|
On August 01 2013 23:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 23:24 shinosai wrote:The ethics of disclosure are constant. If you believe that consent is predicated upon a lack of a fact that you are withholding then the consent has been obtained through deception and there is a moral imperative to disclose the fact. Failure to do so is simply dismissing their right to freely consent to sex and is pretty damn immoral. It doesn't matter what the fact is, it doesn't matter that they care because they're transphobic, two wrongs don't make a right. If less people are transphobic in the future then it will be less likely that consent is predicated upon the lack of disclosing this particular fact. The argument will no longer be relevant to trans people. But the argument will not cease to be valid. Not informing someone of something upon which their consent to sex hinges will always be wrong, it may not apply to trans people in the future but that doesn't change the validity of the argument. I think we might be arguing different things here. I agree that I have an ethic to disclose if I have good reason to believe that the person has a problem with it. However, I do not agree that I *always* have an ethic to disclose merely because a particular percentage of people "appear" to be transphobic. If 30% of the population are transphobic then you have good reason to believe that any given stranger might be transphobic. If the proportion of the population who were transphobic went down then trans people could make the argument that they assumed their partner was not transphobic because the vast majority of people are not. At that point non disclosure would be fine. Likewise if the proportion of trans people in society rose above the proportion of transphobic people then the onus would switch to the transphobic people to ask, the assumption that a partner is cis would no longer be valid. As it is though, the trans people know their partners are making assumptions that are wrong.
But the thing is, I have no idea how much of the actual population is transphobic. Maybe it's 20%? I don't know. I know there's a lot of the population that is, but it doesn't tell me anything about percentages. Is it reasonable to assume that my partner is transphobic? I haven't seen any evidence in this thread other than that I should *definitely* disclose if I'm dating someone on team liquid.
And then there's the fact that disclosing endangers my own personal safety, but that seems to be trumped by cis persons potential feelings, who by the way I have no way of knowing whether or not they dislike trans people. So here's what I do know: If I live in stealth (that means I don't tell anyone about my status), disclosing to the wrong person has a much higher percentage chance of fucking my life than the percentage of transphobic people out there. If we're talking about consent, I never consented to having my life ruined by being outed.
|
United States41979 Posts
On August 01 2013 23:33 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 23:20 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 22:59 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 22:43 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 22:38 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 22:31 KwarK wrote:
And it really, really sucks that violent homophobes do horrible things to trans people but tricking them into what they would view as gay sex is not going to help the situation. I don't want to sleep with someone who is married, but they don't disclose that either. In the grand scheme of things, I can’t really feel bad for people who get surprised by something after they have a one night stand. There is a reason we do not encourage people to have those. Sure, its not nice, but that person decided to sleep with someone with limited information on who they are. "I didn't tell them but they're having a one night stand so it's okay". This is known as two wrongs making a right. I don't really hold to that. Also their wrong by not asking enough questions before sex is not equivalent to your wrong of obtaining consent through omission of relevant information. Are you actually disputing whether obtaining consent through omission of relevant information is bad or are you saying that people who have one night stands deserve it or? I'd dispute the "obtaining consent through omission of relevant information." How is trans status relevant to a hookup? In what way is hooking up with a trans woman any different than hooking up with a cis woman? Other than "it makes me feel icky after the fact" what demonstrable difference is there? During typical hookups no one discloses completely irrelevant information about themselves. I don't submit a credit report to my hookups. I'd have to let them know if I had an STD because that could actually affect them. But simply being trans doesn't affect the partner in any way shape or form when it comes to a hookup. Also, caring about something that not only doesn't affect you but you can't even identify is patently stupid. In the scenario where you're hooking up with a trans woman who you find attractive and would not know that she was trans unless she told you, you don't get to pretend you care about trans status. You might think what they're predicating their decision to consent on is stupid. That's fine. But that doesn't give you the right to dismiss their decision to consent. It's still theirs. Whether or not their criteria are dumb does not impact their right to have their own criteria regarding sexual consent. On August 01 2013 23:07 Smat wrote:On August 01 2013 22:43 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 22:38 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 22:31 KwarK wrote:
And it really, really sucks that violent homophobes do horrible things to trans people but tricking them into what they would view as gay sex is not going to help the situation. I don't want to sleep with someone who is married, but they don't disclose that either. In the grand scheme of things, I can’t really feel bad for people who get surprised by something after they have a one night stand. There is a reason we do not encourage people to have those. Sure, its not nice, but that person decided to sleep with someone with limited information on who they are. "I didn't tell them but they're having a one night stand so it's okay". This is known as two wrongs making a right. I don't really hold to that. Also their wrong by not asking enough questions before sex is not equivalent to your wrong of obtaining consent through omission of relevant information. Are you actually disputing whether obtaining consent through omission of relevant information is bad or are you saying that people who have one night stands deserve it or? How are you suppose to know what exactly would not be acceptable to your one night stand partnee. There seems to be this idea that most men care. What if the trans woman told some peope a few times and they didnt care (this happens a lot) shouldnt she assume from her.experience that most people wouldnt care? If half your partners think its a deal breaker and half dont why do you have to assume that everyone thinks its a deal breaker? If half your partners think it's a deal breaker and half don't then I think it's reasonable to assume that half of people will think it's a dealbreaker and because you don't want a 50% chance of obtaining consent through deception you tell all of them. It doesn't have to be everyone, you're just trying not to obtain consent by deception through reasonable disclosure. On August 01 2013 23:09 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 22:47 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 22:42 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 22:32 Darkwhite wrote:On August 01 2013 22:18 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 22:15 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 22:05 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 22:03 Darkwhite wrote:
[quote]
You are not reconstructing the argument. You are making a false analogy, where you substitute something a lot of people care strongly about - i.e. transsexuality - with something very few people care about, namely mixed race. If it were true that equally many people would feel cheated, if they post hoc discovered that their partner was of mixed rather than pure heritage, as if they discovered they were transsexuals, the analogy would be accurate - I strongly doubt if this is true, unless you are from a Neo-Nazi suburb. They did used to care about it - therefore, not a false analogy, at least not on that front. People used to have their marriages annulled for deception because they did not disclose their racial status and were assumed white. edit: You would have to be *extremely* ignorant to think that this was never something that a lot of people cared strongly about. And back then not disclosing that information, no matter how unfair, arbitrary or unreasonable that "deal breaker" might be, would be taking advantage of the said person. As Snusmumriken said, two wrongs don't make a right. So as long as we're clear then, the argument seems to be: As long as the majority of the population finds something to be distasteful and it would cause them to not sleep with you, you *must* disclose your status of this distasteful thing. It does not matter if it is being a natural blonde, being biracial, liking peanutbutter, or transsexualism - the important thing is that we must not cause inconvenience to the majority of the population. Am I getting this right? Because to me this sounds completely absurd. The argument is very, very simple: If you have good reason to believe that your partner might change his mind, given information you can choose whether or not to disclose, then you have an obligation to tell your partner and let him make the call. It has nothing to do with inconveniencing the majority. Similarly, if I were to become part of a transsexual dating site, where the default assumptions would be that everybody is transsexual, I would consider myself obligated to let my partners know that I am not a transsexual myself, because they have a right to make an informed decision. On a regular dating site, where transsexuality is not the norm, the obligation would lie with the transsexuals. Except that without the 'majority' premise, the entire argument falls apart. The only reason I'm supposed to disclose to everyone I sleep with is because of the belief that the 'majority' is transphobic. Without this belief I would have no reason to believe the person is transphobic without additional evidence. You're basically asking me to assume that everyone is transphobic, ergo, the majority premise matters. Basically, if the majority of the population has a hangup about something, then it's my obligation to inform all potential partners, because that is evidence that the person might change their mind. I'm just going to have to disagree ethically with this. People are responsible for their own hangups. If you dislike promiscuous people - and I don't care if *everyone* hates promiscuous people, and promiscuous people are super rare so they might assume that you're not promiscuous - I still think it's up to you to take steps to make sure your partner isn't promiscuous. Lies by omission are nonsense - especially if the only reason it's a "lie by omission" is predicated on how prevalent transphobia is. Take some personal responsibility. It doesn't have to be everyone, nor a majority. If you think there's a 20% chance you're obtaining consent through deception and an 80% chance they don't care about it you should still tell them because a 20% chance of deceiving someone into sex is too high. Consent is important. The reason it's a lie of omission is because of their assumption you are cis whereas you are are aware that you are not. This is nothing to do with transphobia, this is to do with numbers. There are far, far more cis people than trans. The assumption that a given person is cis rather than trans is a reasonable assumption to make. I'm not sure why you think that assumption is in any way transphobic, it's not, it's just statistics. The prevalence of transphobia matters here (the argument is predicated upon it) because, within the context of the argument, the ethical criteria for disclosure is whether or not the person is transphobic. The only evidence we have to assume that the person is transphobic is 'it seems like most people are transphobic.' Therefore, the argument is predicated upon the prevalence of transphobia. To me, if the ethics of disclosure is merely based on population and is inconsistent otherwise, then there is no real imperative as the ethic is weak. You frame it as statistics, but this is a bit disingenuous. You make it sound like it's simply "most people are cis, few people are trans, therefore trans people must inform cis people". But this obfuscates the point. Trans people wouldn't have to inform cis people that they are trans *unless* the cis people are transphobic. Therefore, the argument hinges upon the prevalence of transphobia. I think that if the ethics of disclosure is ever predicated upon something as arbitrary as the beliefs of a population at a particular time, then the ethical imperative is rather weak and unconvincing. If not informing someone that I'm trans is okay in the future because transphobia dies off, then I'm going to be rather skeptical that I have an ethic to disclose in the present. The ethics of disclosure are constant. If you believe that consent is predicated upon a lack of a fact that you are withholding then the consent has been obtained through deception and there is a moral imperative to disclose the fact. Failure to do so is simply dismissing their right to freely consent to sex and is pretty damn immoral. It doesn't matter what the fact is, it doesn't matter that they care because they're transphobic, two wrongs don't make a right. If less people are transphobic in the future then it will be less likely that consent is predicated upon the lack of disclosing this particular fact. The argument will no longer be relevant to trans people. But the argument will not cease to be valid. Not informing someone of something upon which their consent to sex hinges will always be wrong, it may not apply to trans people in the future but that doesn't change the validity of the argument. Your criteria for consent are your own. If being trans is a deal breaker or that's something you want to know, you have to ask that. You're right, it's not really rational to assume that every woman is possibly trans because they're such a small part of the population. But it's not the woman's job to assume that's your deal breaker. If it's not on your mind enough to ask, then it's probably not a deal breaker. And I'm not saying people aren't allowed to have random, dumbass criteria. I'm saying that you shouldn't expect your partner to assume criteria that don't affect you in the slightest. If you never had sex with people who owned Volkswagons, I wouldn't volunteer that I own a Jetta. Not because I'm lying by omission, but because I why on earth would I think it mattered? Sure sure, transphobia is a lot more common than volksphobia so we might just assume every man is transphobic and that it's a common enough deal breaker that trans women should volunteer the information. But do you not see a problem with just assuming that everyone is an asshole? If a trans woman is just supposed to assume everyone who is sexually attracted to her is transphobic...how is that healthy? How is that normal? And how is that not just as oppressive as calling by their original sex?
They don't have to assume that everyone is transphobic, they have to recognise that there is a strong possibility, a very real conceivable chance, that the prospective partner is. Because right now, there is. There is a lot of transphobia. Hopefully that will change to the point where the assumption that the partner is definitely not transphobic will be as reasonable as the assumption that a partner isn't volksphobic.
I'm not sure why it's anything like calling her by her born sex.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On August 01 2013 23:37 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 23:35 marvellosity wrote:
I'd gently suggest that hyperbole is not a winning strategy. Society tells people its ok to react violently when they put a move on a trans woman. Do you disagree?
I indeed disagree. Society doesn't condone violence other than in exceptional circumstances, of which that isn't one.
I would say that currently society condones reacting with disgust, which is still bad, but violence? I don't think so.
|
United States41979 Posts
On August 01 2013 23:38 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 23:30 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 23:24 shinosai wrote:The ethics of disclosure are constant. If you believe that consent is predicated upon a lack of a fact that you are withholding then the consent has been obtained through deception and there is a moral imperative to disclose the fact. Failure to do so is simply dismissing their right to freely consent to sex and is pretty damn immoral. It doesn't matter what the fact is, it doesn't matter that they care because they're transphobic, two wrongs don't make a right. If less people are transphobic in the future then it will be less likely that consent is predicated upon the lack of disclosing this particular fact. The argument will no longer be relevant to trans people. But the argument will not cease to be valid. Not informing someone of something upon which their consent to sex hinges will always be wrong, it may not apply to trans people in the future but that doesn't change the validity of the argument. I think we might be arguing different things here. I agree that I have an ethic to disclose if I have good reason to believe that the person has a problem with it. However, I do not agree that I *always* have an ethic to disclose merely because a particular percentage of people "appear" to be transphobic. If 30% of the population are transphobic then you have good reason to believe that any given stranger might be transphobic. If the proportion of the population who were transphobic went down then trans people could make the argument that they assumed their partner was not transphobic because the vast majority of people are not. At that point non disclosure would be fine. Likewise if the proportion of trans people in society rose above the proportion of transphobic people then the onus would switch to the transphobic people to ask, the assumption that a partner is cis would no longer be valid. As it is though, the trans people know their partners are making assumptions that are wrong. But the thing is, I have no idea how much of the actual population is transphobic. Maybe it's 20%? I don't know. I know there's a lot of the population that is, but it doesn't tell me anything about percentages. Is it reasonable to assume that my partner is transphobic? I haven't seen any evidence in this thread other than that I should *definitely* disclose if I'm dating someone on team liquid. And then there's the fact that disclosing endangers my own personal safety, but that seems to be trumped by cis persons feelings, who by the way I have no way of knowing whether or not they dislike trans people. So here's what I do know: If I live in stealth (that means I don't tell anyone about my status), disclosing to the wrong person has a much higher percentage chance of fucking my life than the percentage of transphobic people out there. If we're talking about consent, I never consented to having my life ruined by being outed.
The personal safety argument is just two wrongs make a right.
|
On August 01 2013 23:38 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 23:37 Smat wrote:On August 01 2013 23:35 marvellosity wrote:
I'd gently suggest that hyperbole is not a winning strategy. Society tells people its ok to react violently when they put a move on a trans woman. Do you disagree? I indeed disagree. Society doesn't condone violence other than in exceptional circumstances, of which that isn't one. I would say that currently society condones reacting with disgust, which is still bad, but violence? I don't think so.
I also disagree. I have never meet anyone would thinks that way or has ever expressed that they would be violent in response to the advances of a trangender.
|
On August 01 2013 23:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 23:38 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 23:30 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 23:24 shinosai wrote:The ethics of disclosure are constant. If you believe that consent is predicated upon a lack of a fact that you are withholding then the consent has been obtained through deception and there is a moral imperative to disclose the fact. Failure to do so is simply dismissing their right to freely consent to sex and is pretty damn immoral. It doesn't matter what the fact is, it doesn't matter that they care because they're transphobic, two wrongs don't make a right. If less people are transphobic in the future then it will be less likely that consent is predicated upon the lack of disclosing this particular fact. The argument will no longer be relevant to trans people. But the argument will not cease to be valid. Not informing someone of something upon which their consent to sex hinges will always be wrong, it may not apply to trans people in the future but that doesn't change the validity of the argument. I think we might be arguing different things here. I agree that I have an ethic to disclose if I have good reason to believe that the person has a problem with it. However, I do not agree that I *always* have an ethic to disclose merely because a particular percentage of people "appear" to be transphobic. If 30% of the population are transphobic then you have good reason to believe that any given stranger might be transphobic. If the proportion of the population who were transphobic went down then trans people could make the argument that they assumed their partner was not transphobic because the vast majority of people are not. At that point non disclosure would be fine. Likewise if the proportion of trans people in society rose above the proportion of transphobic people then the onus would switch to the transphobic people to ask, the assumption that a partner is cis would no longer be valid. As it is though, the trans people know their partners are making assumptions that are wrong. But the thing is, I have no idea how much of the actual population is transphobic. Maybe it's 20%? I don't know. I know there's a lot of the population that is, but it doesn't tell me anything about percentages. Is it reasonable to assume that my partner is transphobic? I haven't seen any evidence in this thread other than that I should *definitely* disclose if I'm dating someone on team liquid. And then there's the fact that disclosing endangers my own personal safety, but that seems to be trumped by cis persons feelings, who by the way I have no way of knowing whether or not they dislike trans people. So here's what I do know: If I live in stealth (that means I don't tell anyone about my status), disclosing to the wrong person has a much higher percentage chance of fucking my life than the percentage of transphobic people out there. If we're talking about consent, I never consented to having my life ruined by being outed. The personal safety argument is just two wrongs make a right.
The consent argument is just 'people's potential feelings matter more than my safety.' But enough one liners. I'm more concerned about paragraph 1: There is no evidence that tells me what percentage of people are transphobic. For all I know, they are a vocal minority, much like someone in the blizzard forums complaining about zerg.
|
On August 01 2013 22:59 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 22:43 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 22:38 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 22:31 KwarK wrote:
And it really, really sucks that violent homophobes do horrible things to trans people but tricking them into what they would view as gay sex is not going to help the situation. I don't want to sleep with someone who is married, but they don't disclose that either. In the grand scheme of things, I can’t really feel bad for people who get surprised by something after they have a one night stand. There is a reason we do not encourage people to have those. Sure, its not nice, but that person decided to sleep with someone with limited information on who they are. "I didn't tell them but they're having a one night stand so it's okay". This is known as two wrongs making a right. I don't really hold to that. Also their wrong by not asking enough questions before sex is not equivalent to your wrong of obtaining consent through omission of relevant information. Are you actually disputing whether obtaining consent through omission of relevant information is bad or are you saying that people who have one night stands deserve it or? I'd dispute the "obtaining consent through omission of relevant information." How is trans status relevant to a hookup? In what way is hooking up with a trans woman any different than hooking up with a cis woman? Other than "it makes me feel icky after the fact" what demonstrable difference is there?
It is relevant and the majority of people thinking that way is enough of a reason to respect that. What people find a deal breaker in terms of sex is not your to decide.
I already tried to explain that just because some characteristic is not tangible, does not make it irrelevant and smething you can just ignore. If you presented me with two identical women and one of them was a former prostitute (no STDs involved, no loose vagina or whatever), I would absolutely not be attracted to the latter and I would find the idea of having sex with her disgusting.
During typical hookups no one discloses completely irrelevant information about themselves. I don't submit a credit report to my hookups. I'd have to let them know if I had an STD because that could actually affect them. But simply being trans doesn't affect the partner in any way shape or form when it comes to a hookup.
Completely irrelevant, no, but information that you have every reason to believe is a deal breaker? I sure hope you do, otherwise, as KwarK said, you're entering rape territory...
Also, caring about something that not only doesn't affect you but you can't even identify is patently stupid. In the scenario where you're hooking up with a trans woman who you find attractive and would not know that she was trans unless she told you, you don't get to pretend you care about trans status.
Having sex with a transsexual person would be traumatic to the vast majority of heterosexual people, and you just shrug it off like it's a non-issue. You're essentially saying that rape is okay as long as you're gentle about it, no harm done! After all, rape doesn't really affect them, as long as you don't harm them physically, right? This is fucking disgusting and immoral.
And to say that being a repulsed by the idea of having sex with a transsexual woman is something you can't identify is wilfully ignorant. Your potential sexual partner used to have a male body. For most people it's a big deal. Telling others they should suck it up and move on is rude, to say the least...
On August 01 2013 23:43 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 23:40 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 23:38 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 23:30 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 23:24 shinosai wrote:The ethics of disclosure are constant. If you believe that consent is predicated upon a lack of a fact that you are withholding then the consent has been obtained through deception and there is a moral imperative to disclose the fact. Failure to do so is simply dismissing their right to freely consent to sex and is pretty damn immoral. It doesn't matter what the fact is, it doesn't matter that they care because they're transphobic, two wrongs don't make a right. If less people are transphobic in the future then it will be less likely that consent is predicated upon the lack of disclosing this particular fact. The argument will no longer be relevant to trans people. But the argument will not cease to be valid. Not informing someone of something upon which their consent to sex hinges will always be wrong, it may not apply to trans people in the future but that doesn't change the validity of the argument. I think we might be arguing different things here. I agree that I have an ethic to disclose if I have good reason to believe that the person has a problem with it. However, I do not agree that I *always* have an ethic to disclose merely because a particular percentage of people "appear" to be transphobic. If 30% of the population are transphobic then you have good reason to believe that any given stranger might be transphobic. If the proportion of the population who were transphobic went down then trans people could make the argument that they assumed their partner was not transphobic because the vast majority of people are not. At that point non disclosure would be fine. Likewise if the proportion of trans people in society rose above the proportion of transphobic people then the onus would switch to the transphobic people to ask, the assumption that a partner is cis would no longer be valid. As it is though, the trans people know their partners are making assumptions that are wrong. But the thing is, I have no idea how much of the actual population is transphobic. Maybe it's 20%? I don't know. I know there's a lot of the population that is, but it doesn't tell me anything about percentages. Is it reasonable to assume that my partner is transphobic? I haven't seen any evidence in this thread other than that I should *definitely* disclose if I'm dating someone on team liquid. And then there's the fact that disclosing endangers my own personal safety, but that seems to be trumped by cis persons feelings, who by the way I have no way of knowing whether or not they dislike trans people. So here's what I do know: If I live in stealth (that means I don't tell anyone about my status), disclosing to the wrong person has a much higher percentage chance of fucking my life than the percentage of transphobic people out there. If we're talking about consent, I never consented to having my life ruined by being outed. The personal safety argument is just two wrongs make a right. The consent argument is just 'people's potential feelings matter more than my safety.' But enough one liners. I'm more concerned about paragraph 1: There is no evidence that tells me what percentage of people are transphobic. For all I know, they are a vocal minority, much like someone in the blizzard forums complaining about zerg.
Really? That would mean all those transsexuals crying about being oppressed and experiencing extreme violence are just attention whore...
|
On August 01 2013 23:31 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 23:28 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 01 2013 23:14 Smat wrote:On August 01 2013 23:02 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 01 2013 22:58 Smat wrote:On August 01 2013 17:18 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 16:59 Smat wrote:On August 01 2013 16:49 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 16:03 Smat wrote:On August 01 2013 04:58 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
No offence, but how is you not feeling comfortable using a bathroom dedicated for a sex you don't identify with any different from people not being comfortable with you using a bathroom they might not identify you with? I think you're being just as insensitive towards their feelings as they are towards yours. Why is that a vast majority should accommodate you and not the other way around? This argument is so shit. Do you know why the majority of people have to accommodate a minority? Because we write it into our laws that the majority should not have tyranny over the minority. That's why we forced white Southern woman to share bathrooms with black southern woman, because those white southern women needed to sit down and learn some compassion and empathy. While racism is acquired, implying that feeling uncomfortable in the said situation is, too, is just an unfounded assumption. We can flip the issue and say that transsexuals need to learn some compassion and empathy because they, likewise, seem to have no regard for other people's feelings (you can see that clearly from transsexuals here saying that they have absolutely no obligation to disclose that part of their identity to people they get intimate with because, apparently, it's none of their business). Should a slave have regard for the moral feelings held by his master about letting blacks roam free across the country side when he takes into account his own freedom? Yes extreme, I know. Its an analogy. Feeling justified about being wrongfully enslaved does not give the slave a moral justification for doing anything he wants to the master, but it does give him the necessary perspective judge slavery. Trans people are people and they abide by the same rules of courtesy as everyone else in society until those values conflict with their very essence and quality of life, then there is a problem. Like I said, racism is acquired. Your analogy hinges on the assumption that feeling uncomfortable in the said situation is also acquired. What if it's as innate as the transsexual's identity? Its not innate as evidenced by the thousands of heterosexually identifying men in relationships wwith trans woman, not counting the fetishists. lol, what a ridiculous way of reasoning. First of all, some level of racism is likely inherent in our species, and more importantly just because thousands of people in a group containing billions do something or feel something that doesnt mean it applies to the rest. Its as ridiculous as arguing since some people want to be transgender then everyone wants to be transgender. "Heterosexual male" is not a homogenous category. At all. Racism is not inherent and can be conditioned out of society. So can the popular culture of.disgust and fear surrounding transgender people. Why should i assume that every guy is a transphobe when many are not. I dont know the number of.partners, who knows what actual number is. I do know that nearly every attractive trans woman i know has a partner and gets as much attention as an attractice cis woman, the incidence of the guys staying.into them drops if they find out but not as much as you may think. In their limited experience most people dont care so why shouls they assume that everyone would care therefore they should HAVE to tell before hand. Racism is definately innate in some sense, I urge you to read up on the neuroscience and psychology of the topic. The fact that it can be conditioned out of us by culture doesnt take away from that biological fact. Regarding the rest, either it is true that a lot of people care or its not. If its not true, then obviously it wouldnt be a valid inference to make. Duh. Having said that, it doesnt actually matter however if its true or not here, the argument at hand is working under the assumption that the transgender person believes it to be so. And my arguement was based on the fact that in reality a significant percentage of people dont care in the experience of a many trans people.
What matters is whether a significant percentage of people do care or not. if 40% do care and 60% dont care then thats obviuosly reason enough to tell people beforehand.
Now if a transgender is operating under the assumption that people generally dont care, then even if thats false (which I think it is) it wouldnt be immoral of them not to tell before a ons. They didnt know better, and unless they "ought to know better" then there is nothing immoral in their action.
|
United States41979 Posts
On August 01 2013 23:43 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 23:40 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 23:38 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 23:30 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 23:24 shinosai wrote:The ethics of disclosure are constant. If you believe that consent is predicated upon a lack of a fact that you are withholding then the consent has been obtained through deception and there is a moral imperative to disclose the fact. Failure to do so is simply dismissing their right to freely consent to sex and is pretty damn immoral. It doesn't matter what the fact is, it doesn't matter that they care because they're transphobic, two wrongs don't make a right. If less people are transphobic in the future then it will be less likely that consent is predicated upon the lack of disclosing this particular fact. The argument will no longer be relevant to trans people. But the argument will not cease to be valid. Not informing someone of something upon which their consent to sex hinges will always be wrong, it may not apply to trans people in the future but that doesn't change the validity of the argument. I think we might be arguing different things here. I agree that I have an ethic to disclose if I have good reason to believe that the person has a problem with it. However, I do not agree that I *always* have an ethic to disclose merely because a particular percentage of people "appear" to be transphobic. If 30% of the population are transphobic then you have good reason to believe that any given stranger might be transphobic. If the proportion of the population who were transphobic went down then trans people could make the argument that they assumed their partner was not transphobic because the vast majority of people are not. At that point non disclosure would be fine. Likewise if the proportion of trans people in society rose above the proportion of transphobic people then the onus would switch to the transphobic people to ask, the assumption that a partner is cis would no longer be valid. As it is though, the trans people know their partners are making assumptions that are wrong. But the thing is, I have no idea how much of the actual population is transphobic. Maybe it's 20%? I don't know. I know there's a lot of the population that is, but it doesn't tell me anything about percentages. Is it reasonable to assume that my partner is transphobic? I haven't seen any evidence in this thread other than that I should *definitely* disclose if I'm dating someone on team liquid. And then there's the fact that disclosing endangers my own personal safety, but that seems to be trumped by cis persons feelings, who by the way I have no way of knowing whether or not they dislike trans people. So here's what I do know: If I live in stealth (that means I don't tell anyone about my status), disclosing to the wrong person has a much higher percentage chance of fucking my life than the percentage of transphobic people out there. If we're talking about consent, I never consented to having my life ruined by being outed. The personal safety argument is just two wrongs make a right. The consent argument is just 'people's potential feelings matter more than my safety.' But enough one liners. I'm more concerned about paragraph 1: There is no evidence that tells me what percentage of people are transphobic. For all I know, they are a vocal minority, much like someone in the blizzard forums complaining about zerg.
I also lack numbers. If you can reasonably assume it's not a deal breaker for a potential partner then, by my argument, there is no ethical imperative to disclose. I'm fine with that.
|
On August 01 2013 23:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 23:38 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 23:30 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 23:24 shinosai wrote:The ethics of disclosure are constant. If you believe that consent is predicated upon a lack of a fact that you are withholding then the consent has been obtained through deception and there is a moral imperative to disclose the fact. Failure to do so is simply dismissing their right to freely consent to sex and is pretty damn immoral. It doesn't matter what the fact is, it doesn't matter that they care because they're transphobic, two wrongs don't make a right. If less people are transphobic in the future then it will be less likely that consent is predicated upon the lack of disclosing this particular fact. The argument will no longer be relevant to trans people. But the argument will not cease to be valid. Not informing someone of something upon which their consent to sex hinges will always be wrong, it may not apply to trans people in the future but that doesn't change the validity of the argument. I think we might be arguing different things here. I agree that I have an ethic to disclose if I have good reason to believe that the person has a problem with it. However, I do not agree that I *always* have an ethic to disclose merely because a particular percentage of people "appear" to be transphobic. If 30% of the population are transphobic then you have good reason to believe that any given stranger might be transphobic. If the proportion of the population who were transphobic went down then trans people could make the argument that they assumed their partner was not transphobic because the vast majority of people are not. At that point non disclosure would be fine. Likewise if the proportion of trans people in society rose above the proportion of transphobic people then the onus would switch to the transphobic people to ask, the assumption that a partner is cis would no longer be valid. As it is though, the trans people know their partners are making assumptions that are wrong. But the thing is, I have no idea how much of the actual population is transphobic. Maybe it's 20%? I don't know. I know there's a lot of the population that is, but it doesn't tell me anything about percentages. Is it reasonable to assume that my partner is transphobic? I haven't seen any evidence in this thread other than that I should *definitely* disclose if I'm dating someone on team liquid. And then there's the fact that disclosing endangers my own personal safety, but that seems to be trumped by cis persons feelings, who by the way I have no way of knowing whether or not they dislike trans people. So here's what I do know: If I live in stealth (that means I don't tell anyone about my status), disclosing to the wrong person has a much higher percentage chance of fucking my life than the percentage of transphobic people out there. If we're talking about consent, I never consented to having my life ruined by being outed. The personal safety argument is just two wrongs make a right.
Yeah, but how wrong is it? I mean, if you are going to weight it against other "wrongs" it is pretty minor. Sure its not the greatest choice, but faced with other options, I don't know if I can blame them.
|
On August 01 2013 23:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 23:43 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 23:40 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 23:38 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 23:30 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 23:24 shinosai wrote:The ethics of disclosure are constant. If you believe that consent is predicated upon a lack of a fact that you are withholding then the consent has been obtained through deception and there is a moral imperative to disclose the fact. Failure to do so is simply dismissing their right to freely consent to sex and is pretty damn immoral. It doesn't matter what the fact is, it doesn't matter that they care because they're transphobic, two wrongs don't make a right. If less people are transphobic in the future then it will be less likely that consent is predicated upon the lack of disclosing this particular fact. The argument will no longer be relevant to trans people. But the argument will not cease to be valid. Not informing someone of something upon which their consent to sex hinges will always be wrong, it may not apply to trans people in the future but that doesn't change the validity of the argument. I think we might be arguing different things here. I agree that I have an ethic to disclose if I have good reason to believe that the person has a problem with it. However, I do not agree that I *always* have an ethic to disclose merely because a particular percentage of people "appear" to be transphobic. If 30% of the population are transphobic then you have good reason to believe that any given stranger might be transphobic. If the proportion of the population who were transphobic went down then trans people could make the argument that they assumed their partner was not transphobic because the vast majority of people are not. At that point non disclosure would be fine. Likewise if the proportion of trans people in society rose above the proportion of transphobic people then the onus would switch to the transphobic people to ask, the assumption that a partner is cis would no longer be valid. As it is though, the trans people know their partners are making assumptions that are wrong. But the thing is, I have no idea how much of the actual population is transphobic. Maybe it's 20%? I don't know. I know there's a lot of the population that is, but it doesn't tell me anything about percentages. Is it reasonable to assume that my partner is transphobic? I haven't seen any evidence in this thread other than that I should *definitely* disclose if I'm dating someone on team liquid. And then there's the fact that disclosing endangers my own personal safety, but that seems to be trumped by cis persons feelings, who by the way I have no way of knowing whether or not they dislike trans people. So here's what I do know: If I live in stealth (that means I don't tell anyone about my status), disclosing to the wrong person has a much higher percentage chance of fucking my life than the percentage of transphobic people out there. If we're talking about consent, I never consented to having my life ruined by being outed. The personal safety argument is just two wrongs make a right. The consent argument is just 'people's potential feelings matter more than my safety.' But enough one liners. I'm more concerned about paragraph 1: There is no evidence that tells me what percentage of people are transphobic. For all I know, they are a vocal minority, much like someone in the blizzard forums complaining about zerg. I also lack numbers. If you can reasonably assume it's not a deal breaker for a potential partner then, by my argument, there is no ethical imperative to disclose. I'm fine with that.
Well, we end this argument in agreement then. Good talking to you, Kwark. I really respect your high quality of posts, even if I disagreed with some of them.
I think I'm done here for today.
|
On August 01 2013 23:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 23:33 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 23:20 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 22:59 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 22:43 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 22:38 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 22:31 KwarK wrote:
And it really, really sucks that violent homophobes do horrible things to trans people but tricking them into what they would view as gay sex is not going to help the situation. I don't want to sleep with someone who is married, but they don't disclose that either. In the grand scheme of things, I can’t really feel bad for people who get surprised by something after they have a one night stand. There is a reason we do not encourage people to have those. Sure, its not nice, but that person decided to sleep with someone with limited information on who they are. "I didn't tell them but they're having a one night stand so it's okay". This is known as two wrongs making a right. I don't really hold to that. Also their wrong by not asking enough questions before sex is not equivalent to your wrong of obtaining consent through omission of relevant information. Are you actually disputing whether obtaining consent through omission of relevant information is bad or are you saying that people who have one night stands deserve it or? I'd dispute the "obtaining consent through omission of relevant information." How is trans status relevant to a hookup? In what way is hooking up with a trans woman any different than hooking up with a cis woman? Other than "it makes me feel icky after the fact" what demonstrable difference is there? During typical hookups no one discloses completely irrelevant information about themselves. I don't submit a credit report to my hookups. I'd have to let them know if I had an STD because that could actually affect them. But simply being trans doesn't affect the partner in any way shape or form when it comes to a hookup. Also, caring about something that not only doesn't affect you but you can't even identify is patently stupid. In the scenario where you're hooking up with a trans woman who you find attractive and would not know that she was trans unless she told you, you don't get to pretend you care about trans status. You might think what they're predicating their decision to consent on is stupid. That's fine. But that doesn't give you the right to dismiss their decision to consent. It's still theirs. Whether or not their criteria are dumb does not impact their right to have their own criteria regarding sexual consent. On August 01 2013 23:07 Smat wrote:On August 01 2013 22:43 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 22:38 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 22:31 KwarK wrote:
And it really, really sucks that violent homophobes do horrible things to trans people but tricking them into what they would view as gay sex is not going to help the situation. I don't want to sleep with someone who is married, but they don't disclose that either. In the grand scheme of things, I can’t really feel bad for people who get surprised by something after they have a one night stand. There is a reason we do not encourage people to have those. Sure, its not nice, but that person decided to sleep with someone with limited information on who they are. "I didn't tell them but they're having a one night stand so it's okay". This is known as two wrongs making a right. I don't really hold to that. Also their wrong by not asking enough questions before sex is not equivalent to your wrong of obtaining consent through omission of relevant information. Are you actually disputing whether obtaining consent through omission of relevant information is bad or are you saying that people who have one night stands deserve it or? How are you suppose to know what exactly would not be acceptable to your one night stand partnee. There seems to be this idea that most men care. What if the trans woman told some peope a few times and they didnt care (this happens a lot) shouldnt she assume from her.experience that most people wouldnt care? If half your partners think its a deal breaker and half dont why do you have to assume that everyone thinks its a deal breaker? If half your partners think it's a deal breaker and half don't then I think it's reasonable to assume that half of people will think it's a dealbreaker and because you don't want a 50% chance of obtaining consent through deception you tell all of them. It doesn't have to be everyone, you're just trying not to obtain consent by deception through reasonable disclosure. On August 01 2013 23:09 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 22:47 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 22:42 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 22:32 Darkwhite wrote:On August 01 2013 22:18 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 22:15 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 22:05 shinosai wrote:
[quote]
They did used to care about it - therefore, not a false analogy, at least not on that front. People used to have their marriages annulled for deception because they did not disclose their racial status and were assumed white.
edit: You would have to be *extremely* ignorant to think that this was never something that a lot of people cared strongly about. And back then not disclosing that information, no matter how unfair, arbitrary or unreasonable that "deal breaker" might be, would be taking advantage of the said person. As Snusmumriken said, two wrongs don't make a right. So as long as we're clear then, the argument seems to be: As long as the majority of the population finds something to be distasteful and it would cause them to not sleep with you, you *must* disclose your status of this distasteful thing. It does not matter if it is being a natural blonde, being biracial, liking peanutbutter, or transsexualism - the important thing is that we must not cause inconvenience to the majority of the population. Am I getting this right? Because to me this sounds completely absurd. The argument is very, very simple: If you have good reason to believe that your partner might change his mind, given information you can choose whether or not to disclose, then you have an obligation to tell your partner and let him make the call. It has nothing to do with inconveniencing the majority. Similarly, if I were to become part of a transsexual dating site, where the default assumptions would be that everybody is transsexual, I would consider myself obligated to let my partners know that I am not a transsexual myself, because they have a right to make an informed decision. On a regular dating site, where transsexuality is not the norm, the obligation would lie with the transsexuals. Except that without the 'majority' premise, the entire argument falls apart. The only reason I'm supposed to disclose to everyone I sleep with is because of the belief that the 'majority' is transphobic. Without this belief I would have no reason to believe the person is transphobic without additional evidence. You're basically asking me to assume that everyone is transphobic, ergo, the majority premise matters. Basically, if the majority of the population has a hangup about something, then it's my obligation to inform all potential partners, because that is evidence that the person might change their mind. I'm just going to have to disagree ethically with this. People are responsible for their own hangups. If you dislike promiscuous people - and I don't care if *everyone* hates promiscuous people, and promiscuous people are super rare so they might assume that you're not promiscuous - I still think it's up to you to take steps to make sure your partner isn't promiscuous. Lies by omission are nonsense - especially if the only reason it's a "lie by omission" is predicated on how prevalent transphobia is. Take some personal responsibility. It doesn't have to be everyone, nor a majority. If you think there's a 20% chance you're obtaining consent through deception and an 80% chance they don't care about it you should still tell them because a 20% chance of deceiving someone into sex is too high. Consent is important. The reason it's a lie of omission is because of their assumption you are cis whereas you are are aware that you are not. This is nothing to do with transphobia, this is to do with numbers. There are far, far more cis people than trans. The assumption that a given person is cis rather than trans is a reasonable assumption to make. I'm not sure why you think that assumption is in any way transphobic, it's not, it's just statistics. The prevalence of transphobia matters here (the argument is predicated upon it) because, within the context of the argument, the ethical criteria for disclosure is whether or not the person is transphobic. The only evidence we have to assume that the person is transphobic is 'it seems like most people are transphobic.' Therefore, the argument is predicated upon the prevalence of transphobia. To me, if the ethics of disclosure is merely based on population and is inconsistent otherwise, then there is no real imperative as the ethic is weak. You frame it as statistics, but this is a bit disingenuous. You make it sound like it's simply "most people are cis, few people are trans, therefore trans people must inform cis people". But this obfuscates the point. Trans people wouldn't have to inform cis people that they are trans *unless* the cis people are transphobic. Therefore, the argument hinges upon the prevalence of transphobia. I think that if the ethics of disclosure is ever predicated upon something as arbitrary as the beliefs of a population at a particular time, then the ethical imperative is rather weak and unconvincing. If not informing someone that I'm trans is okay in the future because transphobia dies off, then I'm going to be rather skeptical that I have an ethic to disclose in the present. The ethics of disclosure are constant. If you believe that consent is predicated upon a lack of a fact that you are withholding then the consent has been obtained through deception and there is a moral imperative to disclose the fact. Failure to do so is simply dismissing their right to freely consent to sex and is pretty damn immoral. It doesn't matter what the fact is, it doesn't matter that they care because they're transphobic, two wrongs don't make a right. If less people are transphobic in the future then it will be less likely that consent is predicated upon the lack of disclosing this particular fact. The argument will no longer be relevant to trans people. But the argument will not cease to be valid. Not informing someone of something upon which their consent to sex hinges will always be wrong, it may not apply to trans people in the future but that doesn't change the validity of the argument. Your criteria for consent are your own. If being trans is a deal breaker or that's something you want to know, you have to ask that. You're right, it's not really rational to assume that every woman is possibly trans because they're such a small part of the population. But it's not the woman's job to assume that's your deal breaker. If it's not on your mind enough to ask, then it's probably not a deal breaker. And I'm not saying people aren't allowed to have random, dumbass criteria. I'm saying that you shouldn't expect your partner to assume criteria that don't affect you in the slightest. If you never had sex with people who owned Volkswagons, I wouldn't volunteer that I own a Jetta. Not because I'm lying by omission, but because I why on earth would I think it mattered? Sure sure, transphobia is a lot more common than volksphobia so we might just assume every man is transphobic and that it's a common enough deal breaker that trans women should volunteer the information. But do you not see a problem with just assuming that everyone is an asshole? If a trans woman is just supposed to assume everyone who is sexually attracted to her is transphobic...how is that healthy? How is that normal? And how is that not just as oppressive as calling by their original sex? They don't have to assume that everyone is transphobic, they have to recognise that there is a strong possibility, a very real conceivable chance, that the prospective partner is. Because right now, there is. There is a lot of transphobia. Hopefully that will change to the point where the assumption that the partner is definitely not transphobic will be as reasonable as the assumption that a partner isn't volksphobic. I'm not sure why it's anything like calling her by her born sex.
Ok yes technically there's a difference between assuming 60% of people are transphobic and assuming 100% of people are transphobic but only on paper. That still manifests itself as suspicion and fear for a trans woman every single time a man shows interest in her. When you're talking about accounting for probability in our behavior, "likely" and "most definitely" aren't that different.
And it's the same as calling her by her born sex because it's just saying "there is something about you that other people find weird and if you try to pretend you aren't weird you're even weirder."
Look, bottom line: If you're really so averse to fucking a trans woman, ask the woman if she's trans. The human brain works by overplaying probability. So even if only 2% of the population is trans, if your brain really thinks it's something bad that might happen to you, it will inflate that probability to the point that it'll be on your mind every time you have sex. The same way you wonder if your plane is going to crash every time you fly even though statistically it's nigh impossible. It's not just going to not occur to you if it's really an issue for you. If it's on your mind...ask.
I suspect that most transphobic men don't want to ask that before sex not because it's not on their mind, but because they know it will be a mood killer because *shocker* it's actually a pretty offensive question. So they're just relying on the trans woman to enable their transphobia while still not making them accountable for it. I know it's a little presumptuous to play mind reader but people really are dragging their heels on taking responsibility for information that's a big deal to them but wouldn't be to their partner.
|
United States41979 Posts
On August 01 2013 23:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 23:40 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 23:38 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 23:30 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 23:24 shinosai wrote:The ethics of disclosure are constant. If you believe that consent is predicated upon a lack of a fact that you are withholding then the consent has been obtained through deception and there is a moral imperative to disclose the fact. Failure to do so is simply dismissing their right to freely consent to sex and is pretty damn immoral. It doesn't matter what the fact is, it doesn't matter that they care because they're transphobic, two wrongs don't make a right. If less people are transphobic in the future then it will be less likely that consent is predicated upon the lack of disclosing this particular fact. The argument will no longer be relevant to trans people. But the argument will not cease to be valid. Not informing someone of something upon which their consent to sex hinges will always be wrong, it may not apply to trans people in the future but that doesn't change the validity of the argument. I think we might be arguing different things here. I agree that I have an ethic to disclose if I have good reason to believe that the person has a problem with it. However, I do not agree that I *always* have an ethic to disclose merely because a particular percentage of people "appear" to be transphobic. If 30% of the population are transphobic then you have good reason to believe that any given stranger might be transphobic. If the proportion of the population who were transphobic went down then trans people could make the argument that they assumed their partner was not transphobic because the vast majority of people are not. At that point non disclosure would be fine. Likewise if the proportion of trans people in society rose above the proportion of transphobic people then the onus would switch to the transphobic people to ask, the assumption that a partner is cis would no longer be valid. As it is though, the trans people know their partners are making assumptions that are wrong. But the thing is, I have no idea how much of the actual population is transphobic. Maybe it's 20%? I don't know. I know there's a lot of the population that is, but it doesn't tell me anything about percentages. Is it reasonable to assume that my partner is transphobic? I haven't seen any evidence in this thread other than that I should *definitely* disclose if I'm dating someone on team liquid. And then there's the fact that disclosing endangers my own personal safety, but that seems to be trumped by cis persons feelings, who by the way I have no way of knowing whether or not they dislike trans people. So here's what I do know: If I live in stealth (that means I don't tell anyone about my status), disclosing to the wrong person has a much higher percentage chance of fucking my life than the percentage of transphobic people out there. If we're talking about consent, I never consented to having my life ruined by being outed. The personal safety argument is just two wrongs make a right. Yeah, but how wrong is it? I mean, if you are going to weight it against other "wrongs" it is pretty minor. Sure its not the greatest choice, but faced with other options, I don't know if I can blame them.
Other options do include simply not having sex with strangers. This is not a binary choice between rape through deception and being murdered by transphobic thugs.
|
On August 01 2013 23:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 23:47 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 23:40 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 23:38 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 23:30 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 23:24 shinosai wrote:The ethics of disclosure are constant. If you believe that consent is predicated upon a lack of a fact that you are withholding then the consent has been obtained through deception and there is a moral imperative to disclose the fact. Failure to do so is simply dismissing their right to freely consent to sex and is pretty damn immoral. It doesn't matter what the fact is, it doesn't matter that they care because they're transphobic, two wrongs don't make a right. If less people are transphobic in the future then it will be less likely that consent is predicated upon the lack of disclosing this particular fact. The argument will no longer be relevant to trans people. But the argument will not cease to be valid. Not informing someone of something upon which their consent to sex hinges will always be wrong, it may not apply to trans people in the future but that doesn't change the validity of the argument. I think we might be arguing different things here. I agree that I have an ethic to disclose if I have good reason to believe that the person has a problem with it. However, I do not agree that I *always* have an ethic to disclose merely because a particular percentage of people "appear" to be transphobic. If 30% of the population are transphobic then you have good reason to believe that any given stranger might be transphobic. If the proportion of the population who were transphobic went down then trans people could make the argument that they assumed their partner was not transphobic because the vast majority of people are not. At that point non disclosure would be fine. Likewise if the proportion of trans people in society rose above the proportion of transphobic people then the onus would switch to the transphobic people to ask, the assumption that a partner is cis would no longer be valid. As it is though, the trans people know their partners are making assumptions that are wrong. But the thing is, I have no idea how much of the actual population is transphobic. Maybe it's 20%? I don't know. I know there's a lot of the population that is, but it doesn't tell me anything about percentages. Is it reasonable to assume that my partner is transphobic? I haven't seen any evidence in this thread other than that I should *definitely* disclose if I'm dating someone on team liquid. And then there's the fact that disclosing endangers my own personal safety, but that seems to be trumped by cis persons feelings, who by the way I have no way of knowing whether or not they dislike trans people. So here's what I do know: If I live in stealth (that means I don't tell anyone about my status), disclosing to the wrong person has a much higher percentage chance of fucking my life than the percentage of transphobic people out there. If we're talking about consent, I never consented to having my life ruined by being outed. The personal safety argument is just two wrongs make a right. Yeah, but how wrong is it? I mean, if you are going to weight it against other "wrongs" it is pretty minor. Sure its not the greatest choice, but faced with other options, I don't know if I can blame them. Other options do include simply not having sex with strangers. This is not a binary choice between rape through deception and being murdered by transphobic thugs.
Exactly. People seem very focus on being “deceived” by the transgender person and forgetting that they entered into a situation where they are going to be given limited information. It is the point of the encounter itself, to know very little about the person beyond that you are attracted to them. It is also an easy issue to avoid. This does not mean they are not justified if they are upset about if they find out, but they can’t claim they were “raped through deception”.
I go back to my example of the woman who finds out the man that she hooked up with is both married and beats his wife. She is entitled to feel upset about her decision, but no one is going to say she was deceived.
P.S. Please note that this is not a point for point example and I am not attempting to liken beign transgender to domestic violence.
|
United States41979 Posts
On August 01 2013 23:50 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 23:38 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 23:33 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 23:20 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 22:59 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 22:43 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 22:38 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 22:31 KwarK wrote:
And it really, really sucks that violent homophobes do horrible things to trans people but tricking them into what they would view as gay sex is not going to help the situation. I don't want to sleep with someone who is married, but they don't disclose that either. In the grand scheme of things, I can’t really feel bad for people who get surprised by something after they have a one night stand. There is a reason we do not encourage people to have those. Sure, its not nice, but that person decided to sleep with someone with limited information on who they are. "I didn't tell them but they're having a one night stand so it's okay". This is known as two wrongs making a right. I don't really hold to that. Also their wrong by not asking enough questions before sex is not equivalent to your wrong of obtaining consent through omission of relevant information. Are you actually disputing whether obtaining consent through omission of relevant information is bad or are you saying that people who have one night stands deserve it or? I'd dispute the "obtaining consent through omission of relevant information." How is trans status relevant to a hookup? In what way is hooking up with a trans woman any different than hooking up with a cis woman? Other than "it makes me feel icky after the fact" what demonstrable difference is there? During typical hookups no one discloses completely irrelevant information about themselves. I don't submit a credit report to my hookups. I'd have to let them know if I had an STD because that could actually affect them. But simply being trans doesn't affect the partner in any way shape or form when it comes to a hookup. Also, caring about something that not only doesn't affect you but you can't even identify is patently stupid. In the scenario where you're hooking up with a trans woman who you find attractive and would not know that she was trans unless she told you, you don't get to pretend you care about trans status. You might think what they're predicating their decision to consent on is stupid. That's fine. But that doesn't give you the right to dismiss their decision to consent. It's still theirs. Whether or not their criteria are dumb does not impact their right to have their own criteria regarding sexual consent. On August 01 2013 23:07 Smat wrote:On August 01 2013 22:43 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 22:38 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 22:31 KwarK wrote:
And it really, really sucks that violent homophobes do horrible things to trans people but tricking them into what they would view as gay sex is not going to help the situation. I don't want to sleep with someone who is married, but they don't disclose that either. In the grand scheme of things, I can’t really feel bad for people who get surprised by something after they have a one night stand. There is a reason we do not encourage people to have those. Sure, its not nice, but that person decided to sleep with someone with limited information on who they are. "I didn't tell them but they're having a one night stand so it's okay". This is known as two wrongs making a right. I don't really hold to that. Also their wrong by not asking enough questions before sex is not equivalent to your wrong of obtaining consent through omission of relevant information. Are you actually disputing whether obtaining consent through omission of relevant information is bad or are you saying that people who have one night stands deserve it or? How are you suppose to know what exactly would not be acceptable to your one night stand partnee. There seems to be this idea that most men care. What if the trans woman told some peope a few times and they didnt care (this happens a lot) shouldnt she assume from her.experience that most people wouldnt care? If half your partners think its a deal breaker and half dont why do you have to assume that everyone thinks its a deal breaker? If half your partners think it's a deal breaker and half don't then I think it's reasonable to assume that half of people will think it's a dealbreaker and because you don't want a 50% chance of obtaining consent through deception you tell all of them. It doesn't have to be everyone, you're just trying not to obtain consent by deception through reasonable disclosure. On August 01 2013 23:09 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 22:47 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 22:42 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 22:32 Darkwhite wrote:On August 01 2013 22:18 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 22:15 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
And back then not disclosing that information, no matter how unfair, arbitrary or unreasonable that "deal breaker" might be, would be taking advantage of the said person. As Snusmumriken said, two wrongs don't make a right. So as long as we're clear then, the argument seems to be: As long as the majority of the population finds something to be distasteful and it would cause them to not sleep with you, you *must* disclose your status of this distasteful thing. It does not matter if it is being a natural blonde, being biracial, liking peanutbutter, or transsexualism - the important thing is that we must not cause inconvenience to the majority of the population. Am I getting this right? Because to me this sounds completely absurd. The argument is very, very simple: If you have good reason to believe that your partner might change his mind, given information you can choose whether or not to disclose, then you have an obligation to tell your partner and let him make the call. It has nothing to do with inconveniencing the majority. Similarly, if I were to become part of a transsexual dating site, where the default assumptions would be that everybody is transsexual, I would consider myself obligated to let my partners know that I am not a transsexual myself, because they have a right to make an informed decision. On a regular dating site, where transsexuality is not the norm, the obligation would lie with the transsexuals. Except that without the 'majority' premise, the entire argument falls apart. The only reason I'm supposed to disclose to everyone I sleep with is because of the belief that the 'majority' is transphobic. Without this belief I would have no reason to believe the person is transphobic without additional evidence. You're basically asking me to assume that everyone is transphobic, ergo, the majority premise matters. Basically, if the majority of the population has a hangup about something, then it's my obligation to inform all potential partners, because that is evidence that the person might change their mind. I'm just going to have to disagree ethically with this. People are responsible for their own hangups. If you dislike promiscuous people - and I don't care if *everyone* hates promiscuous people, and promiscuous people are super rare so they might assume that you're not promiscuous - I still think it's up to you to take steps to make sure your partner isn't promiscuous. Lies by omission are nonsense - especially if the only reason it's a "lie by omission" is predicated on how prevalent transphobia is. Take some personal responsibility. It doesn't have to be everyone, nor a majority. If you think there's a 20% chance you're obtaining consent through deception and an 80% chance they don't care about it you should still tell them because a 20% chance of deceiving someone into sex is too high. Consent is important. The reason it's a lie of omission is because of their assumption you are cis whereas you are are aware that you are not. This is nothing to do with transphobia, this is to do with numbers. There are far, far more cis people than trans. The assumption that a given person is cis rather than trans is a reasonable assumption to make. I'm not sure why you think that assumption is in any way transphobic, it's not, it's just statistics. The prevalence of transphobia matters here (the argument is predicated upon it) because, within the context of the argument, the ethical criteria for disclosure is whether or not the person is transphobic. The only evidence we have to assume that the person is transphobic is 'it seems like most people are transphobic.' Therefore, the argument is predicated upon the prevalence of transphobia. To me, if the ethics of disclosure is merely based on population and is inconsistent otherwise, then there is no real imperative as the ethic is weak. You frame it as statistics, but this is a bit disingenuous. You make it sound like it's simply "most people are cis, few people are trans, therefore trans people must inform cis people". But this obfuscates the point. Trans people wouldn't have to inform cis people that they are trans *unless* the cis people are transphobic. Therefore, the argument hinges upon the prevalence of transphobia. I think that if the ethics of disclosure is ever predicated upon something as arbitrary as the beliefs of a population at a particular time, then the ethical imperative is rather weak and unconvincing. If not informing someone that I'm trans is okay in the future because transphobia dies off, then I'm going to be rather skeptical that I have an ethic to disclose in the present. The ethics of disclosure are constant. If you believe that consent is predicated upon a lack of a fact that you are withholding then the consent has been obtained through deception and there is a moral imperative to disclose the fact. Failure to do so is simply dismissing their right to freely consent to sex and is pretty damn immoral. It doesn't matter what the fact is, it doesn't matter that they care because they're transphobic, two wrongs don't make a right. If less people are transphobic in the future then it will be less likely that consent is predicated upon the lack of disclosing this particular fact. The argument will no longer be relevant to trans people. But the argument will not cease to be valid. Not informing someone of something upon which their consent to sex hinges will always be wrong, it may not apply to trans people in the future but that doesn't change the validity of the argument. Your criteria for consent are your own. If being trans is a deal breaker or that's something you want to know, you have to ask that. You're right, it's not really rational to assume that every woman is possibly trans because they're such a small part of the population. But it's not the woman's job to assume that's your deal breaker. If it's not on your mind enough to ask, then it's probably not a deal breaker. And I'm not saying people aren't allowed to have random, dumbass criteria. I'm saying that you shouldn't expect your partner to assume criteria that don't affect you in the slightest. If you never had sex with people who owned Volkswagons, I wouldn't volunteer that I own a Jetta. Not because I'm lying by omission, but because I why on earth would I think it mattered? Sure sure, transphobia is a lot more common than volksphobia so we might just assume every man is transphobic and that it's a common enough deal breaker that trans women should volunteer the information. But do you not see a problem with just assuming that everyone is an asshole? If a trans woman is just supposed to assume everyone who is sexually attracted to her is transphobic...how is that healthy? How is that normal? And how is that not just as oppressive as calling by their original sex? They don't have to assume that everyone is transphobic, they have to recognise that there is a strong possibility, a very real conceivable chance, that the prospective partner is. Because right now, there is. There is a lot of transphobia. Hopefully that will change to the point where the assumption that the partner is definitely not transphobic will be as reasonable as the assumption that a partner isn't volksphobic. I'm not sure why it's anything like calling her by her born sex. Ok yes technically there's a difference between assuming 60% of people are transphobic and assuming 100% of people are transphobic but only on paper. That still manifests itself as suspicion and fear for a trans woman every single time a man shows interest in her. When you're talking about accounting for probability in our behavior, "likely" and "most definitely" aren't that different. And it's the same as calling her by her born sex because it's just saying "there is something about you that other people find weird and if you try to pretend you aren't weird you're even weirder." Look, bottom line: If you're really so averse to fucking a trans woman, ask the woman if she's trans. The human brain works by overplaying probability. So even if only 2% of the population is trans, if your brain really thinks it's something bad that might happen to you, it will inflate that probability to the point that it'll be on your mind every time you have sex. The same way you wonder if your plane is going to crash every time you fly even though statistically it's nigh impossible. It's not just going to not occur to you if it's really an issue for you. If it's on your mind...ask. I suspect that most transphobic men don't want to ask that before sex not because it's not on their mind, but because they know it will be a mood killer because *shocker* it's actually a pretty offensive question. So they're just relying on the trans woman to enable their transphobia while still not making them accountable for it. I know it's a little presumptuous to play mind reader but people really are dragging their heels on taking responsibility for information that's a big deal to them but wouldn't be to their partner.
A sexual act is about to happen because informed consent is not there and instead both partners are making poorly informed assumptions about the other.
The transphobic person is assuming their partner is cis.
The trans person is assuming their partner isn't transphobic.
If either party revealed the information they knew that the other person would find relevant then the situation could be avoided. However the two failures to reveal information are not statistically equivalent. The transphobic person's assumption that most people are cis is going to be correct far, far more often that the trans person's assumption that a given person isn't transphobic. They are the one who knows they are an outlier, the lack of informed consent hinges upon their information.
|
What annoys me is the propensity to make things easy for ourselves, regardless of position. Why make things easy for ourselves by constantly introducing irrelevant information to the argument? How can people possible know right from wrong when they only ponder hypotheticals which gives them the answer they already wanted?
No one could make a sensible argument in which potential violence could be justified
No one could make a sensible argument in which lying wouldnt be ok if it was either lying or getting hurt physically
No one could make a sensible argument in which a transgender person has to tell anyone if having ons was an absolutely essential part of being human (basically any argument based on some type of binary choice).
No one could make a sensible argument in which a transgender person has to tell anyone if the vast majority of people wouldnt care.
The only interesting argument, at least to me, is whether its ok or not to knowingly withhold information you have reasons to believe would be a dealbreaker. It doesnt matter if its actually a dealbreaker or not, what matters is your intent.
|
On August 01 2013 23:18 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 23:13 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 22:31 KwarK wrote:
And it really, really sucks that violent homophobes do horrible things to trans people but tricking them into what they would view as gay sex is not going to help the situation. I strongly believe that if thinking it's okay not to disclose such information was not as prevalent (since it seems to be, for various reasons), then there would be much less violence in that regard. The reason why I'm saying that is because those people are not aggressive because they have anger management problems, but because (assuming sex did happen or was about to happen), they indeed were tricked into sex they did not consent to. Your a fool if you think even something as significant as a plurality of trans people dont disclose before sex. Men beat the shit out.of and kill transgender people because society is basically saying its ok to treat them as subhuman.
Seriously, your whole narrative is full of crap, to put it lightly. On one hand you're saying how when transsexual women tell their sexual partners, most of them do not care, and on the other hand you're painting this horrific picture of every sexual partner of a transsexual woman being a potential victimizer. Make up your mind...
|
On August 01 2013 23:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 23:38 marvellosity wrote:On August 01 2013 23:37 Smat wrote:On August 01 2013 23:35 marvellosity wrote:
I'd gently suggest that hyperbole is not a winning strategy. Society tells people its ok to react violently when they put a move on a trans woman. Do you disagree? I indeed disagree. Society doesn't condone violence other than in exceptional circumstances, of which that isn't one. I would say that currently society condones reacting with disgust, which is still bad, but violence? I don't think so. I also disagree. I have never meet anyone would thinks that way or has ever expressed that they would be violent in response to the advances of a trangender.
Maybe you live in liberal bubble? I hear it a lot. Oh kissed a man! I would knock him out! Stuff like that. Its portrayed as a reasonable reaction in the media.
|
On August 02 2013 00:03 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 23:18 Smat wrote:On August 01 2013 23:13 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 22:31 KwarK wrote:
And it really, really sucks that violent homophobes do horrible things to trans people but tricking them into what they would view as gay sex is not going to help the situation. I strongly believe that if thinking it's okay not to disclose such information was not as prevalent (since it seems to be, for various reasons), then there would be much less violence in that regard. The reason why I'm saying that is because those people are not aggressive because they have anger management problems, but because (assuming sex did happen or was about to happen), they indeed were tricked into sex they did not consent to. Your a fool if you think even something as significant as a plurality of trans people dont disclose before sex. Men beat the shit out.of and kill transgender people because society is basically saying its ok to treat them as subhuman. Seriously, your whole narrative is full of crap, to put it lightly. On one hand you're saying how when transsexual women tell their sexual partners, most of them do not care, and on the other hand you're painting this horrific picture of every sexual partner of a transsexual woman being a potential victimizer. Make up your mind...
Ya depends on the area and the population. Maybe my narrative wouldnt look disjointed if you did not generalize that all trans woman have a moral obligation to do this or that based on the majority opinion.
|
On August 01 2013 23:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 23:13 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 22:31 KwarK wrote:
And it really, really sucks that violent homophobes do horrible things to trans people but tricking them into what they would view as gay sex is not going to help the situation. I strongly believe that if thinking it's okay not to disclose such information was not as prevalent (since it seems to be, for various reasons), then there would be much less violence in that regard. The reason why I'm saying that is because those people are not aggressive because they have anger management problems, but because (assuming sex did happen or was about to happen), they indeed were tricked into sex they did not consent to. There is no evidence to back that up and I find that to be unlikely. The type of person who is going to become violent when they find out the woman they were flirting with was at one time male, is not going to change due to more honest from people who are transgender. At the end of the day, once they find out, they feel they have been tricked into being attracted man and want to take out that frustration and embarrassment through violence. You cannot blame the transgender person for being honest and then being confronted by violence because the other party is an ass hole.
And tricking those people into having sex with transsexuals actually makes their concerns of being tricked into the whole thing valid...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
