery (an extremely relevant example to post op trans individuals)? Let's say a woman decides that she only wants to fuck professional athletes. If a man presents himself as a professional athlete, and she later discovers that he is actually just an amateur athlete, did she lack informed consent, and therefore, he raped her? Let's say a man decides that he only wants to fuck women over the age of 18. If a minor presents herself as 18, and he later discovers she is actually only 16, did he lack informed consent, and therefore, she raped him? If you take "informed consent" to it's logical conclusion, you get a bizarre ethical system in which virtually all common forms of impression management and social white lies are forms of (or means to) rape. I'm not settled on how to figure this out either, but I think a better starting point would be that people shouldn't lie about their trans status if asked (though they can refuse to answer, and allow the other person to draw their own conclusions), but it isn't ethically required for them to otherwise disclose their status. This might answer your question You are not seeming to understand that transphobia is sufficiently common for it to be a reasonable assumption that a given partner could be transphobic. The entire issue here is based on a massive disparity of information, the trans person knows they are an extreme outlier which the other party would have no reason to suspect them of being. In your hypothetical you keep proposing disclosure of common statuses, common statuses are reasonable for the other person to specifically ask about and exclude.
There are two relevant numbers here. How common the hangup is and how rare the status is. I'll explain it for you in terms of the four potential situations.
Hangup is common, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status.
Hangup is rare, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status.
Hangup is common, status is rare, person with hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. Failure to ask cannot be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Person with the status can however anticipate the hangup, should disclose.
Hangup is rare, status is rare, person with a hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. However person with the status cannot anticipate the hangup, has no reason to disclose.
Only in the common hangup, status rare does the disparity in information create a moral obligation. In the first two the other party can be reasonably expected to look after their own interests, in the fourth one their interests are not known to the trans person so there is no obligation, in the third one however, the trans person suspects there might be a consent issue which their partner is unaware of. At that point they disclose. An earlier explanation from KwarK on why you don't have to disclose everything. This explanation creates the untenable conclusion that it's rape only if most people have a hangup about it. So if you live in a racist society, then it's rape for you to hide your status as a racial minority, but if you live in a progressive society, then it's not rape for you to hide your status. I don't buy that as a legitimate ethical framework because it's inherently based on people's prejudices. When you extend that to transgender individuals, you get the conclusion that transgender individuals are forced to disclose their status primarily because most people are transphobic. Seems like pretty sketchy "ethics". Not in the least bit. Going "we don't like racism so we don't have to protect racists" is sketchy. Going "racists get their preferences taken into account regarding consent, same as everyone else" isn't in the least bit sketchy.
The point is that everyone else's preferences are taken into account by the people who have preferences, not the people who may or may not meet those preferences.
To use a commercial analogy, we don't require Apple to tell us that the shortcomings of the iPhone include a short battery life, even if this is a common hangup for people to have when buying phones. I would agree (and I suspect most would as well) that Apple shouldn't be permitted to lie about having a longer battery life then it actually has, but if they choose not to disclose it or at least not draw attention to it, then the expectation is that an interested buyer will either ask about battery life or is willing to accept that Apple is withholding that information for some reason.
The reason (which I admittedly didn't make very clear) that I brought up racists and transphobes is to point out that we shouldn't take majority preferences into account while considering whether it is required for people to disclose information without being asked. My starting point is that people generally shouldn't be required to disclose anything unless asked (with exceptions permitted for potential imminent harm). If you instead go the other way, and expect people to disclose information that "most people would want to know", then informed consent (and thus, rape) becomes a matter of subjective majority preferences instead of objective ethical standards.
On August 13 2013 05:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 05:27 sunprince wrote:On August 13 2013 05:04 MidKnight wrote:On August 13 2013 04:35 sunprince wrote:On August 11 2013 23:07 KwarK wrote:
Trans people don't have a right to sex with strangers, nobody does. People do have a right to consent and, when lacking information that impacts their consent, informed consent (although I understand that you might not know what impacts them and what assumptions they're making). If you don't want to disclose then simply don't fuck strangers. Going "but how am I meant to fuck strangers if I can't deliberately exploit their knowledge of my status for personal gain according to your ethical system?!?!?" is not an argument because the ethical system is not built around letting you fuck strangers.
Trans status is something a lot of people do not want to fuck. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you then the goal is not to find a way to trick them into it, the goal is to not have sex with them. I'm skeptical about overbroad notions of "informed consent". Let's look at some hypothetical scenarios: Let's say a man has decided that he does not want to fuck short women. If a woman wears high heels and has sex with that man, and he later discovers that she is actually short, did he lack informed consent, and therefore, she raped him? How about the same scenario with ugly women who wear makeup or have had cosmetic surgery (an extremely relevant example to post op trans individuals)? Let's say a woman decides that she only wants to fuck professional athletes. If a man presents himself as a professional athlete, and she later discovers that he is actually just an amateur athlete, did she lack informed consent, and therefore, he raped her? Let's say a man decides that he only wants to fuck women over the age of 18. If a minor presents herself as 18, and he later discovers she is actually only 16, did he lack informed consent, and therefore, she raped him? If you take "informed consent" to it's logical conclusion, you get a bizarre ethical system in which virtually all common forms of impression management and social white lies are forms of (or means to) rape. I'm not settled on how to figure this out either, but I think a better starting point would be that people shouldn't lie about their trans status if asked (though they can refuse to answer, and allow the other person to draw their own conclusions), but it isn't ethically required for them to otherwise disclose their status. The way I see it it depends on how severe the "lie" was. Yeah, people may be pissed off that someone obscured the truth to look more attractive, but it's not gonna be as "scarring" the same way those people perceive what having slept with a trans person means. I think their reasons are stupid myself, but I do think they should have a right to know. I wouldn't call it rape, but it's still on the immoral asshole side. I believe it *is* all subjective. If you yourself believe that the quality you have would be a dealbreaker for majority of the population AND it's also a big deal (my examples which from my perspective would be: being married, being trans), then you should disclose. If you truly don't believe people would care enough then you don't need to talk about all your dirty laundry. You kind of have to multiply the impact of how much the person would care if they found out AND what percentage of population would care, and then make some kind of subjective judgment if you should tell them or not. Pretense and lying to yourself in the "Oh, it's not that big of a deal, right?.. I'm sure they wouldn't care even if they knew.." fashion, however, doesn't count. I take issue with the notion that "informed consent", and therefore, rape, is contingent upon the potential rapists' feelings on the issue. Informed consent and rape are serious issues that should be objectively determined, not based on subjective feelings. Nobody is saying it is rape. Not even me. All I was saying was that the defence some trans people were using "I can decide for them", "I want to get laid and not think about what they want", "what they won't know won't hurt them" and so forth were pretty rapey. I characterised it as that because they were arguing against consent as a principle in this context rather than disputing that there was a consent issue.
It's not a big leap to go from "lacking informed consent" to "rape". After all, if rape is the absence of consent, and "informed consent" is necessary for consent, then the lack of informed consent means that rape takes place. Considering that some advocacy groups want to redefine sex without enthusiastic consent as rape (quick Google search on enthusiastic consent and "Yes means yes" should provide plenty of results), let alone informed consent, the topic of rape is pretty relevant to this discussion.
|
On August 13 2013 05:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 05:27 sunprince wrote:On August 13 2013 05:04 MidKnight wrote:On August 13 2013 04:35 sunprince wrote:On August 11 2013 23:07 KwarK wrote:
Trans people don't have a right to sex with strangers, nobody does. People do have a right to consent and, when lacking information that impacts their consent, informed consent (although I understand that you might not know what impacts them and what assumptions they're making). If you don't want to disclose then simply don't fuck strangers. Going "but how am I meant to fuck strangers if I can't deliberately exploit their knowledge of my status for personal gain according to your ethical system?!?!?" is not an argument because the ethical system is not built around letting you fuck strangers.
Trans status is something a lot of people do not want to fuck. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you then the goal is not to find a way to trick them into it, the goal is to not have sex with them. I'm skeptical about overbroad notions of "informed consent". Let's look at some hypothetical scenarios: Let's say a man has decided that he does not want to fuck short women. If a woman wears high heels and has sex with that man, and he later discovers that she is actually short, did he lack informed consent, and therefore, she raped him? How about the same scenario with ugly women who wear makeup or have had cosmetic surgery (an extremely relevant example to post op trans individuals)? Let's say a woman decides that she only wants to fuck professional athletes. If a man presents himself as a professional athlete, and she later discovers that he is actually just an amateur athlete, did she lack informed consent, and therefore, he raped her? Let's say a man decides that he only wants to fuck women over the age of 18. If a minor presents herself as 18, and he later discovers she is actually only 16, did he lack informed consent, and therefore, she raped him? If you take "informed consent" to it's logical conclusion, you get a bizarre ethical system in which virtually all common forms of impression management and social white lies are forms of (or means to) rape. I'm not settled on how to figure this out either, but I think a better starting point would be that people shouldn't lie about their trans status if asked (though they can refuse to answer, and allow the other person to draw their own conclusions), but it isn't ethically required for them to otherwise disclose their status. The way I see it it depends on how severe the "lie" was. Yeah, people may be pissed off that someone obscured the truth to look more attractive, but it's not gonna be as "scarring" the same way those people perceive what having slept with a trans person means. I think their reasons are stupid myself, but I do think they should have a right to know. I wouldn't call it rape, but it's still on the immoral asshole side. I believe it *is* all subjective. If you yourself believe that the quality you have would be a dealbreaker for majority of the population AND it's also a big deal (my examples which from my perspective would be: being married, being trans), then you should disclose. If you truly don't believe people would care enough then you don't need to talk about all your dirty laundry. You kind of have to multiply the impact of how much the person would care if they found out AND what percentage of population would care, and then make some kind of subjective judgment if you should tell them or not. Pretense and lying to yourself in the "Oh, it's not that big of a deal, right?.. I'm sure they wouldn't care even if they knew.." fashion, however, doesn't count. I take issue with the notion that "informed consent", and therefore, rape, is contingent upon the potential rapists' feelings on the issue. Informed consent and rape are serious issues that should be objectively determined, not based on subjective feelings. Nobody is saying it is rape. Not even me. All I was saying was that the defence some trans people were using "I can decide for them", "I want to get laid and not think about what they want", "what they won't know won't hurt them" and so forth were pretty rapey. I characterised it as that because they were arguing against consent as a principle in this context rather than disputing that there was a consent issue.
I'm confused now. We were arguing earlier about its similarity to rape by impersonation. Could you clarify what you mean?
|
I dont think young people in general in where I live would really care if they found out they had sex with a trans. Not one of my friends said they would give a flying fuck. Not wanting to if you find out pre-sex is not the same as caring if you find out post-sex by the way. Dont assume its a big issue everywhere Kwark.
|
United States41957 Posts
On August 14 2013 07:00 Snusmumriken wrote:
I dont think young people in general in where I live would really care if they found out they had sex with a trans. Not one of my friends said they would give a flying fuck. Not wanting to if you find out pre-sex is not the same as caring if you find out post-sex by the way. Dont assume its a big issue everywhere Kwark.
And I don't think you have any obligation to disclose if you believe that the person would not care. Don't assume I'm out to get trans people with my ethical system.
|
On August 14 2013 07:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2013 07:00 Snusmumriken wrote:
I dont think young people in general in where I live would really care if they found out they had sex with a trans. Not one of my friends said they would give a flying fuck. Not wanting to if you find out pre-sex is not the same as caring if you find out post-sex by the way. Dont assume its a big issue everywhere Kwark. And I don't think you have any obligation to disclose if you believe that the person would not care. Don't assume I'm out to get trans people with my ethical system.
Im not trans.
I just find it somewhat pointless to try and impose rigid morals into something which very rarely has anything to do with morals in the first place. Not knowing is the name of the game, and if you ask me people dont really want to know. They dont want to know if the person theyre about to have sex with is married or not. They may say they do when hard pressed, heck they may even demand that they must know, yet they will never ask. Isnt that curious considering we all know this happens, and probably not that seldom either. But what else could they do? Admitting to yourself (and to others) you dont care if someone youre banging is married is not ok. So why force knowledge onto the blissfully ignorant?
In my book, if the chance of finding out post-sex or during sex are next to zero, then it is neither moral nor immoral to not disclose. EDIT: that is, in real life as opposed to theoretical circumstances.
|
Why is the chance close to zero?
If you are a trans person the chances are close to 1, not 0.
|
|
|
I think there may be something you're missing here...
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
If that's not a spoof, it's totally horrible :/ Such things are pretty close to child abuse/torture
|
oops
i think its a spoof, i mostly read the headline and skimmed through. It was the comments that made me think it was real. That'll teach me for not reading an article before posting it.
|
hahaha oh thank god. that got me too because i started skimming through it before reading the posts after yours.
EDIT: as horrible as the comments are it does sound like a lot of them believe it lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
