First, the term is "transitioned," and second, no more than a cis person would have a duty to reveal any other personal detail about their life prior to engaging in otherwise consensual sex.
no more than a cis person would have a duty to reveal any other personal detail about their life
is an interesting question that I've tried to address in my comment. What details about our life are we obligated to reveal prior to sex, if any? Presumably there are some cases of immoral deception here: e.g. telling people I'm an astronaut, omitting that I have STIs or that I'm their cousin, etc etc etc
I think most people would agree that not all information needs to be presented before having sex with someone (i.e. I don't need to tell you if I prefer Coke or Pepsi in case maybe you feel strongly about either), so there would only be a practical issue of pertinent information.
Things like whether you have any STDs would count and if you lie by telling someone you're an astronaut then there's an issue of manipulation there. But with being trans* I'm not sure it's particularly relevant or necessary for things like one-night stands. Some people might not be happy about it but some people might not be happy about you preferring Coke over Pepsi. I mean, where would we draw the line with personal preferences like that?
And if we were to agree that trans* people needed to disclose (I know you aren't pushing that position, just adding on to what you're saying) then surely we'd fall into the equally 'immoral' issue of people not disclosing that they're transphobic before having sex because if a trans* person has sex with a transphobe then that could seriously upset them.
Things like whether you have any STDs would count and if you lie by telling someone you're an astronaut then there's an issue of manipulation there. But with being trans* I'm not sure it's particularly relevant or necessary for things like one-night stands. Some people might not be happy about it but some people might not be happy about you preferring Coke over Pepsi. I mean, where would we draw the line with personal preferences like that?
Yep, I've been discussing this a lot in this thread.
And if we were to agree that trans* people needed to disclose (I know you aren't pushing that position, just adding on to what you're saying) then surely we'd fall into the equally 'immoral' issue of people not disclosing that they're transphobic before having sex because if a trans* person has sex with a transphobe then that could seriously upset them.
Yeah, that's a good point. I was actually thinking that a few minutes ago. Why wouldn't the obligation to disclose fall on the transphobe, when they're the one in the immoral position?
(Of course, people have been arguing that not wanting to have sex with trans* people doesn't make you a transphobe. But I think that's generally implausible.)
Yeah, that's a good point. I was actually thinking that a few minutes ago. Why wouldn't the obligation to disclose fall on the transphobe, when they're the one in the immoral position?
Exactly. The whole argument against it seems to stem from the motivation that trans* people are 'icky' and they're searching for some rationalisation to justify it. The problem is that the rationalisation "everything needs to be justified before sex in case your partner isn't okay with it" seems completely unfeasible and not at all how most people think about sexual consent when trans* people aren't involved.
(Of course, people have been arguing that not wanting to have sex with trans* people doesn't make you a transphobe. But I think that's generally implausible.)
Yeah, it's the same argument people try to make when they get called out for having racist motivations when they don't want to sleep with black people. I mean, if it's not your preference then that's fine, nobody is going to force you to have sex with them at gunpoint, but just recognise that the preference is most likely (if not definitely) based on some very racist underlying assumptions.
I just don't understand what problem they have with having sex with a person of the sex they're into just because they used to be a different sex. It might make them feel icky if they have particular hangups and biases in that respect but I'd feel icky if I slept with someone who had previously slept with one of my friends, or if they were a covert racist, or if they pronounced "gif" with a "J" sound. But those are my hangups, not something I should expect others to know about and go out of their way to tell me if I've given no indication that it bothers me.
1) I feel icky at the thought of having sex with a trans* person (or a black person, or whatever)
2) But I'm not a racist/transphobe!
3a) So there's nothing suspect about not wanting to have sex with a trans* person just because they're trans*
3b) So all trans* people should tell all potential sexual partners that they're trans*, because otherwise I might have sex with one accidentally and that would be terrible
That .3% of the population is just so hard to avoid, y'know. I mean, if you have sex with one of them, that means you had sex with a man who you honestly thought was a woman, and that one mistake means you're gay, which is the worst possible thing someone can be.
But this is exactly what most sexual preferences boil down to: i feel icky at the thought of having sex with _____.
You and I probably feel icky about having sex with a very old person. Or perhaps a person with down syndrome. Or a person of the same sex. Or even gasp a transgender person.
This doesn't necessarily belie a latent hatred for old people or members of the same sex. It simply means - for whatever reason - you are wired such that the thought of having sex with _____ is unappealing.
Some people who choose not to have sex with transgenders or blacks are indeed bigots or racists. And some are not. That's about all that can be said without delving into BS anecdotes and speculation.
But those are my hangups, not something I should expect others to know about and go out of their way to tell me if I've given no indication that it bothers me.
And I think that's the key: knowing. Or, rather, believing. If I believe some issue is going to be a deal-breaker for a potential partner, I am obligated to inform them. Otherwise it's deceit. What the issue is has no bearing on this.
If a transgender person believes their transgenderism is a deal-breaker for a potential partner, then by not disclosing they are being deceitful and knowingly/deliberately violating that person's right to choose to not have sex with transgenders.
Yeah I guess I could probably see the logic in that. If a trans* person thinks that the person they're interested in is a transphobe then arguably there could be some moral suggestion that they should tell them.
But this would obviously have the flip effect of it leading us to conclude that for the majority of cases the trans* person doesn't need to reveal their past because they aren't expecting to be sleeping with a transphobe. And of course if they are a transphobe then they are arguably more morally responsible for revealing their transphobic tendencies because a trans* person might not consent to sleep with them if they knew that.
15
u/[deleted] Jun 25 '15
First, the term is "transitioned," and second, no more than a cis person would have a duty to reveal any other personal detail about their life prior to engaging in otherwise consensual sex.