|
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine.
|
On August 02 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine.
Are the strangers bigots if they are upset if they find out that they slept with a transgender and didn't know?
|
United States43735 Posts
On August 02 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine.
Because these things never, ever come out and it's fine to rape people as long as they don't know about it.
Learn to ethics better.
|
On August 02 2013 02:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine. Are the strangers bigots if they are upset if they find out that they slept with a transgender and didn't know?
How would they find out? They're strangers...they'll never see each other again.
|
United States43735 Posts
On August 02 2013 02:26 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:25 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine. Are the strangers bigots if they are upset if they find out that they slept with a transgender and didn't know? How would they find out? They're strangers...they'll never see each other again.
"It's fine to do something someone would never consent to if they knew as long as they don't find out."
Literally your point.
|
On August 02 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine. Because these things never, ever come out and it's fine to rape people as long as they don't know about it. Learn to ethics better.
You're really playing fast and loose with the term rape. I guess your standard for informed consent is much higher than mine...particularly for a one night stand. Withholding information that has no practical consequences for the other person doesn't negate informed consent. If the other person can continue living their lives with no immediate or long term impact based on the information provided, they can provide informed consent.
We'll never agree because we have different standards of informed consent for a one night stand.
|
On August 02 2013 02:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:26 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:25 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine. Are the strangers bigots if they are upset if they find out that they slept with a transgender and didn't know? How would they find out? They're strangers...they'll never see each other again. "It's fine to do something someone would never consent to if they knew as long as they don't find out and it will never in any way affect them." Literally your point.
That is my point. You don't get to be bothered about shit that cannot in any way, directly or indirectly, affect you.
INB4 I'm white straight male bigotry doesn't affect me!! Yes it does. It indirectly affects a lot about what you can do.
|
On August 02 2013 02:26 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:25 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine. Are the strangers bigots if they are upset if they find out that they slept with a transgender and didn't know? How would they find out? They're strangers...they'll never see each other again.
That wasn't the question. The question was if they found out for whatever reason and were upset, are they bigots?
|
On August 02 2013 02:30 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:27 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:25 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine. Are the strangers bigots if they are upset if they find out that they slept with a transgender and didn't know? How would they find out? They're strangers...they'll never see each other again. "It's fine to do something someone would never consent to if they knew as long as they don't find out and it will never in any way affect them." Literally your point. That is my point.
So if I make dinner for a vegan and feed them meat, lie to them and they never found out, there are no problems with this at all, right?
|
United States43735 Posts
On August 02 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine. Because these things never, ever come out and it's fine to rape people as long as they don't know about it. Learn to ethics better. You're really playing fast and loose with the term rape. I guess your standard for informed consent is much higher than mine...particularly for a one night stand. Withholding information that has no practical consequences for the other person doesn't negate informed consent. If the other person can continue living their lives with no immediate or long term impact based on the information provided, they can provide informed consent. We'll never agree because we have different standards of informed consent for a one night stand.
This is a completely different argument to your "it's totally reasonable for transphobes to ask every time despite the numbers" one which I hope you're finally ready to drop after I conclusively showed it to be statistically absurd a few posts ago.
You don't get to decide which information is important to them within a reasonable standard. If you have no reason to believe that they are transphobic then you have no obligation to disclose, any more than you would have to disclose if you had your appendix removed. But given a reasonably high instance of people who do have a problem with it, and there is, there is absolutely an obligation to disclose. If consent hinges upon something which matters a lot to them and you know that they would not consent if they knew what you knew then you are morally obliged to tell them, you do not get to decide that their conditions for having sex are silly and that you know better so you're just going to go ahead and take advantage of their ignorance to fuck them anyway.
|
On August 02 2013 02:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:30 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:27 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:25 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine. Are the strangers bigots if they are upset if they find out that they slept with a transgender and didn't know? How would they find out? They're strangers...they'll never see each other again. "It's fine to do something someone would never consent to if they knew as long as they don't find out and it will never in any way affect them." Literally your point. That is my point. So if I make dinner for a vegan and feed them meat, lie to them and they never found out, there are no problems with this at all, right?
If they have told you they are vegan then no you shouldn't do that. But in that analogy the person would have explicitly said they did not want to have sex with a trans person. Then the trans person should probably back off.
But in all our previous scenarios...we don't know if the person cares about having sex with trans people.
If someone was vegan and didn't tell you and you fed them meat, no you didn't do anything wrong. But we also place the burden on the vegan person to alert people that they're vegan.
|
United States43735 Posts
On August 02 2013 02:35 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:32 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 02:30 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:27 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:25 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine. Are the strangers bigots if they are upset if they find out that they slept with a transgender and didn't know? How would they find out? They're strangers...they'll never see each other again. "It's fine to do something someone would never consent to if they knew as long as they don't find out and it will never in any way affect them." Literally your point. That is my point. So if I make dinner for a vegan and feed them meat, lie to them and they never found out, there are no problems with this at all, right? If they have told you they are vegan then no you shouldn't do that. But in that analogy the person would have explicitly said they did not want to have sex with a trans person. Then the trans person should probably back off. But in all our previous scenarios...we don't know if the person cares about having sex with trans people. If someone was vegan and didn't tell you and you fed them meat, no you didn't do anything wrong. But we also place the burden on the vegan person to alert people that they're vegan.
We place the burden on the vegan person to say it because vegans are a minority and the default assumption is that they'll eat meat. Likewise trans people are a minority and the default assumption is a person is cis.
|
On August 02 2013 02:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine. Because these things never, ever come out and it's fine to rape people as long as they don't know about it. Learn to ethics better. You're really playing fast and loose with the term rape. I guess your standard for informed consent is much higher than mine...particularly for a one night stand. Withholding information that has no practical consequences for the other person doesn't negate informed consent. If the other person can continue living their lives with no immediate or long term impact based on the information provided, they can provide informed consent. We'll never agree because we have different standards of informed consent for a one night stand. This is a completely different argument to your "it's totally reasonable for transphobes to ask every time despite the numbers" one which I hope you're finally ready to drop after I conclusively showed it to be statistically absurd a few posts ago. You don't get to decide which information is important to them within a reasonable standard. If you have no reason to believe that they are transphobic then you have no obligation to disclose, any more than you would have to disclose if you had your appendix removed. But given a reasonably high instance of people who do have a problem with it, and there is, there is absolutely an obligation to disclose. If consent hinges upon something which matters a lot to them and you know that they would not consent if they knew what you knew then you are morally obliged to tell them, you do not get to decide that their conditions for having sex are silly and that you know better so you're just going to go ahead and take advantage of their ignorance to fuck them anyway.
I'm not arbitrarily deciding what information is important. I'm using the pretty objective measure of whether or not there are consequences of said information. If there are no consequences, it is not important. If you wish to make information important, it is your job to do so, not everyone else's.
|
Not making a statement either way, but just curious about KwarK's response to this if possible. Is it morally wrong to not tell someone when you're going in to a one night stand where both sides are essentially consenting to sex without knowledge of their partner?
|
United States43735 Posts
On August 02 2013 02:36 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:33 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine. Because these things never, ever come out and it's fine to rape people as long as they don't know about it. Learn to ethics better. You're really playing fast and loose with the term rape. I guess your standard for informed consent is much higher than mine...particularly for a one night stand. Withholding information that has no practical consequences for the other person doesn't negate informed consent. If the other person can continue living their lives with no immediate or long term impact based on the information provided, they can provide informed consent. We'll never agree because we have different standards of informed consent for a one night stand. This is a completely different argument to your "it's totally reasonable for transphobes to ask every time despite the numbers" one which I hope you're finally ready to drop after I conclusively showed it to be statistically absurd a few posts ago. You don't get to decide which information is important to them within a reasonable standard. If you have no reason to believe that they are transphobic then you have no obligation to disclose, any more than you would have to disclose if you had your appendix removed. But given a reasonably high instance of people who do have a problem with it, and there is, there is absolutely an obligation to disclose. If consent hinges upon something which matters a lot to them and you know that they would not consent if they knew what you knew then you are morally obliged to tell them, you do not get to decide that their conditions for having sex are silly and that you know better so you're just going to go ahead and take advantage of their ignorance to fuck them anyway. I'm not arbitrarily deciding what information is important. I'm using the pretty objective measure of whether or not there are consequences of said information. If there are no consequences, it is not important.
And by no consequences you mean the only consequence being the possibility of some bigot who identifies as straight and identifies you as a man being tricked into having gay sex and liking it but hey, fuck that guy.
The fact that you don't like these people and don't give a fuck about what consequences they might think are there is not the same thing as there being no consequences.
|
On August 02 2013 02:36 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:33 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine. Because these things never, ever come out and it's fine to rape people as long as they don't know about it. Learn to ethics better. You're really playing fast and loose with the term rape. I guess your standard for informed consent is much higher than mine...particularly for a one night stand. Withholding information that has no practical consequences for the other person doesn't negate informed consent. If the other person can continue living their lives with no immediate or long term impact based on the information provided, they can provide informed consent. We'll never agree because we have different standards of informed consent for a one night stand. This is a completely different argument to your "it's totally reasonable for transphobes to ask every time despite the numbers" one which I hope you're finally ready to drop after I conclusively showed it to be statistically absurd a few posts ago. You don't get to decide which information is important to them within a reasonable standard. If you have no reason to believe that they are transphobic then you have no obligation to disclose, any more than you would have to disclose if you had your appendix removed. But given a reasonably high instance of people who do have a problem with it, and there is, there is absolutely an obligation to disclose. If consent hinges upon something which matters a lot to them and you know that they would not consent if they knew what you knew then you are morally obliged to tell them, you do not get to decide that their conditions for having sex are silly and that you know better so you're just going to go ahead and take advantage of their ignorance to fuck them anyway. I'm not arbitrarily deciding what information is important. I'm using the pretty objective measure of whether or not there are consequences of said information. If there are no consequences, it is not important.
So the transgender person shouldnt' feel bad about neglecting to tell them and the other party is a bigot if they get upset that they were not informed? Because you can't assume there are no consequences, because the world doesn't work that way.
|
United States43735 Posts
On August 02 2013 02:37 Iyerbeth wrote:
Not making a statement either way, but just curious about KwarK's response to this if possible. Is it morally wrong to not tell someone when you're going in to a one night stand where both sides are essentially consenting to sex without knowledge of their partner?
If it were a true lottery without any information then they'd be accepting the odds through consenting to it. But one night stands aren't that, in one night stands you still lead a partner to believe things about you through your appearance etc. If one of their beliefs, in this case that you are cis, is not the case and would be a dealbreaker for them then you are morally wrong not to tell them.
|
On August 02 2013 02:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:36 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:33 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine. Because these things never, ever come out and it's fine to rape people as long as they don't know about it. Learn to ethics better. You're really playing fast and loose with the term rape. I guess your standard for informed consent is much higher than mine...particularly for a one night stand. Withholding information that has no practical consequences for the other person doesn't negate informed consent. If the other person can continue living their lives with no immediate or long term impact based on the information provided, they can provide informed consent. We'll never agree because we have different standards of informed consent for a one night stand. This is a completely different argument to your "it's totally reasonable for transphobes to ask every time despite the numbers" one which I hope you're finally ready to drop after I conclusively showed it to be statistically absurd a few posts ago. You don't get to decide which information is important to them within a reasonable standard. If you have no reason to believe that they are transphobic then you have no obligation to disclose, any more than you would have to disclose if you had your appendix removed. But given a reasonably high instance of people who do have a problem with it, and there is, there is absolutely an obligation to disclose. If consent hinges upon something which matters a lot to them and you know that they would not consent if they knew what you knew then you are morally obliged to tell them, you do not get to decide that their conditions for having sex are silly and that you know better so you're just going to go ahead and take advantage of their ignorance to fuck them anyway. I'm not arbitrarily deciding what information is important. I'm using the pretty objective measure of whether or not there are consequences of said information. If there are no consequences, it is not important. And by no consequences you mean the only consequence being the possibility of some bigot who identifies as straight and identifies you as a man being tricked into having gay sex and liking it but hey, fuck that guy. The fact that you don't like these people and don't give a fuck about what consequences they might think are there is not the same thing as there being no consequences.
Again, if the information isn't disclosed...the bigot won't ever feel like he's been tricked into gay sex. Literally fuck that guy...go right ahead. He'll have fun and go on with his life with zero repercussions.
|
On August 02 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine. Because these things never, ever come out and it's fine to rape people as long as they don't know about it. Learn to ethics better.
Wait, how is this rape of any sort?
|
On August 02 2013 02:41 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:38 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:36 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:33 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine. Because these things never, ever come out and it's fine to rape people as long as they don't know about it. Learn to ethics better. You're really playing fast and loose with the term rape. I guess your standard for informed consent is much higher than mine...particularly for a one night stand. Withholding information that has no practical consequences for the other person doesn't negate informed consent. If the other person can continue living their lives with no immediate or long term impact based on the information provided, they can provide informed consent. We'll never agree because we have different standards of informed consent for a one night stand. This is a completely different argument to your "it's totally reasonable for transphobes to ask every time despite the numbers" one which I hope you're finally ready to drop after I conclusively showed it to be statistically absurd a few posts ago. You don't get to decide which information is important to them within a reasonable standard. If you have no reason to believe that they are transphobic then you have no obligation to disclose, any more than you would have to disclose if you had your appendix removed. But given a reasonably high instance of people who do have a problem with it, and there is, there is absolutely an obligation to disclose. If consent hinges upon something which matters a lot to them and you know that they would not consent if they knew what you knew then you are morally obliged to tell them, you do not get to decide that their conditions for having sex are silly and that you know better so you're just going to go ahead and take advantage of their ignorance to fuck them anyway. I'm not arbitrarily deciding what information is important. I'm using the pretty objective measure of whether or not there are consequences of said information. If there are no consequences, it is not important. And by no consequences you mean the only consequence being the possibility of some bigot who identifies as straight and identifies you as a man being tricked into having gay sex and liking it but hey, fuck that guy. The fact that you don't like these people and don't give a fuck about what consequences they might think are there is not the same thing as there being no consequences. Again, if the information isn't disclosed...the bigot won't ever feel like he's been tricked into gay sex. Literally fuck that guy...go right ahead. He'll have fun and go on with his life with zero repercussions.
What if he does find out? Because you know, that isn't like, impossible? The world is not that big.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
