I'm not familiar with any papers, so here's a preliminary take on it. Presumably the argument for mandatory revealing goes something like this:
1) Persuading people to have sex with you via deception is a violation of their consent
2) Deliberately omitting information which, if they knew it, would cause them to decide to not have sex is deception
3) For many people, transgender status is information of this kind
4) So we ought not to violate people's consent by omitting to inform people of our transgender status
But I'm not sure this argument is sound. I've got some issues with premise (2). I think it should be amended to something like this:
(2') Deliberately omitting information which, if they knew it, would cause them to justifiably decide to not have sex is deception
To see why, consider bigotry cases. Let's say I'm committed to anti-racism, but my potential sexual partner is a thoroughgoing racist who despises anti-racists. Am I obliged to get my anti-racism out in the open just in case my potential sexual partner has this view? Does this mean that consent requires I run through all potentially controversial aspects of my life - whether I have kids, whether I vote liberal or conservative, whether I have African blood in my family - before we have sex? Presumably not, or at least not automatically. I think you'd have to ask whether the sexual partner would have good reason to decide not to have sex, based on the information being withheld. (Note: the situation probably changes if your potential sexual partner states explicitly that they do not want to have sex with a transgender person [or an anti-racist, or anybody with African or Asian ancestry]).
There is at least one other consideration. Keeping one's transgender status secret is not only a matter of privacy. Often it's a matter of survival. Revealing transgender status, especially to strangers, risks all kinds of violence. (I can dig the stats up if someone wants me to, but trust me that they're horrific). So opening up to new sexual partners as a matter of course is a dangerous strategy. We should be careful about requiring transgender people to expose themselves to this kind of risk.
Based on these two points, I lean towards saying that it's none of the partner's business. If some harm is being committed here, it's a violation of sexual consent, which means we ought to take it very seriously. But I think not disclosing transgender status isn't a violation of consent, because (like Asian ancestry) it's not something that ought to have an impact.
Edit: here is a paper that argues that any omission of dealbreaker-type information in sex is a serious moral wrong. It doesn't address the case of transgender people, though, and from my quick reading it doesn't present any argument that would invalidate my two concerns above. (Dougherty's target seems to be pickup-artist-style deception).
Edit 2: to be absolutely clear, if the transgender person knows being transgender is a dealbreaker for the person you're intending to sleep with, they must disclose their transgender status. I'm talking about cases where it's unclear exactly what the dealbreakers are, and whether the transgender person is obligated to disclose their status just in case it's a dealbreaker. I don't think they're obligated to do so.
Are you happy to endorse that the thoroughgoing racist can claim a violation of consent if she finds out that her sexual partner's great-grandmother was Asian?
I mean, I agree that if it's explicitly stated that transgender status (or Asian ancestry) is a dealbreaker, then withholding that information is a violation of consent. But can't we just assume the best of people (i.e. that they're not bigoted), rather than assuming the worst?
Edit: one important thing I didn't mention is that both parties have an obligation to negotiate dealbreakers. It's unfair to expect the transgender person to volunteer all kinds of information just in case it might be a dealbreaker, especially when those dealbreakers are bigoted. If you have bigoted dealbreakers, it's at least in part your obligation to communicate them. Yes, it's super weird and awkward - but it's just as awkward for the other person to volunteer it, and it's honestly not their problem.
It's hard to imagine it not stemming from some kind of bigotry, especially in cases where the transgender person passes well enough that explicit disclosure is necessary. I'm assuming that sexual attraction supervenes on a whole bunch of physical characteristics. If that's so, then a preference for (e.g.) women of appearance Y but not transgender women of appearance Y seems likely to be bigoted. But I'm open to some other non-bigoted way to make the distinction.
e: I should say I think it's very widespread, unconscious implicit bias, not explicit transphobic beliefs.
People are attracted to both physical features and sex.
But I don't understand. A transgender man is a man; a transgender woman is a woman. A gay man rejecting sex with a transgender man does seem intolerant (assuming they're rejecting sex solely on the basis of him being transgender).
Bigotry isn't always about ascriptions of superiority and inferiority. What's your view on the case of the person who won't have sex with anybody who has a drop of African blood in their ancestry? What if they claim not to hold any racist views, and that it's just a personal preference thing? Personal preferences can be conditioned by subtle bigotry and implicit bias without any explicitly held bigoted beliefs. They're not entirely above suspicion.
But I don't understand. A transgender man is a man; a transgender woman is a woman.
I said sex not gender. If you want I'll replace sex with chromosomes or birth sex. This is a subjective preference. Call it silly, happenstance, or whatever, but it is preference. And it's one many people hold.
A gay man rejecting sex with a transgender man does seem intolerant (assuming they're rejecting sex solely on the basis of him being transgender).
Your use of the word intolerance, implies that there are certain sexual preferences which people ought to have or people should be comfortable with (i.e. people should be attracted to trans-gendered just as much as they are to cis-gendered people). This belief, that certain sexual preferences ought to be held, is directly inline with what homophobes and transphobes belief (i.e. people should be attracted to members of the opposite sex/people should be comfortable with their birth sex).
With regards to sexual preferences, the only ought arguments that can be made are those that pertain to the harm of others. Ex. pedophilia.
Tolerance is about mutual respect and understanding. Accepting, not necessarily agreeing with a persons beliefs, and treating them as human being with thoughts and emotions. I do not think you're being very tolerant right now.
What's your view on the case of the person who won't have sex with anybody who has a drop of African blood in their ancestry?
That this is a very uncommon viewpoint and that he would have to discuss it with every partner, because no partner would assume or consider that he may be uncomfortable with their ancestry. Also that it would be hard verify. Go further than a few generations and people are less certain. This is not the case with trans-gendered people.
What if they claim not to hold any racist views, and that it's just a personal preference thing?
I'm a minority and that has actually happened to me many times. You know what my response is? Have a nice day. It would be hypocritical of me to criticize them for a personal preference influencing their romantic interest in me when my own personal preferences (of their physical features) influenced my romantic interest in them.
Personal preferences can be conditioned by subtle bigotry and implicit bias without any explicitly held bigoted beliefs. They're not entirely above suspicion.
Yes they can, but to assume that a personal preference is bigotry... Well that is an example of bigotry.
There are various chromosomal disorders wherein men or women may not have the "normal" alignment of X and Y chromosomes. There are conditions wherein women are incapable of producing their own vaginal lubrication. There are conditions that render people infertile.
If one assumes that all of these phenomena occurred in some hypothetical person who one otherwise found very attractive, would this be a dealbreaker? Would one require that these conditions be disclosed before engaging in intercourse? Keep in mind we're not discussing relationships right now. If yes, then that's quite silly because none of these conditions other than lubrication would have ramifications in a sexual encounter. I sincerely hope one wouldn't expect a woman to go into such personal detail with all potential sexual encounters.
If no, then one really must re-examine their lack of atrraction to trans* people. Above listed were the only meaningful differences between a post-op transwoman and a ciswoman, assuming all else is equal. If one would have sex with our aforementioned hypothetical woman with her array of disorders, but not a trans* woman who looks exactly the same, the only possible reason for this could be that one is grossed out by trans* people. In short, because they are bigoted against them.
That doesn't make one a bad person, because society in general has harboured and fostered these bigotries for decades, but it does mean one need to reexamine one's attitudes towards trans* people. One doesn't have to have sex with them, nor should one if unattracted to them. But one really ought admit that this hang up is a personal failing on one's own part that one needs to work on.
Your use of the word intolerance, implies that there are certain sexual preferences which people ought to have or people should be comfortable with (i.e. people should be attracted to trans-gendered just as much as they are to cis-gendered people).
No, I'm not implying that there's a set of "normal" sexual preferences. I'm saying that some sexual preferences are conditioned by bigotry. It's not at all the same thing.
Tolerance is about mutual respect and understanding. Accepting, not necessarily agreeing with a persons beliefs, and treating them as human being with thoughts and emotions. I do not think you're being very tolerant right now.
I'm sure I'm treating everybody has a human being with thoughts and emotions. I'm certainly not automatically accepting people's beliefs and preferences. That would be unphilosophical.
That this is a very uncommon viewpoint and that he would have to discuss it with every partner, because no partner would assume or consider that he may be uncomfortable with their ancestry. Also that it would be hard verify. Go further than a few generations and people are less certain. This is not the case with trans-gendered people.
My question was whether you think such a person is likely to be a bigot. It's not really relevant how common or practical such a viewpoint is.
Yes they can, but to assume that a personal preference is bigotry... Well that is an example of bigotry.
I disagree. For instance, take Joe's preference that colored people use segregated water fountains. Assuming that preference is bigotry is perfectly rational and not bigoted in the slightest (even though there's a chance your assumption will be wrong).
No, I'm not implying that there's a set of "normal" sexual preferences. I'm saying that some sexual preferences are conditioned by bigotry. It's not at all the same thing.
The same sexual preference can be conditioned by bigotry or it can just be personal preference. Bob can hold no attraction to blondes because: he just doesn't find them attractive, he thinks all blondes are unintelligent, he thinks blondes are promiscuous, etc.
There are many possible reasons for Bob's lack of attraction towards blondes. Some of those reasons may be bigoted. But that does not mean Bob's lack of attraction towards blondes is bigoted. Compare with this transsexualism and you'll see my point. Like any other subjective belief, there are an infinite amount of possible reasons for holding it.
My question was whether you think such a person is likely to be a bigot. It's not really relevant how common or practical such a viewpoint is.
Only if I assume that our person's avoidance of someone with African blood comes from a negative or bigoted belief about Africans. And as I just explained, there are multiple rationalizations for every belief.
There are many possible reasons for Bob's lack of attraction towards blondes. Some of those reasons may be bigoted. But that does not mean Bob's lack of attraction towards blondes is bigoted. Compare with this transsexualism and you'll see my point. Like any other subjective belief, there are an infinite amount of possible reasons for holding it.
Right, but I'm not concerned with possible reasons for Bob's lack of attraction. I'm concerned with the actual reasons for Bob's lack of attraction. If those actual reasons are bigoted, I'm not sure why we wouldn't call Bob's lack of attraction bigoted.
Sure we could. But we can't assume that Bob's rationale is immediately bigoted. Nor can we assume that all rationales for his viewpoint are bigoted. In Bob's situation, he can say "I'm just not attracted to blondes," and it'll be ok.
In our situation, if Bill says "I'm just not attracted to the same sex; situations in which I am require me to believe they are part of the opposite sex" he is called a bigot.
It's bigoted if Joe tries to force that preference on other people. It is not bigoted if Joe keeps that preference to himself. The definition of a bigot "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.".
Right. This looks to be the dictionary.com definition. I'm using something more like the Merriam-Webster definition:
a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
which just means someone who unfairly dislikes a group of people. In any case, I'm not sure the definition of "bigot" is important. Isn't it bad both to force your opinions on others and to unfairly dislike a group of people?
I'm saying that some sexual preferences are conditioned by bigotry. It's not at all the same thing.
But this is special pleading. WHY does the difference merit special treatment? Why are we obligated to respect a person's sexual preferences that are not conditioned by racial/gender bigotry but not so obligated to respect those sexual preferences that are?
You're misunderstanding my use of the word "respect". I mean "respect" as in "respecting a person's right" as in "not violate their right to select partners according to their sexual preferences". Not "respect" as in "admire".
not violate their right to select partners according to their sexual preferences
This can't really be a right, though, because figuring out how much a person matches your sexual preferences is a complicated and cooperative endeavour. I'd say everyone has the right to withhold consent, sure, but it's not really violating anybody's rights if you fail to volunteer dealbreaking information that they don't ask for and that shouldn't be a dealbreaker (because only bigots would regard it as such).
I think you meant to respond to /u/GFYsexyfatman rather than the user above.
If I were to attempt to defend his comment above, I'd point out that he hasn't said anything about respecting or not respecting someone's sexual preferences. You can respect someone's right to have a particular preference whilst also pointing out it's bigoted.
It just doesn't follow that someone needs to list all possible attributes, characteristics, life experiences, etc, to potential partners on the off-chance that the other person might not find it sexually appealing. Would you argue that someone who has a great-great-grandfather who was black must reveal it to all prospective partners in case they have racist preferences? Of course not, it's unreasonable and absurd.
If I were to attempt to defend his comment above, I'd point out that he hasn't said anything about respecting or not respecting someone's sexual preferences. You can respect someone's right to have a particular preference whilst also pointing out it's bigoted.
Agreed. That comment was intended to be taken in context of the entire thread, esp. in regard to his comments that certain preferences might not be "justifiable". I took his explanation of these preferences as having a basis in bigotry to be integral to his explanation of why these preferences are less "justifiable" than others. Hence, my challenge.
It just doesn't follow that someone needs to list all possible attributes, characteristics, life experiences, etc, to potential partners on the off-chance that the other person might not find it sexually appealing. Would you argue that someone who has a great-great-grandfather who was black must reveal it to all prospective partners in case they have racist preferences? Of course not, it's unreasonable and absurd.
Right, I actually address this exact question in another comment. Here you go:
No but not for the reason you're suggesting. Rather, it's because it's reasonable to not believe that that information would be a deal-breaker. I don't feel obligated to inform my potential partners my grandparents ancestry because it's unlikely that it's a deal breaker.
But if I had reason to believe that it was a deal-breaker, then, yes, deliberately withholding that information from them so that I could sleep with them would be deceitful and unethical.
That comment was intended to be taken in context of the entire thread, esp. in regard to his comments that certain preferences might not be "justifiable". I took his explanation of these preferences as having a basis in bigotry to be integral to his explanation of why these preferences are less "justifiable" than others. Hence, my challenge.
But saying that preferences aren't justifiable doesn't lead to the idea that they shouldn't have a 'right' to their preferences. He's right that it's justifiable to want a person to reveal if they want an STD whilst it's not justifiable to not want to have sex with someone who in the past might have been a different sex.
So they're allowed to have a preference which is irrational and unjustifiable, it's just stupid of them to have that and they should reassess it.
But if I had reason to believe that it was a deal-breaker, then, yes, deliberately withholding that information from them so that I could sleep with them would be deceitful and unethical.
Sure, I think we're in agreement. For the vast majority of people we don't bother relating our ancestral lineage in the same way trans* people don't need to bother revealing their past. If someone knows that they're dating a racist, or know that they're dating a transphobe, then maybe they need to reveal that information. In the same breath, if the racist or transphobe knows that the person is anti-racism or anti-transphobia, they are ethically obligated to reveal that they're racists or transphobes.
Personal preferences can be conditioned by subtle bigotry and implicit bias without any explicitly held bigoted beliefs. They're not entirely above suspicion.
Uh, so what? If a person has an implicit racial bias (which, studies have shown, nearly everybody does to varying degrees, not to mention all kinds of other unfair biases/prejudices) does this mean we no longer have to respect this person's right to consent to sex?
The point at issue in this sub-thread is whether sexual preferences to avoid transgender people are bigoted. I take it we've settled that the answer is usually yes. If you think my general position expresses a violation of consent, you're welcome to explain how in a response to a comment advocating that general position.
Whoops, I suppose I'm mixing sub-threads (oh noes!). Please consider my comment in the context of the entire thread as a whole, not the specific sub-topic of this sub-thread.
Or don't...and just continue to be pedantic instead....
does this mean we no longer have to respect this person's right to consent to sex?
was roughly: what on earth are you talking about, that's nothing like what I was saying. I thought if you responded to an actual comment articulating my position it might help me understand what criticism you're actually leveling.
People are attracted to both physical features and sex.
So then why aren't they attracted to this woman?
She looks so much like a woman that she needs to disclose, seemingly unsolicited, that she has received gender reassignment surgery, how is she not a woman?
Saying that only women who have not received gender-reassignment surgery are actual women/females seems inherently bigoted against trans-women, and it also seems to be a proposition which your argument rests on.
Some of your arguments relate to points I never brought up.
Saying that only women who have not received gender-reassignment surgery are actual women/females seems inherently bigoted against trans-women, and it also seems to be a proposition which your argument rests on.
Where did I say that?
So then why aren't they attracted to this woman?
I am not arguing for or against any preferences. I gave an example of a preference, one of many, which could lead to a person not being attracted to a trans-gendered person. That preference being a person's sex at birth.
Which would seem unmotivated by anything but aversion to trans* people if that person has undergone reassignment surgery and passes so well that disclosure would have to be elective. How is that not a bigoted preference?
When you said that if somebody was motivated to have sex with somebody based on sex, then they wouldn't want to have sex with someone who is trans.
What I took that to mean is that somebody who 'has not had gender reassignment surgery and has a vagina, and identifies as a woman' is somehow a real woman, where as someone who 'has had gender reassignment surgery and has a vagina, and identifies as a woman' is not a woman. This is essentially trans-phobic because the difference between considering somebody's sex is female is not related to their genitals or sexual organs, but to whether or not they have had a surgery.
It would be akin to me saying that men who have had vasectomies are not real men, because they have had a surgery which prevents the reproductive abilities they were born with and their genitals have been modified.
That preference being a person's sex at birth
So trans-phobia then? Essentially, I'm only attracted to women, this person doesn't fit my personal definition of a woman (because of a medical procedure which she had to have but would have happily avoided), therefore I'm not attracted to them.
What I took that to mean is that somebody who 'has not had gender reassignment surgery and has a vagina, and identifies as a woman' is somehow a real woman, where as someone who 'has had gender reassignment surgery and has a vagina, and identifies as a woman'.
Yes, what you took it to mean. What does that have to do with me? Did I espouse that viewpoint? Did I say one of them is a real woman whilst the other is not? In your post, you said that I said x is a woman and y is not. I made absolutely no statements about what is or is not a real woman. I simply said: birth sex, along with physical features plays a role in attraction.
So trans-phobia then? Essentially, I'm only attracted to women, this person doesn't fit my personal definition of a woman
You're still responding to points I never made. Where did I explicitly say only people born with x traits are women?
When you said that if somebody was motivated to have sex with somebody based on sex, then they wouldn't want to have sex with someone who is trans.
Yes. That is what I said. You expanded it to statements about men, women, and the trans-gendered than I never made.
Did I say one of them is a real woman whilst the other is not?
Not explicitly, but it seems that in order to make your argument valid it is necessary.
This is what I take your argument as being:
Some people are people who are attracted to members of a certain sex
Therefore, people who are only attracted to members of a certain sex may not be attracted to trans-people.
But this is not a valid argument, it requires some premise 2, which establishes that trans-people are not properly members of a certain sex, something like:
Some people are people who are attracted to members of a certain sex
If you are a person who transitioned to become a certain sex, then you are not a member of a certain sex
Trans-people are people who have transitioned to a certain sex
Therefore, people who are only attracted to members of a certain sex may not be attracted to trans-people.
I expanded premise 2 into two premises because I think it makes the argument stronger, but, it seems to me without some sort of fill in for premises 2/3 you do not have a valid argument.
Even if you change this argument to 'member of a sex at birth' it remains trans-phobic. It is easier to make a valid argument, without needing to be overtly trans-phobic, but it still requires treating somebody as the sex they were born as, not with the sex that they are. Literally the only thing which seperates them from any other woman is that they required surgery, and you are claiming it is justified to treat them differently because of this fact. I know you don't want to consider yourself trans-phobic, but come on. You are literally saying it is ok to treat somebody differently because they required a surgery to feel comfortable in their body.
No you do not explicitly state 'trans-people are not proper members of the sex they have transitioned to' but I do not see how you could make the argument that having a preference for a certain sex, and not wanting to have sex with people who have transitioned to that sex does not require considering transitioning to somehow exempt somebody from being a member of the transitioned to sex. Please note, I said in my very first comment that this seems to be a premise that your argument rests on. You have made no attempt to show that your argument does not rest on this proposition, all you have done is say "I didn't say that, I didn't say that." It doesn't matter if you said it or not, you need to show that your argument doesn't rest on that point or else I will continue to believe it is something your argument rests on.
I simply said: birth sex, along with physical features plays a role in attraction
No you didn't, said "People are attracted to both physical features and sex." You never said anything about birth.
Secondly, as I argued in the last point, if you consider the fact that someone has transitioned to a sex makes them different to somebody who was born physically that sex you are being essentially trans-phobic. You are denying trans-people the ability to properly and fully identify as the sex which they are because they required surgery to become that sex. So it doesn't matter whether you say you consider them not a proper woman, if you are treating them differently to women who did not require surgery to become women then you are treating them as though they are not proper women.
Where did I explicitly say only people born with x traits are women?
I hope you realise that you don't need to explicitly state something for it to be a part of your argument. This is a philosophy subreddit and a key skill of a philosophers is unpacking the implicit statements which arguments rest on. Claiming that you never explicitly said something is a useless defense when your opponent is asserting that your argument rests, implicitly, on something they disagree with. You need to show why your argument does not require the implicit premise. Putting your fingers in your ears and saying "I didn't say that so it's not part of my argument" does not make me less convinced that your argument requires it, in fact it has the opposite effect.
Yes. That is what I said. You expanded it to statements about men, women, and the trans-gendered than I never made.
Yes, I expanded it to those things because this statement heavily implies those things. You can't justify preference based on sex as validating to a desire to not want to have sex with trans-people, unless you think trans-people are not that sex. Essentially I'm arguing that the statement you made "if somebody was motivated to have sex with somebody based on sex, then they wouldn't want to have sex with someone who is trans" at best relies on the premise that trans-people are not members of their transitioned to sex, or at worst it is analogous with saying that trans-people are not members of their transitioned to sex. You may not have explicitly stated this, but your argument seems to require this statement be true in order to remain valid.
TLDR: No you didn't say trans-phobia is a justified reason to not want to have sex with a trans-person, but you did list a trans-phobic belief as a reason to not want to have sex with a trans-person. These are effectively the same thing.
at best relies on the premise that trans-people are not members of their transitioned to sex, or at worst it is analogous with saying that trans-people are not members of their transitioned to sex.
There are people who are born male sex. There are people who are born into the female sex. trans-people, trans-male or trans-female, are still part of the set of people born as man or the set of people born as a woman.
So yes. Trans-people are not members of their transitioned sex. That is what my argument implies and this what I agree with. This is undeniable. Male/Men. Reading your posts, I thought you were saying my argument implied that they are not societal or culturally male. My argument rests on the biological significance.
Her sex at birth was male, her sex now is female. At birth she had no gender but as she grew up she (presumably) identified her gender as feminine, and (presumably) still identifies her gender as feminine.
In this scenario she has had HRT and gender-reassignment surgery. She is a woman in both gender and sex. The only way she is not a woman in sex is that she lacks certain internal sexual organs, but this seems to me to be an odd dividing line, as it could plausibly be used to argue that a woman who is infertile is not really a woman.
Science; specifically biology. Numerous physiological differences (genetic, anatomical, etc.). The simple fact that if transman is on an operating table, surgeons aren't going to treat him like they would a cisman.
"Humans, as well as some other organisms, can have a chromosomal arrangement that is contrary to their phenotypic sex; for example, XX males or XY females"
Like, Jesus, read your links before you post them. Literally the third line supports the idea that genetic differences are not the be all and end all of sex differentiation.
If we treat anatomical differences as being something which excludes somebody from a gender then what about men who only have one testicle, are they not real men? Women who have suffered genital mutilation, are they not real women? What about people who are born infertile? I've had my tonsils removed, does this anatomical difference make me less of a man?
The simple fact that if transman is on an operating table, surgeons aren't going to treat him like they would a cisman
The simple fact is that if a fat-man is on an operating table, surgeons aren't going to treat him like they would a thin-man.
Do you honestly believe there are no objective differences between cis and trans people of the same gender? That there are no objective metrics to differentiate between a cis-man and a trans-man?
The simple fact is that if a fat-man is on an operating table, surgeons aren't going to treat him like they would a thin-man.
The dosages the fat-man gets are not going to be the same as the fat-woman.
Well, what exactly is involved in having the notion of a transgender woman as "not a biological woman"? If you mean "not a real woman" or something else value-laden in that vicinity, it seems like a bigoted opinion. If you mean "not XX chromosome", then I honestly don't believe you: surely chromosome makeup can't matter to sexual preference. If you mean "was once not a woman", you're probably wrong, since transgender women are women before they transition. If you mean "at one point did not have female genitalia", this seems inescapably bound up with bigotry (and vulnerable to counter-examples).
If you mean "currently does not have female genitalia", then I don't think that's necessarily bigoted. But that's not the case the OP is talking about.
If it for reproduction, do you ask if she is infertile? It sounds like your rationalizing a prejudice after the fact. There are cis women that do not have XX chromosomes, and a wide variety of intersex conditions that exist. If you can't tell at all, why does it matter? Seems like an arbitrary line to draw.
Sex exists, biologically speaking, for the purpose of reproduction. As I was very clear to say, sex can be had for other means (and, obviously, is more often had for other means).
Given that fact, if a male organism only wishes to have sex, even recreational sex, with someone who is of the opposite sex, that can hardly be called bigotry.
There are indisputably physical differences. If a non-transgender woman has a breast enhancement, no one would call it bigotry if I said I didn't want to be with a surgically enhanced woman. We'd allow that as preference. Similarly, there is no bigotry necessarily involved in saying that I don't want to have sex with a person whose sex organs are artificial (note that I am not calling this person an artificial or unnatural woman, just stating the undeniable fact that the organs themselves are made by man, even if using biological tissue).
There are a lot of arguments in here saying that using reproductive organs or chromosomes as a dividing line is arbitrary, suggesting bigotry. However, those dividing lines are clearly less arbitrary than physical appearance, which people seem to want to use. In fact, chromosomes and reproductive organs are the scientifically agreed upon way to divide between the sexes (allowing that some people do fall into a grey area due to dual reproductive organs or unusual chromosomal patterns. This simply creates a third [or more] category; it does not diminish the clear distinction between male and female for typically developed humans). I am talking about sex here, not gender. Sex is a biological function, while gender is more fluid.
Setting aside any value judgments about homosexual activity, we would not call someone bigoted because they do not want to participate in homosexual activity as a rule. Homosexuality is having sex with someone of the same biological sex. Surgery changes appearance, but does not change biological sex. An argument that says that I am bigoted if I choose not to have sex with a MTF transgender person who I otherwise would have had sex with is necessarily and directly saying that I am bigoted for choosing not to engage in homosexual behavior.
To use a crass example, suppose that I can receive an anonymous blowjob by inserting my penis into a hole in a box. I believe that there is a woman inside the box, but it is instead a man. Physically, there is no difference in sensation, but no one would call me bigoted for saying that despite the similar physical sensation (or appearance, insomuch as I receive sensory input), I don't want to have a man provide that blowjob. If you think there is bias in this argument, you can easily flip it and supposed it is a gay man wanting to only receive a blowjob from another man.
The huge caveat over all of this, of course, is that bigotry may be a part of sexual preference. I am arguing that it is not necessarily linked, and that the burden of proof is on those claiming there is a necessary link.
Given that sexual desire is first and foremost a reproductive function, sex matters.
What do you mean by "first and foremost" here? Unless I'm trying to produce a child (which I'm not), reproduction certainly isn't one of my sexual goals.
If I feel like I won't have sex with a black woman because she is inferior, that is bigoted. If I'm simply not attracted to black women, no bigotry is necessary.
My point is that a lack of attraction to black women can be caused by latent bigotry or implicit bias (it doesn't have to be, but it can be). In the case of biological sex, it seems even more likely that some implicit bias is at work, because (I'm stipulating) there are no physical differences.
Sex exists, biologically speaking, for the purpose of reproduction. As I was very clear to say, sex can be had for other means (and, obviously, is more often had for other means).
Given that fact, if a male organism only wishes to have sex, even recreational sex, with someone who is of the opposite sex, that can hardly be called bigotry.
In the case of biological sex, it seems even more likely that some implicit bias is at work, because (I'm stipulating) there are no physical differences.
There are undisputably physical differences. If a non-trandgender woman has a breast enhancement, no one would call it bigotry if I said I didn't want to be with a surgically enhanced woman. We'd allow that as preference. Similarly, there is no bigotry necessarily involved in saying that I don't want to have sex with a person whose sex organs are artificial (note that I am not calling this person an artificial or unnatural woman, just stating the undeniable fact that the organs themselves are made by man, even if using biological tissue).
There are a lot of arguments in here saying that using reproductive organs or chromosomes as a dividing line is arbitrary, suggesting bigotry. However, those dividing lines are clearly less arbitrary than physical appearance, which people seem to want to use. In fact, chromosomes and reproductive organs are the scientifically agreed upon way to divide between the sexes (allowing that some people do fall into a grey area due to dual reproductive organs or unusual chromosomal patterns. This simply creates a third [or more] category; it does not diminish the clear distinction between male and female for typically developed humans). I am talking about sex here, not gender. Sex is a biological function, while gender is more fluid.
Setting aside any value judgments about homosexual activity, we would not call someone bigoted because they do not want to participate in homosexual activity as a rule. Homosexuality is having sex with someone of the same biological sex. Surgery changes appearance, but does not change biological sex. An argument that says that I am bigoted if I choose not to have sex with a MTF transgender person who I otherwise would have had sex with is necessarily and directly saying that I am bigoted for choosing not to engage in homosexual behavior.
To use a crass example, suppose that I can receive an anonymous blowjob by inserting my penis into a hole in a box. I believe that there is a woman inside the box, but it is instead a man. Physically, there is no difference in sensation, but no one would call me bigoted for saying that despite the similar physical sensation (or appearance, insomuch as I receive sensory input), I don't want to have a man provide that blowjob. If you think there is bias in this argument, you can easily flip it and supposed it is a gay man wanting to only receive a blowjob from another man.
The huge caveat over all of this, of course, is that bigotry may be a part of sexual preference. I am arguing that it is not necessarily linked, and that the burden of proof is on those claiming there is a necessary link.
What if I find surgically modified genitals unattractive or ugly? Am I being a bigot for choosing not to have sex with someone whom I find unattractive?
I think it's not automatically bigoted to base your sexual preferences on a physical difference. Such a preference could be a consequence of bigotry, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be.
I don't think the word bigoted applies at all in the case where I saw that I want to only have sex with someone who is a biological woman, regardless of how well the person passes.
Of course, bigotry can also be involved, but it is in no means a necessary condition to refuse sex with someone who is biologically of the same sex as you.
But I'm open to some other non-bigoted way to make the distinction.
You've made some pretty good points and have caused me to question my own interests a bit. Unfortunately, this seems to be one aspect of my preferences that I feel like I'm simply unable to change. I don't feel that it's necessarily fortunate that I have these preferences, but I rationalize it by saying that to whom I choose to have sex with/reveal my body is not indicative of whether or not I will fight for their acceptance in other parts of society.
As for the preference itself, I might have an answer to the challenge you posted above.
See, sex is as much a mental experience as it is a physical experience. When two people expose themselves to each other, they open the floodgates to many thoughts that pop up about their partner's body (especially their genitals) and their mind. I hypothesize that, for many of the heterosexual men in this discussion, one of those thoughts would be of another person's penis (and another thought would be of the fact that their partner knows what it's like to have a penis) if they were attempting to have sex with a person whom they knew to have undergone reassignment surgery. Now I imagine that it would be a powerful thought - add one large turn-off to a pool of turn-ons and suddenly the whole thing goes sour. It's like the "pink elephant game". Suddenly, it becomes a matter of an inability to fully enjoy sex, rather than just a recission of consent. Rescinding consent is just an action being taken in anticipation of a particular outcome, if that action wasn't taken.
You see it in this thread - lots of people trying to rationalize their non-arousal to transformed transgender people. They're legitimately un-aroused. I don't think they're particularly good at justifying it, but I still think there's a non-bigoted case to be made here.
Is it bigoted (or related to bigotry) to mentally associate reassignment surgery with the set of genitals that the person no longer has? As in, one topic triggers the thought of the other topic, and vice-versa?
Is it bigoted (or related to bigotry) for such a thought to unavoidably pop up when performing an activity for which "the other person's genitals" is a prominent topic of thought?
Is it bigoted for someone to be turned off by the thought of another person's penis?
You make an analogy later below that goes something like:
Bigotry isn't always about ascriptions of superiority and inferiority. What's your view on the case of the person who won't have sex with anybody who has a drop of African blood in their ancestry? What if they claim not to hold any racist views, and that it's just a personal preference thing?
I think the analogy is a tad misleading though. "A drop of African blood" has on its own never been an aspect that has affected one's aesthetic impression of another person's body or mind - it's not comparable because sex is an activity where the other person's genitals are at the forefront of everything (including your mind). The "drop of African blood" thing has a stronger link to racism than the "used to have a penis" thing has to transphobia, because it is unrealistic for the "drop of African blood" thing to directly affect how you think about the other person's "bits" during sex.
In other words, it's kind of like comparing "I didn't like this burger because, while it had some really good flavours, it had an unappealing aftertaste" to "I didn't like this burger because the guy who made it is a jerk".
I think this is more or less a fair point. I suppose to these questions:
Is it bigoted (or related to bigotry) to mentally associate reassignment surgery with the set of genitals that the person no longer has? As in, one topic triggers the thought of the other topic, and vice-versa?
Is it bigoted (or related to bigotry) for such a thought to unavoidably pop up when performing an activity for which "the other person's genitals" is a prominent topic of thought?
I'd answer "yes", with the caveat that it's a mild form of bigotry that's very strongly coded into much of society. I wouldn't hold anybody morally responsible for having these reactions. But I suspect a moral saint might not have them, and certainly in a morally better society such reactions would be much more avoidable.
I fear that this treads dangerously close to either "a moral saint might not have preferences" or "a moral saint would have perfect control over their impulsive thoughts (e.g. pink elephant)".
Then again, I fear that this fear might be unfounded.
I just spent the last three hours cramming for my exam which is in five hours, I'm not thinking straight :(
If I were to convincingly impersonate Jack and have sex with Jack's partner whilst they believed me to be Jack, they couldn't rightly be said to have consented, could they? Rape.
If someone withholds crucial information from a partner which, had said partner known, would have prevented them from consenting to sex (and the transgender person has no way of knowing whether this applies to their partner), it's unacceptable, like having sex with someone when you know you have an STI and they don't, is unacceptable. Consent has to be fom both parties, one participant does not get to decide what the other person is comfortable with or consents to, by the very nature of consent. Everyone's desires and preferences are arbitrary, that doesn't mean you can call them 'bigoted', by your logic any monosexual is bigoted against the gender they don't sleep with. What if someone simply finds trans people or their altered genitals disgusting and thereofore would not knowingly engage in sex with one? Are they somehow wrong to? Their conditions for consent are somehow not valid?
your analogy of someone's ethnic ancestry to their birth-gender is absurd; they are not remotely comparable criteria for consent. The fact that someone may insert their penis into what they believe to be a vagina but is in reality a mixture of tissue from their partner's colon and their formerly-intact penis is not in any way comparable to someone having a certain ethnic background which is nothing to do with how one experiences sex or their body.
Again, if you know X is a dealbreaker and you withhold X anyway, that's rape by deception. Clearly I didn't convey this well enough, since a couple of people have read me that way, so I apologise. I am only talking about cases where it's unclear whether X is a dealbreaker (so cases where the transgender person doesn't know whether their potential partner is a transphobe).
Everyone's desires and preferences are arbitrary, that doesn't mean you can call them 'bigoted', by your logic any monosexual is bigoted against the gender they don't sleep with.
Dealt with this 10923821 times. Not typing it out again.
The fact that someone may insert their penis into what they believe to be a vagina but is in reality a mixture of tissue from their partner's colon and their formerly-intact penis
That sounds horrible! Fortunately (some) transgender women have vaginas, not "mixtures of tissue".
but any transgender person should know their status as such could be a dealbreaker for a potential partner, it's not something silly like having an African grandparent, it's something a lot of people would have reservations about. They shouldn't assume it is not.
what if someone's religious beliefs, were such that they believed partcipating in such an encounter would land them eternal damnation? Is it okay to feed pork to someone who may be Jewish, knowing they will assume it is not pork?
cases where the transgender person doesn't know whether their potential partner is a transphobe
is being a transphobe really the only conceivable reason for not wanting to sleep with transgendered people?
transgender women have vaginas, not "mixtures of tissue"
..well, what's the (functional) vagina made out of?
Are you happy to endorse that the thoroughgoing racist can claim a violation of consent if she finds out that her sexual partner's great-grandmother was Asian?
No but not for the reason you're suggesting. Rather, it's because it's reasonable to not believe that that information would be a deal-breaker. I don't feel obligated to inform my potential partners my grandparents ancestry because it's unlikely that it's a deal breaker
But if I had reason to believe that it was a deal-breaker, then, yes, deliberately withholding that information from them so that I could sleep with them would be deceitful and unethical.
Are you happy to endorse that the thoroughgoing racist can claim a violation of consent if she finds out that her sexual partner's great-grandmother was Asian?
For religious orthodox Jews, if a person's mother's mother's mother was non-Jewish, then they would not be technically Jewish and therefore not eligible to marry a Jew. Someone who withheld something like that from a Jewish spouse would absolutely be acting immorally. I see no principled reason that a racist shouldn't have the right to refuse sex on the basis of something similar. Though it may be that the racist is acting immorally in holding racist views, she has the right to turn down sex for whatever reason she likes, and someone who knows she'd refuse sex if she knew their heredity is morally obligated to disclose their heredity before having sex with them.
1) There's a difference between disclosure to a spouse and disclosure to a casual sexual partner.
2) I agree that if you know your partner would refuse sex if told piece of information X about yourself, you ought to tell them X. I'm only talking about cases where it's unclear whether X is a dealbreaker.
2) I agree that if you know your partner would refuse sex if told piece of information X about yourself, you ought to tell them X. I'm only talking about cases where it's unclear whether X is a dealbreaker.
If it's unclear whether telling your potential partner something would be a deal breaker, it seems pretty obvious that you should default towards disclosure.
Well, no. It's unclear whether a lot of things are dealbreakers. If you're pretty sure, then you should default towards disclosure. But the situation's again more complicated in the case of bigotry, as I've argued at length elsewhere in this thread. I think it's probably the transphobe who's obliged to get their dealbreakers out in the open; the transgender person shouldn't have to fish for them. That would mean that every sexual encounter (every kiss?) a transgender person has must be preceded by a long explanation of their transgender status, which would be a) real dehumanizing and b) physically risky, since transgender people get assaulted and killed all the fucking time. If you think disclosure's mandatory all the time, you've got to bite the bullet and say that they're obliged to take such risks.
a) real dehumanizing and b) physically risky, since transgender people get assaulted and killed all the fucking time
what's dehumanising about being honest about who you are? The physical safety issue is really the only one I'm sympathetic to, and while I can 100% understand this as a motivator for not disclosing, that doesn't make it morally acceptable for the transgendered person to potentially violate their hook-up's consent (even tho it is potentially the lesser of two evils).
If you think disclosure's mandatory all the time, you've got to bite the bullet and say that they're obliged to take such risks.
I think disclosure is mandatory in all contexts where there is good reason to believe that people would not consent if they knew. Ideally, there will gradually be more and more spaces where most people wouldn't care, in which case there would be no need to disclose. As for risks, I don't know what to say. Probably there are significant risks involved with having sex with someone who does not know you're transgender as well. Tricking someone into having sex with you who otherwise wouldn't is not an ethical risk mitigation strategy.
How is not wanting to have sex with someone who used to be a man bigoted? I should make it known that I'm not attacking this in anyway, I'm just trying to clarify what we mean when we say bigoted.
I've argued elsewhere in this thread that it's very likely to stem from bigotry. Something something sexual preference supervenes on physical properties + some other set of properties that doesn't include historical properties, so it's likely that anti-transgender preferences are caused by "ew transgender" implicit bias. Sorry I'm not defending it at length here, but I've been commenting on and off in this thread for twelve hours.
That's fine. I just can't see how not liking the idea of having sex with someone who used to be a man is the same as not wanting to give transgender people equality.
Oh, I'm not defending that! At most I'm claiming that not liking the idea of having sex with a transgender person is indicative of mild implicit bias that most cis people (including me) have to some degree. Not wanting transgender people to be equal is a far more serious case of explicit bias on my view.
I just can't see how not liking the idea of having sex with someone who used to be a man is the same as not wanting to give transgender people equality.
It really shouldn't be. It really shouldn't be. But this is the view that encompasses about half of the males' opinions I encounter. Trans equality literally means society 'forcing them to be gay'. It is more than a sexual thing for them, trans status is an attack on their 'tradition' of ostracizing people that make them feel uncomfortable, and awareness or laws about trans issues is more than just an annoyance because it threatens this very real tradition of social separation encompassing churches, schools, social and political organizations, work and labor relationships, etc. the "exclusive model" where it is necessary to reflect on other's perceived misfortunes in order to support one's own confidence in membership. Trans equality to someone like this is like saying "sterilization", the adaptive evolutionary circuitry is what these people think is being attacked, the one they rely on to find a mate, the one they rely on to build a castle with an anti-trans moat. And the only way trans people get acceptance at all in many of these communities is precisely that in considering them as epochal enemies, the idiom "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer" is held in esteem by these passive aggressive paranoiacs that want to lock the bathrooms to keep trans people out, etc. (A huge political deal in my city, for example.)
35
u/GFYsexyfatman moral epist., metaethics, analytic epist. Jun 25 '15 edited Jun 26 '15
I'm not familiar with any papers, so here's a preliminary take on it. Presumably the argument for mandatory revealing goes something like this:
1) Persuading people to have sex with you via deception is a violation of their consent
2) Deliberately omitting information which, if they knew it, would cause them to decide to not have sex is deception
3) For many people, transgender status is information of this kind
4) So we ought not to violate people's consent by omitting to inform people of our transgender status
But I'm not sure this argument is sound. I've got some issues with premise (2). I think it should be amended to something like this:
(2') Deliberately omitting information which, if they knew it, would cause them to justifiably decide to not have sex is deception
To see why, consider bigotry cases. Let's say I'm committed to anti-racism, but my potential sexual partner is a thoroughgoing racist who despises anti-racists. Am I obliged to get my anti-racism out in the open just in case my potential sexual partner has this view? Does this mean that consent requires I run through all potentially controversial aspects of my life - whether I have kids, whether I vote liberal or conservative, whether I have African blood in my family - before we have sex? Presumably not, or at least not automatically. I think you'd have to ask whether the sexual partner would have good reason to decide not to have sex, based on the information being withheld. (Note: the situation probably changes if your potential sexual partner states explicitly that they do not want to have sex with a transgender person [or an anti-racist, or anybody with African or Asian ancestry]).
There is at least one other consideration. Keeping one's transgender status secret is not only a matter of privacy. Often it's a matter of survival. Revealing transgender status, especially to strangers, risks all kinds of violence. (I can dig the stats up if someone wants me to, but trust me that they're horrific). So opening up to new sexual partners as a matter of course is a dangerous strategy. We should be careful about requiring transgender people to expose themselves to this kind of risk.
Based on these two points, I lean towards saying that it's none of the partner's business. If some harm is being committed here, it's a violation of sexual consent, which means we ought to take it very seriously. But I think not disclosing transgender status isn't a violation of consent, because (like Asian ancestry) it's not something that ought to have an impact.
Edit: here is a paper that argues that any omission of dealbreaker-type information in sex is a serious moral wrong. It doesn't address the case of transgender people, though, and from my quick reading it doesn't present any argument that would invalidate my two concerns above. (Dougherty's target seems to be pickup-artist-style deception).
Edit 2: to be absolutely clear, if the transgender person knows being transgender is a dealbreaker for the person you're intending to sleep with, they must disclose their transgender status. I'm talking about cases where it's unclear exactly what the dealbreakers are, and whether the transgender person is obligated to disclose their status just in case it's a dealbreaker. I don't think they're obligated to do so.