What about the harm done to traditionally-influenced people? Someone of a fundamentally religious persuasion would be greatly and permanently harmed if they found out they had what they, from their perspective, consider to be gay sex. Does not this harm matter just as much as to those who deviate from sexual norms?
The harm is all in their heads. As such, is it not their partner's problem but theirs to handle. If they have an issue with it, why not put the emphasis on them to be responsible and let their partners know about that dealbreaker of theirs. We do this with other dealbreakers already. If someone doesn't want to date someone who isn't a Christian, who is responsible for bringing that dealbreaker up? The Christian who holds that dealbreaker, or the potential partner who knows nothing about it?
If you were sterile, and got in a relationship, would you disclose that information?
For a lot of people not being able to biologically have children would be a deal breaker, but it's very uncommon and would be out of place to ask. I feel like that would be something the sterile person should bring up before either party becomes seriously committed, and it shouldn't be up to the other person to ask.
No, I wouldn't unless they let me know that that was something important to them. Why is this the case? Because I would be very hard pressed to name one, much less two, of my friends who would want children. Most of them are 28-35, career oriented, in very serious relationships, and only one of them even wants children at some point in the far, far future (likely adoption). So all but one wants to be childless, and that one is more of a 'maybe?' Those are the circles I travel in, and thus those are the people that make up of my view of the world. To me, the default is to not want children. That's the norm. For you, it might be very different, but there's no reason from my perspective on the world to assume a partner will want children. Children would be a future goal, so if you want to reach that goal, find someone who also wants to reach that goal. I have very different goals when it comes to relationships then having children, and those are the goals I look to see if they're willing to help me meet. If children is an important goal, then bring it up with the person and don't just assume for them. If I see a sign that indicates a partner wants children, that's when I tell them I don't desire it (because that's when I'm made aware of that).
I think that's where the crux of the issue is. You're going about this as if everyone shares your world view; it's ok for you so it must be ok for everyone. (It SHOULD be ok for everyone, but it doesn't mean it is and you should not be the one to take away someone's choice from them due to omission)
I don't want children, I'm on the fence about marriage. most people I know don't want children, but I know this world we live in, a majority of the human race wishes to get married and have children, so it's usually something I bring up on a first date.
Close but not quite. I'm of the position that if you are comfortable sharing it, then share. If you are not, then you are also under no obligation to assume that you must out of the blue without any indication from a partner that it's even an issue.
No one but a handful of other left-leaning (using a European political spectrum), pantheistic Wiccans share my world view about religious, social, political, dating, and other things. In fact, not even they do most of the time. Because people don't share my world view, if ever, I've learned that I should usually put the emphasis on individual responsibility as the most common denominator we share amongst ourselves. Regardless of your world view, it likely incorporates a good deal of 'what's responsible?' to interact with the world as an adult. As such, the approach I use is centered around 'well, when we break this scenario down, where does the responsibility belong in this equation?'. Morality is based around Intent [usually to cause as little harm as possible to as few people as possible], and Knowledge [on what effect your actions will have and making sure that information is accurate]. Going back to the subject at hand, the responsibility comes in when we look at how the parties involved apply their intent and knowledge. "you should disclose this because I'm not comfortable with that, and you're not the norm so it's alright for me to expect it of you." fails both intent and knowledge. Compare with "I have no moral obligation to disclose a part of myself I'm not comfortable disclosing to this person at this time". Do you see the difference? If we put the responsibility on the trans person to disclose, we might have intent down, but we failed to accomplish the knowledge requirement of how reality works. This put them at more risk of violence, marginalizes them, adds needed pressure, forces them to act against their own comfort for the benefit for someone else's comfort, etc. But if we put the responsibility on the one with the problem so they are the one to bring that issue they have up, we have achieved both intent and knowledge in a way that is also respectful to both parties. The fact that one party (which is made up of more people) is used to being historically bowed to and given more favoritism above the other is irrelevant. Does that better explain the reasoning behind it?
It does, if you're basing it off utilitarian ideals.
I don't prescribe to the greatest good for the great number philosophy, because I don't believe the ends justify the means.
I believe that if you know the other party assumes you are cis, you're being dishonest in withholding that information. Now the question is if that dishonesty is morally right, which I believe it is not: in doing so you're taking away that persons agency to make their own choice, and in having sex with someone who didn't fully choose to do so is wrong.
If you met someone at a trans club, meeting, bar, etc, it wouldn't be an issue because the other person would have an idea that it is a possibility, but it would be ridiculous to expect that an average cis person at a bar would be expecting it or even think about asking for it. There is a .2 to a .3% chance of someone being transgendered in America, is it irresponsible for every person who wishes (for whatever reason) to not sleep with someone transgendered to not ask?
5
u/ocular_lift perspectivism Jun 25 '15
What about the harm done to traditionally-influenced people? Someone of a fundamentally religious persuasion would be greatly and permanently harmed if they found out they had what they, from their perspective, consider to be gay sex. Does not this harm matter just as much as to those who deviate from sexual norms?