“Is this a bad time to tell you that I used to be a man?”
Sometimes I wonder if Emily Yoffe’s Slate advice column (“Dear Prudence”) is like the old Penthouse Forum, where it was clear to any reader who hadn’t purchased the Brooklyn Bridge twice that a team of giggling writers was coming up with the feature’s bizarre letters about orgies with amputees and people having sex in piles of fresh fish. But never mind: her most recent column makes an interesting ethical assertion is response to a woman who is troubled that her transgendered cousin refuses to tell her serious boyfriend about the jockstrap in her past:
“I think you should tell your cousin she’s living in a dream world and that she’s being unfair to John, even if he has a lack of desire for children. Of course, it could be that John flees, or it could be that he says, “She’s more than woman enough for me.” But it’s his right to know the crucial piece of history.”
I agree with Yoffe that the cousin is deluded if she thinks she can keep her past gender hidden forever if the relationship continues, and that the revelation of a secret of such magnitude is bound to be more disruptive the longer it is hidden. But is she correct that he has a right to know about it? Elsewhere Yoffe suggests that not telling him is dishonest. Why?
I understand the theory that couples shouldn’t withhold personal information from one another in the interest of mutual trust. Surely each member of a committed couple has an obligation to reveal any personal information that has the potential to affect the other. Is there an obligation to reveal personal information that one knows a boyfriend or girlfriend will be shocked to learn, or that will tap into visceral fears or biases? Author William Saroyan left his wife on their honeymoon when she revealed to him that she was Jewish, which highlights the irony of the problem: if a woman knows that a secret may cause a lover to reject her, however irrational that reaction would be, then is she ethically obligated to tell him but not obligated if she is sure he wouldn’t care? In other words, is one only ethically obligated to reveal the secrets that will destroy a relationship?
That seems strange.
We all have a right to some secrets, and I reject the contention that spouses and other committed couples have an ethical obligation to reveal every aspect of their personal lives, including those that risk altering, damaging or ending the relationship. A woman who once was a man is not lying by representing herself to a lover as a woman now: she is a woman now. I completely understand why a woman who has been transgendered would not want a boyfriend to know about that fact, because the vast majority of men today would have a difficult time accepting it. Consider these possible secrets a woman might want to keep to herself based on her assessment of her significant other’s attitudes, desires, biases and beliefs:
- She is, in whole or in part, a member of a racial or ethnic group that he has biases against.
- She voted for John McCain.
- She voted for Barack Obama
- She voted for Pat Buchanan.
- She fantasizes that he is Justin Bieber when they have sex.
- She fantasizes that he is Winston Churchill when they have sex.
- She fantasizes that he is Lindsey Lohan when they have sex.
- She fantasizes that he is Eva Peron when they have sex
- She fantasizes that he is Lassie when they have sex
- She hates having sex with him, period.
- She killed someone when she was a teen, and was in prison.
- She killed her mother when she was a teen, and was in prison.
- She killed Osama Bin Laden.
- She was unjustly accused of killing a previous boyfriend, and acquitted.
- She was unjustly accused of killing TWO previous boyfriends.
- She used to be a heroin addict.
- She had a complete nervous breakdown.
- She was kidnapped and forced to be a sex slave when she was 12.
- She was once a call girl.
- She was once a stripper.
- She was once a porn star.
- She was once a Communist.
- She is listed, under another name, as the holder of the all time record for sex partners before the age of 30.
- She is Wonder Woman.
I don’t think that any other human being has a right to know any of these secrets, if a woman doesn’t want to divulge them, as long as maintaining the secret doesn’t require ongoing deception, lies or deceit, or real harm to the uninformed partner. (Admittedly, Wonder Woman has a problem in this regard.) Whether a woman would be wise not to divulge them, or to make a lifetime commitment to a man whom she suspects or knows would reject her if she revealed facts about her past or present is a separate issue that involves his character, not hers.
I think.
I admit to having doubts about the ethics of withholding information that shouldn’t matter to a boyfriend when a woman knows that it will matter. Biases and bigotry are real, and in matters of the heart, an individual has a right to be bigoted. Does that mean that a woman has an ethical obligation to help a man be bigoted against her? If we conclude so, then we must also conclude that there are no aspects of our identity, past life, conducts or thoughts that we can regard as ours and ours alone, once we commit to an intimate relationship. I can’t endorse that.
_________________________________
Spark: Slate
Graphic: 9999 Fashion World
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
Does someone have a right to know? No. Where does the line start, in my mind it is with a committed relationship, a relationship that could lead to the desire to marry/civil union. I think it has to start at the committed relationship because waiting until a desire for marriage is too late. With marriage/civil unions there are real consequences beyond broken hearts, marriages itself, children and insurance coverage. Even with acceptance these are considerations that should be known fairly early.
Yoffie is right about this. It is completely rational and ethical for a man to expect that his girlfriend was always a woman.
I can not condone this sort of vital information being kept secret.
Why?
It is the commonest of common sense that a man should expect his girlfriend or purpoted bride to have always been female. Until very recently, it was considered impossible for a man to waive such an expectation.
What about when he himself was born looking female?
See for example:
http://www.usrf.org/news/010308-guevedoces.html
There is a difference between a hermaphrodite and someone who just decides to change their sex.
We’re talking about people who change what they physically appear to be. I don’t think there’s any need to go into the counterfactual of people who strongly identified as male all their life, then spontaneously decided that they were going to identify as female.
That’s true.
“hermaphrodite” is deprecated. Much as “nigger” is deprecated. Not that many know that, just a word to the wise.
As regards Intersex (the preferred term), some data:
Male–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041
Basically an Intersex situation,. where parts of the body (in this case, the brain) are sex-reversed, others not.
See also
Transsexuality as an Intersex Condition Prof Milton Diamond, Ph.D.
Presentation to 2009 APA Annual Conference, as part of seminar S10 “The Neurobiological Evidence for Transgenderism”
““hermaphrodite” is deprecated. Much as “nigger” is deprecated. Not that many know that, just a word to the wise.”
Zoe,I did not know that.
“Zoe, I did not know that”
Because it’s not true. It’s a term to describe someone born with both sets of genitals. You can be straight, lesbian, bisexual, gay, pansexual. You can identify as a man, woman or neither. But you’d still be a hermaphrodite.
What you said is absolute nonsense.
The term is “intersex”. As in “male, female, intersex”.
(The above are limited and not necessarily applicable to all humans either, referring to biology with gendered terms.)
“Hermaphrodite” refers to a very narrow definition of a non-existent (in humans) condition.
It’s also considered derogatory and/or fetishistic.
To repeat:
No, no-one is a “hermaphrodite”.
No, no-one should be using that word to refer to people.
It was also common sense that we should drink 8 glasses of water a day. Common sense is not a defense.
I don’t even understand the point of the second sentence. Some people thought it was impossible for a man to not have the expectation that his girlfriend was always a girl? What does that have to do with anything?
At the risk of being a pedant, I assert that the evidence shows that you can’t “change sex” as such. A Trans woman was a girl when she was born, she just didn’t look like it.
Here’s a quote that might help others understand why I make this assertion. The abstract from Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF Endocr Dev. 2010;17:22-35
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19955753?dopt=Abstract
The caption
“Is this a bad time to tell you that I used to be a man?”
might more accurately read:
“Is this a bad time to tell you that I used to look like a boy?”
BTW… if that photo’s accurate – there’s something endocrinally odd there. Look at the length of her arms. Photoshopping is the most probable answer, but the ultra-feminine appearance and wingspan is also consistent with her being 46,XY but with CAIS – complete insensitivity to androgens. In some states, yes, she really could be legally male.
“At the risk of being a pedant, I assert that the evidence shows that you can’t “change sex” as such. A Trans woman was a girl when she was born, she just didn’t look like it.”
Agreed Zoebrain.
At the risk of being a pedant, I assert that the evidence shows that you can’t “change sex” as such. A Trans woman was a girl when she was born, she just didn’t look like it.
Not pedantic at all.
Common sense is called that because it is common sense.
It is never wrong.
She was always a woman.
I don’t think you understand how transgender people work.
They are the gender they state they are.
Simple as that.
A fair portion go through the trails and tribulations necessary to make their body better fit their gender.
Also simple to understand.
The woman in question WAS ALWAYS A WOMAN.
That she had surgery to make her body fit herself better is irrelevant.
So no, the guy has no right to know this.
Especially since it could pose a serious threat to her life to reveal that.
(Check the statistics on trans people, especially women, being killed.)
Some of “her” DNA and the genitalia she was born with cobntradicts tghis claim.
Then I can, with equal validity, claim to be a general in the United States Marine Corps and the commandant of the Marine Corps. I also claim that I have all the privileges and none of the duties.
Yes, they do.
Because it is deception. Period. This is not complex. A woman does not need to tell me that she used to be a man, as a neighbor, a colleague, a fellow office worker, or a voting precinct observer. But she DOES need to tell me, in order to be my spouse for life, unless somehow it’s ok that SHE gets decide whether I OUGHT to be outraged by the eventual admission that she was at one time a man. And THAT is what’s unethical about this issue. You have betrayed your prejudice that the rights of each individual to his or her own freedom to live an open and honest life of integrity to self does NOT trump the politically correct compulsions of the moment, and THAT is a world in which I do not wish to live.
I don’t regard this as political correctness. I regard it as privacy. Do you hold the same with, for example, genetic defects? If she had a sixth toe, an extra arm or a tail that was surgically removed, must the boy friend be told about that too? What is special about a gender reversal?
If you used to be a man, you used to THINK like a man, ACT like a man, become SOCIALIZED as a man, or, in fact, you perhaps did NOT. In which case, one’s entire psychosocial formation may have been subject to confusion. There is too much complexity in NORMAL male-female relations in the context of marriage, especially, not to mention ordinary social interaction, and I have a right to attempt to decide correctly on the likely success or failure of such a contemplated marriage based upon ALL background information necessary to do so.
I think there’s some validity to this line of argument, but isn’t the whole reason for transgendering the fact that the individual doesn’t “think like man”?
I don’t think you can pass a blanket generalization like that on the entire transgender community, so I think that argument might hold up better than others. Additionally, what if down the road the individual wanted to reverse their sex-change and be natural again? I’d think there is a potential for that, Mr. Garrison.
I think that this is precisely the point, that such an individual CANNOT think entirely like a man, or entirely like a woman, i.e. there is inevitably going to be confusion in his/her thinking. And as a fully gendered man, how am I going to know what IEDs are going to explode along the road of marriage as I relate to the person that I believe to be a woman? Especially when I have no idea that these events are highly likely at the outset?
Personally, I’ve never thought of anyone I’ve been close to as thinking entirely like a man or entirely like a woman, but rather entirely as whomever that person is.
And as a fully gendered man, how am I going to know what IEDs are going to explode along the road of marriage as I relate to the person that I believe to be a woman?
How about by being in a committed, long-term relationship with her and getting to know how she thinks and feels? That would be my approach, and I would still expect explosions, even if I had complete medical records for the fiance.
It sounds to me like you’re asserting that a transgendered woman is inherently crazier or more unstable than a natural-born woman. I don’t know what experiences you’ve had, but I’m pretty dubious at the notion that feminine unpredictability can be much amplified by the presence of a Y chromosome.
You are quite right that no one person is all masculine or all feminine, although his or her gender was fixed until the last decade or so. However, there has always been a mix-and-match capability even within preserved gender lines, e.g. a more “masculine,” more dominant female finding a satisfying relationship with a “kinder, gentler” male, in addition to the conventional gender roles. Leaving aside the God-given arguments for leaving things well-enough alone for the moment, and leaving aside the HUGE role that phytoestrogens have had on human brain development, one can still reliably assert that there is much more to one’s decision to undergo transgender surgery than merely whether one “thinks” or “feels” like a woman in a man’s body, or vice versa. In the age of Aquarius, in which we all live for ourselves, there no longer seems to be consideration for one’s effect on the society at large, upon the mental and social development of children, upon the sensibilities of, for example, women in women’s restrooms expecting certain privacies, and so on (despite what Elena Kagan succeeded at doing at Harvard).
As for “being in a committed long-term relationship… and getting to know how she thinks and feels,” I hope you did not miss the point that one would like to know just what one is getting into before committing. Notwithstanding the joke where son asks father, “Dad, I hear that in some countries, a man does not know his bride before marriage,” and father answers, “Son, that is true in ALL countries,” foreknowledge is only fair. After 3 marriages, 100s of face-to-face relationships, 1000s of internet relationships with both American women, and those in varying degree from over a dozen other countries, and seven years of post-divorce intensive dedication to this whole subject, I believe I have more experience than most. My Ukrainian fiancee and I have asked questions of each other that now run into the multiple hundreds, with transcripts of emails, Skype and chats running into the thousands of pages. I have never been more “vetted” for any position in my lifetime. As it should be. If you want a high quality marriage or LTR, you’re going to have to pay for it with painful self-revelation. PAINFUL self-revelation.
As for the matter of figuring out a transgendered male/female/whatever, I believe you are missing the point. It is confusing enough to sort out 1) human, 2) assigned gender role , 3) effects of social background, 4) effects of family background, 5) the myriad differences inherent in personality, character and temperament. It’s confusing enough for one person to figure this stuff out for ONESELF; and then you add the matter of transgender? How do expect someone else to relate to you if you don’t have a clear image and sense of your own self? Why is it fair to ask?
I’m not gender confused: I’m gender confusing.
I bow to your superior knowledge of lasting relationships. You’ve had three marriages, I’ve just had the one. It’s lasted 31 years, so far.
I have a clear image and sense of self, one that persisted in the face of a mass of contradictory evidence. I went with the evidence, not trusting my own instincts. But that never stopped me from having them.
That’s probably why transition was so easy for me. I never for one second believed I was male. I did believe that my internal knowledge of that was untrustworthy, that external evidence had to be the basis of my actions though. I make no apology for that, and would do the same again. In this case wrong, but usually right.
The male socialisation? Didn’t stick. I’m a geek girl, and would have been just the same had my life had a more usual trajectory.
I hope you did not miss the point that one would like to know just what one is getting into before committing.
I did miss it, because that’s not what you said originally. You said that a person should know what to expect “along the road of marriage.” That’s vague and allows for disclosure somewhere along the line after the relationship turns serious but before its future is determined. Presumably, the sort of vetting process that you describe with regard to you and your fiancee would eliminate this complication, but that’s not the way relationships typically work. People generally grow steadily closer to each other, and learn about their significant other as an organic process along the way. If no relevant effects of gender identity issues manifest themselves along the way, they aren’t relevant at all, except, perhaps, to the prejudices of the other party.
To be clear, I absolutely agree with you that such information should be disclosed, and relatively soon after the relationship appears to have a future. But the man’s right to that information is a matter of his right to be trusted with it, not any inherent right to the information itself. Secrecy about one’s past is detrimental to relationships, but the content of those secrets generally don’t affect the character of the person one is involved with. Certainly not the content of secrets about gender identity. If you need someone’s medical history to determine whether you’re capable of loving them, you suck at dating.
Peter wrote:
This was the argument justifying “Ugly laws”.
No person who is diseased, maimed, mutilated or in any way deformed so as to be an unsightly or disgusting object or improper person to be allowed in or on the public ways or other public places in this city, or shall therein or thereon expose himself to public view, under a penalty of not less than one dollar nor more than fifty dollars for each offense – Chicago Municipal Code sec. 36034
I am truly sorry that my existence upsets a lot of people. I know it undermines the foundations of their religious belief in many cases. I know it makes them feel instinctively uncomfortable, it’s not that they’re bigots or bad people, they just don’t want to be confronted with the issue.
I’m sorry though in the way that I’m sorry that rains washed away crops, or that someone’s car was wrecked by a drunk driver. It’s not an apology, more an expression of commiseration.
As for “effects on society”, I’m sorry that biological reality upsets the applecart, causing severe legal, social, and theological problems. It’s not that I don’t care, I just don’t see what I can do about that, other than to educate, and try to change society in small ways so this doesn’t cause upset in the future.
Regarding the “mental and social development of cjhildren” – you mean cisgendered (that is, non transgendered) and non-Intersex children I assume? Because every Trans adult was a Trans child. Children have to be “very carefully taught” to shun such as I. And my son, also Intersex. and just turned 11.
Many adults think it crucial that no mention of Transgender or Intersex be permitted in schools. The conservative Pacific Law Institute campaigned vigorously to suppress the knowledge that Clownfish (as in the Disney Film “Finding Nemo”) naturally change sex, as that was “against family values” and would confuse impressionable children.
Not that it confuses the kids who are Trans or Intersex. It just stops them from being persecuted by both staff and other students.
Regarding “women in women’s restrooms” – there’s a simple solution we adopt in Australia. Have some single stall restrooms, equipped for wheelchair access, with baby changing facilities and so on. Anyone upset at having to share a restroom with a Jew, a Black, a Muslim, someone Trans or Intersex can use those. It’s a reasonable accommodation for those with such views, so they’re not forced to feel uncomfortable in the workplace.
You see, we do care.
Apart from that, what would you have us do? Reinstate Chicago Municipal Code sec. 36034 and the like just so others won’t feel uncomfortable?
And yes, there is an obligation to reveal information about MEANINGFUL genetic defects that may influence the health of any offspring of the union, REGARDLESS of whether you believe you want to have them or not.
In the case at hand, the guy had no interest in children. I agree with your statement, but I’m speaking of genetic abnormalities that have no future effect.
I am trying to be objective because I am not sold this is not a mental disorder, which I won’t get into.
Inability to reproduce, legally marry (location dependent), and insurance coverage to name a few. A change in gender is a not comparable to other medical consideration in most ways as 1) it is an elective surgery. 2) It changes the appearance of gender of a person, it is in itself a lie, it does not matter if it is a “woman trapped in a man’s body”, the body is still male, regardless of changes in outward appearances. With that comes a responsibility to be forth coming as it pertains to capabilities and limitations, with that comes honesty about cause of those limitations and capabilities.
I’m not comfortable with the theory that this form of surgery is “a lie”. A strong argument could be made, and I’;ve heard it made, that it is a lie for a “woman in a man’s body” to represent herself as a man. An individual can be genetically male, psychologically male, organically, or physically male, or any combination thereof. Female body-builders appear physically male but have three out of four on the female side. They are female. The transgendered woman is genetically male, but has 2.5 of the other categories covered…I’d say she’s a she.
Robert Benchley had a humor essay on this topic.
I understand your point but point of view has to be considered. I am fairly certain that you will agree that attraction has many facets. Now take in account that the man in this relationship is operating on the assumption that he is with a biologically born woman. When/if he learns she was not, he may no longer be attracted to her, he may want to but mentally he just may not be. I am not passing judgment on “women trapped in a man’s body”, and I would agree to your premise on the lie of living a gender you don’t feel, but two lies don’t make a right. I think this is coercion on the part of the transgender. To put it in another way would you fault a homosexual for not being attracted to a cross dresser that dressed as the same gender once the clothing was removed? How about if it was a woman who had surgery only to be in an accident and be outed accidently? I just can’t get over that this is a form of coercion.
About ten years ago, there was this case of this transgendered dude, Eddie Araujo, who engaged in sexual relations with young male drug users. He was pre-op, and he insisted that he was having a period, and insisted on having sexual encounters in the dark, to hide his real sex. His partners, being under the influence of crack and meth and God knows what else, fell for it. One night, one of them was just lucid enough to find out his true sex, and he and his fellow crackheads killed him.
Imagine a man pretending to be a butch lesbian who has drug-fueled sexual encounters with lesbian women. He insists on having these encounters in the dark, and purports to insert a strap-on , when he is really inserting his penis. If his real sex is found out, we all know he would be facing rape charges, even if his partners were drugged out of their minds.
Gwen Arujo wasn’t murdered in the first attack by some drug-fueled freaks. It was at a party, with many witnesses, some of whom comforted her after the first attack.
The killers left the party to get ropes and other instruments of torture. It was the second attack, after they came back, that killed her. They were lucid enough to drive home and back, plan what they were going to do, and how they were to dispose of the body afterwards.
Steven wrote:
I’ll quote from the standards of care version 6.
Sex Reassignment is Effective and Medically Indicated in Severe GID. In persons diagnosed with transsexualism or profound GID, sex reassignment surgery, along with hormone therapy and real life experience, is a treatment that has proven to be effective. Such a therapeutic regimen, when prescribed or recommended by qualified practitioners, is medically indicated and medically necessary. Sex reassignment is not “experimental,” “investigational,” “elective,” “cosmetic,” or optional in any meaningful sense. It constitutes very effective and appropriate treatment for transsexualism or profound GID.
Even though the specialists in the area went out of their way to emphasise that this is not elective surgery. most people think it is because… well, just because. It’s common sense, like the Earth being Flat.
Well put. Cancer surgery is also “elective,’ if you are willing to live with cancer. Having your face torn off. Getting a rotting leg amputated. Equating sexual reassignment surgery with liposuction is unfair, and requires a dismissal of the importance of the problems being addressed. A nose job is elective surgery, unless you have a nose the size of a grapefruit.
Jack I think some of the post got jumbled up and I should have quoted what my original reply was to. Maybe it may have made more sense, I was trying to stay strictly with the topic of the ethics to inform.
Your reply to poster
“I don’t regard this as political correctness. I regard it as privacy. Do you hold the same with, for example, genetic defects? If she had a sixth toe, an extra arm or a tail that was surgically removed, must the boy friend be told about that too? What is special about a gender reversal?”
My reply to you
I am trying to be objective because I am not sold this is not a mental disorder, which I won’t get into.
Inability to reproduce, legally marry (location dependent), and insurance coverage to name a few. A change in gender is a not comparable to other medical consideration in most ways as 1) it is an elective surgery. 2) It changes the appearance of gender of a person, it is in itself a lie, it does not matter if it is a “woman trapped in a man’s body”, the body is still male, regardless of changes in outward appearances. With that comes a responsibility to be forth coming as it pertains to capabilities and limitations, with that comes honesty about cause of those limitations and capabilities.
Your reply to me and Zoebrain
Well put. Cancer surgery is also “elective,’ if you are willing to live with cancer. Having your face torn off. Getting a rotting leg amputated. Equating sexual reassignment surgery with liposuction is unfair, and requires a dismissal of the importance of the problems being addressed. A nose job is elective surgery, unless you have a nose the size of a grapefruit.
My main point was there are unapparent significant issues that are associated with this, hence the duty to be honest. It is not about the surgery in itself, it is about the appearance, along with the normal associations with that appearance, and the reality of the effect due to the surgery.
Zoebrain,
Thanks for the education. Your entire post on the subject was very enlightening. I hope that you didn’t take my comments in regards to elective surgery out of context, I have a tendency to not be able to clearly present my thoughts at times. My intent of identifying the surgery as elective was two fold but to the same point. That 1) the surgery involved was addressing something that was not life threatening. 2) a spouses insurance may not cover or provide support for that preexisting condition. Is this incorrect in most cases? My overall intent was to highlight a possible impact on the relationship.
I hope the follow on comment to Jack was not too off base, I just think that regardless if the surgery corrected a wrong it has an impact on the other person in the relationship.
Your post was enlightening to me as my biggest influence prior to your comments and some contact with a few during my EMT internship was my times in Thailand where there was a strong cultural aspect. I appreciate your well written responses and citations, outstanding.
Note that Zoebrain’s epic comment(s) were the Comment of the Day, and well-deserved.
Thanks, I saw/replied through email notification, I may drop a comment there as well.
Steven – first, lt me say that it’s a real pleasure being amongst reasonable people. <joke>(Even if you’re all WRONG, WRONG I TELL YOU!!! )</joke>
Regarding the “elective surgery” bit. This is life-threatening in severe cases. I refer you to AMA resolution 122.
Click to access ama_resolutions.pdf
“Whereas, GID, if left untreated, can result in clinically significant psychological distress, dysfunction, debilitating depression and, for some people without access to appropriate medical care and treatment, suicidality and death…”
Resolution 122 calls for treatment to be covered by health insurance. In general, most policies specifically exclude it, and anything remotely related to it. You’re quite right, there are significant financial effects on joint policies.
For example, if there’s an auto accident, coverage for a broken leg is often denied as it is asserted that hormonal imbalance from either treatment or lack of treatment might have caused osteoporosis, and thus excluded as a “consequence of treatment for Transsexuality”.
Sex is at the core of relationships. There are somethings that must be revealed at the outset, and birth sex is one of them.
Michael – how do you know that you weren’t born Intersex, and surgically assigned male before you were 12 months old?
Would it matter if you were?
Why is birth sex one of them? You keep stating it is, but why?
Because almost all men want to be with a woman who was always a woman.
Whether that should be the case or not, the fact is that, at the moment, it is. A pragmatic rather than ethical issue.
My objectivity here has to be questionable. I see it as balancing someone’s right not to be unduly discomfited vs someone else’s legitimate fear of being murdered. Putting in that way, the answer seems self-evident, but is my view a reasonable one? I’m too close to the issue to judge that, darnit, and too much a scientist to ignore that fact.
So what? Almost all men want to be with women who didn’t accidentally kill a pet dog when they were 6. Almost all men want to be with women who don’t snore. Almost all men want to be with women who have plentiful orgasms. Anything contrary to those positions must be revealed at the outset, right?
Zoebrain is right. People do take issue with it whether we think that’s right or wrong and knowing that your partner may have an issue about it then for ethical reasons you would reveal it. If they dump you after finding out they weren’t the one you want to be with anyway.
scuze my in-eloquence.
Peter, If something is trivial to the partner then it does not matter, but for example if a person has issues with birth defects, then yes you are obliged to tell him and not deceive him and if he or she loves you then it is up to him to accept you. Ti does not matter if the partner is a bigot, biased, homophobe and is wrong, that is just the way that he or she is and you have to respect that person and their right to know if you are the person they want to be with and not just an illusion. You can’t decide for the other person that you are the person that they should be with, that is their decision and if for them something is a deal braker or it is important in such a decision then yes you are obliged to tell and disclose.
BEING TRANSSEXUAL IS SUCHA BIG DEAL FOR YOU; WHY SHOULDN’T IT BE FOR YOUR PARTNER? If for you being transsexual is just like choosing an attire, then you are not morally obliged to tell your partner, of course unless you know or think that it might be important to him, but I guarantee you that there is not a single transsexual in the world that being transsexual is something trivial or unimportant. If something is very important to you then you are obliged to tell because it tells who you are and what you believe and think which is central in a relationship.
What about women who want to know a mans true height? In fact some women even go as far as feeling obligated to know that a man received hormone treatments or bone lengthening (which is an illegal surgical procedure in some countries) to become taller fearing their male offspring will also be short. It may not be the business of the general public but someone who is sharing their life with them should know. Not everyone considers a surgically altered female to be the equivalent to a biological female. In addition, some have religious beliefs against marriage with someone who is the same biological gender as they are even if they have changed their appearance to look like a biological female.
As a general proposition, keeping secrets from those in serious or potentially serious intimate relationships with you is a bad idea, undermines trust, requires dishonesty or lack of candor, and should be avoided. You raised a good example.
What part of this was a good example? How does having a previous gender identity have any affect on future reality? So long as the kids issue is mentioned, that’s set.
Yes, keeping secrets is generally bad, but I don’t see a requirement to lay out your entire life story to a partner. I was Catholic for years. Hell, I was even married in a Catholic church. I mention my prior marriage to prospective partners, but I see no need to bring up my previous Catholicism, even though there are religious people who wouldn’t consider marrying a Catholic.
Earlier in this thread, I mentioned the black ancestor issue. Some religious people are against interracial marriage. Should I have to disclose a black ancestor in case my partner is the type of bigot that would have a problem with that?
I also don’t see how religious beliefs get to trump, well, anything. Why were religious beliefs singled out instead of beliefs generally? It looks like an attempt to give credence to beliefs where none is warranted.
Seriously? “I was once a Catholic is the equivalent of “I was once a guy?” This is one case in which you are obligated to assume the most likely response and interest. I’d love to know how many potential life partners regard previous gender and previous place of worship on the same plane. You may be the only one.
Does your partner’s prospective interest override the danger in revealing trans status? I don’t think so.
Can you name a non-bigoted reason that previous expressed gender might matter to a new partner? As I noted previously in this thread (granted, years ago), when this topic first came up on your blog, I was on the fence on this topic. Over time, I realized that all the arguments that a partner would want to know are based on the partners bigotry toward the non-cis community. At the time of that post, I still had ick factor, but it didn’t override the legitimate danger trans folk face.
Now? I think what would happen if my current girlfriend came out as previously expressing as a man. I’d be hurt that she didn’t think she could trust me with that knowledge over 4+ years, but I’d get over that. Ick factor? Gone. If she’s trans, then I’m attracted to trans. Works for me. I think I’ve overcome my unconscious bigotry on this topic. With that gone, there’s no way the “i’d want to know” side can overcome the danger to trans folk.
I’d say that, nowadays, the difference between previous religion and previous expressed gender is that there’s almost no danger of being raped, beaten, or killed for a prior religious status (in the U.S. … maybe an exception for arab looking people in certain cases), but a significant danger of all of the above based on trans status.
She was not AT ANY TIME a man.
She was always a woman and her external (because the brain is where ‘gender’ is located) body did not necessarily match what we consider to be ‘feminine’ biology (vulva, clitoris, vagina, etc.).
So (if she went on hormones & proceeded with surgery) she changed it.
Even if she had never done so, she would still be a woman.
Because she is one.
So no, you have betrayed YOUR prejudice that puts at risk the lives of transgender people (check the statistics on murder) and don’t seem to be aware that you are being sickeningly disrespectful by claiming any woman “used to be a man” or vice-versa.
(Note that neither sex nor gender are binary anyway.)
If you fall in love with who a person is and you’re attracted to them now then what does it bloody well matter what they USED to look like?
Do you not see how ridiculous that is?
“I’m sorry, I can’t be with someone whose hair used to be blonde.”
Check your bigoted outlook, please.
AGREE with Peter, It is deception. Many guys would not be comftorable dating someone transgender, and had they known that fact they are transgender would act differently to not date her. One would need to hide and deceive their mate, in terms of dating that is deception, as people’s actions would change based on knowing the truth. I also think this is relevant in terms of STD’s. We should not hide this as partners have a right to know without being decieved. One should not know they have an STD and not tell their partner and have sex anyways. This is deceiving ones partner. These woman cannot have kids, and many guys do not want to date people born male with XY chromosomes.
Because many guys would not be comftorable, It is secondarily unsafe to the woman. As many guys would be deceived they might strike the woman back for deceiving them. This thus becomes a secondarily a safety concern.
So – here’s my gut reaction – I reserve the right to change my mind.
I think any woman who used to be a man (and any man who used to be a woman) has an obligation or a duty to reveal their prior sex change before entering a sexual relationship or marriage (which ever comes first).
1) I say this because someone with deeply held beliefs (whether correct or incorrect) might feel hoodwinked. Even someone with shallowly held beliefs or none at all might be made to feel as an outcast in their own family or community if the information would become readily available at a later date. Sure, being an outcast sucks, but if it’s not for yourself, shouldn’t you go into the relationship ready and willing to stand up for yourself and your decisions rather than being made to look like a victim?
2) I say this because the partner in this scenario can’t be expected to ask every potential date about sex change history. If a man asks a woman this out of the blue, the woman will either feel hurt because of insecurity or insulted. Either way, it’s not a great way to start an honest relationship with that kind of question. It almost guarantees the demise of the relationship. Given this barrier, it is the duty of the patient to notify their partner. I don’t think they have to notify immediately, but something like a 3 date or 3 month standard would be reasonable.
3) In the event of marriage or long term relationship – I think the partner should know about this, especially if they are to be entrusted with making medical decisions. Beyond that, it increases understanding from the partner as to what emotions or feelings the patient might be going through and what might set them off or be taboo. Imagine making a poor-taste joke in front of the person you trust most in the world, only to find out later that the joke was way misdirected. It’s not a nice trap.
4 I think there is an exception to this, and it might be that if the procedure was done for medical reasons as a young child.
Just my 2-bits. I hope it comes across as reasonable.
Well said.
Reasonable, yes. I agree with your position as being the most practical, but won’t attempt to justify it ethically.
Why? I say that because to tell up front has all the disadvantages you adduce, plus the threat of physical violence. What about the Trans woman’s feelings and insecurities? It seems there’s a double-standard there.
Consider – is it her duty to say that she has a Jewish grandmother? Or that she’s 1/16 African-American so only “passing for white”?
The answer to those questions is different now from what it would be in 1912. I hope that in 2112 this issue will be seen in a similar light.
However, it’s 2012 now, so your position is the most reasonable, even if a bit dodgy ethically and theoretically. It’s one I adopt, but won’t criticise.others who don’t, it’s a voluntary thing, not ethically required. A “should do” not a “must do”.
It is not the same in context of race or religion, being the keyword here, sex, sexual, gender, sexuality. It does not matter if someone is asexual, you are still talking about gender, and sex, so it is a very bad argument. It really is; it is like if we were discussing foods and you went on to mention steel, yes I know some cooking pans are made of steel so what.
In 1912 things were different and so were in the year 500 bc and in the 1600s. History is ciclical, and like for romans and greeks, whom accepted homosexuality and pansexuality and bisexuality, and then changed their views to the opposite, that will happen again. There will come a time in which homosexuality will be not so open as it is today and then it will be open again and so on and so forth, but what will not change is the essence of relationships: If something is important to your partner then it must be important to you even if you do not agree, unless you don’t care for the person then it is not a relationship anyway.
Ethically speaking, respect for others is essential. Respect of the views of others is Ethical and respecting the views of others sometimes means disclosure even if for you means a very bad escenario. If you are the party with important knowledge, then that makes you the detrimental party and the acting party and as such you must act, ethically speaking and disclose what you have to disclose. It does not matter if it is that you like ham and eggs, if for you partner ham and eggs is utterly discusting then ethically you either must stop eating ham and eggs or disclose the fact that you love ham and eggs and see if the other person accepts that or not, and that will be up to the other person. But in a sexual relationship, the key phrase is not ham and eggs, but sexual, which has to do everything with your sexual past, clinical or otherwise. And lets’s be frank now a days most people in the whole world view sexual relationships and sexuality as something important and that is common knowledge so yes, you are obliged to disclose, ethically speaking. If you were a prostitute, if you had unsafe sex, if your sexual practices are uncommon, or if your sexual tastes are different than most, then yes, you are ethically obligerd to disclose, and it will fall to the other person to accept or opt ourt of the relationship and it does not matter if the other person is “close minded”, “elitist”, “puritan” or any other label, true or untrue, biased or biased you might like to put on that person it is still their prerrogative and their sexuality not exclusively yours and as such is something that ethically you should disclose.
OK, time to play devil’s advocate here. She is legally a woman, but biologically a man. Through surgery and hormones, she now has the appearance of a woman and she is legally considered a woman, but she is still a man. If fraternal twins were separated at birth and adopted, they legally are part of their new families and not their old families. They are no longer siblings legally, but they are biologically. If one knew that they were fraternal twins separated at birth, would it be unethical to withhold this information?
Yup.
I’d say Yup too. Peter’s conditions apply to fraternal twins. They have enough in common genetically that what happens to a sibling has health implications for the other, or might have.
There’s a problem when a clone of “identical twins” with the same genotype ends up with opposite-sex phenotypes. Rare,.but it happens.
A genetic test on one may invalidate the marriage of the other in some states when they have identical but anomalous phenotypes – twin boys both with 46,XX chromosomes for example. That happens too.
So yes, make sure responsible, trusted medics with need to know do know about such things. No-one who doesn’t have NTK should be privy to this data. I know some real horror stories that can result.
She is not a man. She was never a man.
See the brain?
That important bit where a ‘person’ is presumed to exist?
The part that plays the starring role in identity, including gender?
That’s feminine.
She is a woman.
End of story.
Whether she then went through surgery & uses hormones to maintain a feminine appearance in order to better fit that (and attempt to stay safe from societal backlash that would nigh-guarantee her death; check the statistics) is irrelevant.
That would be like saying I’m not allowed to shave my facial hair because “most men have facial hair so it’s deceptive of you to pretend like you don’t grow it”.
So no, actually you’re just being a transphobic bigot.
(I’d like to think The Devil in question disavow your actions for being way over the line.)
When people change their sex it does NOT change their DNA.
Relatives, school friends or enemies, know what he or she was thus the risk of having someone end up telling the spouse the truth should be troubling to the one who wants to be deceptive.
There’s also the issue of the drugs required to keep up the charade.
I would not call living a transgendered life a “charade,” but I agree with your point about likely use of drugs, and launch from there to my position. I think it is ridiculous to expect a committed, intimate relationship to be “healthy” when the partners are not fully disclosing their known health issues. The health issues inherent to transgender cases and conditions are quite a bit more “impactful” than, say, covering up the fact that one snips or plucks excessively long nose-hairs in secret.
I’m still reading your stuff,Jack but without comments. Usually someone else says what I would have and much more eloquently.
“I’m still reading…but without comments.” I wish you would explain why. I have been missing your comments; I exhort you not to underrate your own eloquence, and not to overrate others’.
Thank you,Eeyoure. You’re very kind. I did leave a little blurb in response to zoebrain.
I’ll say this: I think i would be able to handle the notion the woman I was involved with was born in the wrong gender before being reassigned.
But personally, I would want to know for sure. If I had some huge thing in my past, I would share it too. It’s up to her if she wants to share, but if she doesn’t, and I find out later, I think that would be the beginning of the end for us.
You would, but would you want her to take that risk unless she knew for certain?
Bearing in mind it might be a fatal mistake to reveal it?
I wouldn’t.
If it was clear to her that I /wouldn’t/ be freaked by it and the relationship wouldn’t change then I’d welcome being told.
If she didn’t feel safe doing so then.. that’s my fault, isn’t it?
Then surely the proper ethical response is…if you cannot bear to share the information with the proposed significant other…then stop being the significant other. You are under no obligation to tell the other party, per se…BUT neither is it right for that person, who may have for example strong religious beliefs on the subject, to be deliberately misled or misinformed. The entire conversation seems to only consider two possiblities – keep quiet and try to stay…or tell and try to stay. when in reality there’s a pretty obvious third; if you can’t tell, keep quiet, but walk away.
IF you don’t trust him enough to tell him, how do you trust him enough if he finds out later?
Jeff touches upon my view here, which is that the man doesn’t have a right to know about the woman’s personal history, but he does have a right to be trusted as a boyfriend. I like how you framed the question in your third paragraph, and I would argue that unfortunately yes, she is obligated to reveal information that might threaten to destroy the relationship. It’s every bit as much a rational obligation as an ethical one.
If a transgendered woman withholds the fact of her being born male, she may see it as a way of safeguarding the relationship, but viewed from the other side she’s essentially saying that she believes her boyfriend may reject her because of a lack of rationality, or security, or compassion. She may be right. But that’s not a suspicion that one should harbor in silence about her significant other. If she’s wrong and the man would not reject her for her transgendered status, the revelation of that secret could be devastatingly hurtful to him, in that keeping the secret in the first place impugns his character.
There’s a lot of ways that it can go wrong. If the secret is kept unnecessarily it can hurt the man and thus damage the relationship. If the secret is revealed, but there was reason to keep it, it can hurt the woman and end the relationship immediately. It’s only in that rare instance where the secret need not be a secret and the woman withholding it had the courage to reveal it that the whole situation might work out. But it’s utterly irrational to avoid finding out which scenario they’re facing. It’s important to find out early on what kind of man the transgendered woman is dating. If he would reject her, it’s not worth hanging on; if he wouldn’t, it’s wrong to treat him as though he would.
Whether the secret comes out later or the woman just goes on indefinitely expecting intolerance from her boyfriend, the relationship is probably doomed. A little pain now can prevent a lot of false hope later.
For what it’s worth, I realize that this relates to a lot of relationships that don’t have such unusual complications. My ex-girlfriend always expected me to leave her for no good reason. It ultimately doomed the relationship. (Why did I just make this personal?) If a woman harbors a secret that gives her good reason to expect her significant other to leave her, how committed can she really be to that relationship, deep down?
“the revelation of her secret may be devastating TO HIM” ?
The revelation of that particular portion of her past could be LETHAL to her.
Huge difference there.
Is she not entitled to being seen and believed to be a woman?
I agree that if she has such severe doubts then she should leave, but not on the grounds of her “deceiving him” (she is a woman, she was always a woman, all she did was change her body to fit that) but on grounds that such a person is likely to be bigoted in other ways and ultimately dangerous to be around.
If you don’t make the person you’re with feel safe and loved enough to reveal such then the problem is you.
May I give an extended set of replies here please? You see, this isn’t a hypothetical for me, it’s an actual.
This ethical question is one that is often raised in Trans fora. What is the right thing to do?
The general consensus is that if there’s a long-term relationship brewing, you should tell in most cases.
For less permanent or certain arrangements, telling is not recommended due to the high risk of being murdered, and the killer allowed to go free. Not telling and being found out can lead to the same thing, but the best evaluation of the statistics we have shows that not telling decreases risk of homicide quite dramatically. Operative status appears to have no statistical difference. The data’s poor, but it’s the best we have, and we have a (literal) life-or-death interest in its accuracy.
nj.com Friday, May 25, 2012
I’m not Trans – by a mere technicality. Any Intersex diagnosis precludes that under both the current DSM-IV-TR Psych diagnostic manual, and the WHO’s ICD-10 diagnostic manual. I looked normally male at birth, didn’t have a usual male puberty, only a partial and ambiguous one (maybe 5% female, 30% male), then a later partial female puberty (65% female) rather late in life. Age 47 in fact.
Biologically, I’m considered female by the medics. The formal diagnosis is “severe androgenisation of a non-pregnant woman”, thought to be caused by the 3-beta-hydroxystroid-dehydrogenase deficient form of congenital adrenal hyperplasia.
No-one’s interested in that except for me and my endocrinologist of course.
The most obvious fact is that I was born looking male, for most of my life I pretended to be male (regardless of my instincts, feelings etc) because when a girl has the body of a linebacker not a cheerleader, what alternative is there?
I transitioned when my body started changing. The psychological effects from the pubertal hormonal wash causing changes to neuro-anatomy precede the physical changes, and pretending became impossible instead of just nearly impossible. There didn’t seem any point any more, anyway.
I did try though. I had a marriage, a career, a child, a life, and all that I held dear was jeopardised. I subscribed to an FtoM magazine to learn techniques to hide the changes, but I just couldn’t do it. Some things are beyond human endurance.
It was a release from Hell. No-one who’s not experienced Gender Dysphoria can really understand. It wasn’t too bad for me, for most it’s far worse, but maybe if I tell you that I didn’t understand the meaning of the word “happiness” before, that I’d never experienced that feeling, you might get an idea. Joy, contentment, those I knew. Happiness? Only as a theoretical word.
Anyway, that’s the background. After a few surgical tweaks to the genitalia (which were, frankly, a mess), some therapy for the scar tissue in my abdomen (vestigial ovarian tissue had been removed without my knowledge or consent when I was 20, as was the custom of the time), for the first time in my life I can “pass” for normal even in the nude.
Now to clear up a few misconceptions here about biology and sex.
Usually, those murders and manslaughters happen when the other person is informed in private.
Perhaps telling in a public place would reduce the risk.
It apparently reduces immediate danger, but runs the risk that public disclosure might lead to violent action that otherwise wouldn’t have been taken if no-one else knew.
With so many witnesses, a “Trans panic” defence is almost certain to succeed in jurisdictions that don’t specifically prohibit it, and still not unlikely to succeed in those that do.
Revealing in a public place can be (and has been) interpreted as unbearable provocation, justifying homicide, but more often serious assault.
First misconception: Chromosomes, DNA, and sex
True – but having a bone marrow transplant does. So what?
Bone marrow-derived cells from male donors can compose endometrial glands in female transplant recipients by Ikoma et al Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Dec;201(6):608.e1-8
These show that a bone-marrow transplant recipient’s entire bodies gradually become genetically identical to that of the donor due to cell turnover. Even the reproductive glands.
As for “XY means male” :
— J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Jan;93(1):182-9
One in 300 men aren’t 46,XY, and some women are. Fully 1 in 450 men are 47,XXY, halfway between so to speak. See
Sex Chromosome Abnormalities Found Among 34,910 Newborn Children: Results From a 13-Year Incidence Study in Århus, Denmark J.Nielsen and M.Wohlert in Birth Defects: Original Article Series, Volume 26, Number 4, pages 209-223
DNA cannot define sex, in the way it’s normally meant. You can, if you wish, define by fiat that chromosomes equal sex, and several US state lower court decisions have done just that. But that leads to around a half million Americans being of neither sex, obvious men who have given birth, obvious women who have fathered children, and other absurdities.
Some legal decisions have been bizarre. Deciding that someone is male because they’re assumed to be 46,XY, and not checking that out, for example (Littleton vs Prange, in re Araguz etc). But I digress. On to the next misconception.
Really quite instructive. And valuable, in that, recent science has had the subject in focus, and not hidden. Still the sensibilities of others must be respected, and translating this social obligation into action and altered norms of acceptance is difficult. In the context of this discussion, however, disclosure of such transgender surgery remains an absolute requirement in the context of a CLOSE, COMMITTED and TRUSTED relationship (as opposed to those described in the horror stories of low-life bar cruising above).
That is the general consensus, yes. In older relationships, there’s some wiggle-room, as it was sometimes a requirement up until the mid-90’s not to tell, under threat of lawsuits by the treating clinics for violating confidentiality agreements.
In others, the partner may have some psychological hangups, and we face the same kind of issues as with a once-and-never-again bout of infidelity. Where both parties know, but to admit it openly would do real harm.
The one thing you always tell is that you can’t have children due to a congenital medical condition.
There are a number of things I will never tell my partner – she will never have the requisite security clearance (I think the highest she’s had is CABINET CONFIDENTIAL), nor have need to know. That’s not just because I’d face 25 years in jail for violating the Official Secrets Act, but because I gave my word. No-one else may value that or think it important, but I do.
Michael wrote:
Why? On what criteria do you base that assertion?
Here’s some actual, not theoretical, examples:
1) Classic Transsexual Female. Apart from an anatomically partly feminised brain, body at birth conforms well to a male stereotype – 46,XY chromosomes, external genitalia etc. Many examples. (Probably Lana Wachowsky)
2) Classic Transsexual Male. Apart from an anatomically partly masculinised brain, body at birth conforms well to a female stereotype – 46,XX chromosomes, internal genitalia etc. Many examples. (Probably Chaz Bono)
3) PMDS – There are internal female reproductive systems. Usually dysfunctional, but may be able to donate eggs. Otherwise as for Classic Transsexual Female. Example – Stevie Crecilius
4) 47,XXY – Chromosomes 47,XXY, usually atrophied or dysfunctional male genitalia, otherwise as for Classic Transsexual Female but with likely cognitive anomalies, poor at some things, gifted at others. Example – Dana X (surname withheld, she’s a prominent lawyer who doesn’t publicise her past, as serious attempts have been made on her life in the past)
Note that most 47,XXY are men, a few women, but both can be Trans, effectively.
5) 45X/46XY – Born looking male, at puberty may feminise – which can be quite confusing if the person is a gay male. Example Josef Kirchner
6) 5ARD – Born looking female, masculinises at puberty. Neuro-Anatomy may be male or female. Example – “Sally” in RE: SALLY (SPECIAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE) [2010] FamCA 237
7) 3BHSD – May be born looking like either sex, neuro-anatomy may be of either sex, body may change at puberty or late in life. Example – Me.
Michael – please look at Sally’s case.
Click to access 2010_FamCA_237.pdf
Then tell me what sex she is, and why. Should surgery be prevented because she’s “really a boy”? Or allowed, so a girl doesn’t have something nightmarish happen to her body from a rare medical condition.
And should she acquire a boyfriend or girlfriend – should she “fess up” to her medical history?
Does he have a right to know? Probably not. Is it ethically remiss of her not mention after a certain point? I would say yes. In a casual relationship it would be reasonable (and in some cases prudent) not to bring it up, but as the relationship progresses it reaches an ethical tipping point. Specifically when the man (in this case) expresses intent to make some significant investment of time, money, emotion, etc. into the relationship. When that happens, I feel it would be unethical to allow him to labor under the pretense of false assumption.
Funny. Even the gays dont like trans, however they do like the crossdresser mnistrel shows that are akin to whites entertaining in blackface.
The problem is not so much when she tells him as to what his reaction is when he finds out. They have both been conditioned -in fear- for their entire life. He’ll question his identity. Identity and social mores go hand in hand. Its not their problem, per se, its our problem.
In most societies one is only allowed to be a straight male or straight female. However, as we know, this is not the case. Homosexuality and transexuality are legitimate, real, and equal.
The ethical question is: why the fear?
I believe its probably more simple than the above. Any relationship should be based on honesty, truth and open communication. I hope that each person in a couple should feel safe to engage in open, honest communication with the other about all matters.
If people are involved with each other and are not able to do this I question exactly how committed each person is and how they will deal with obstacles in the future.
I dont believe it should come down to ethical tipping points, investment discussions. A relationship is not healthy if you don’t feel safe communicating with your partner and for your partner to love and respect you enough to keep an open mind and appreciate the person you are.
Whether or not she is ethically obligated to tell her boyfriend…are people ethically obligated not to waste another persons time in an unhealthy relationship?
It’s not about bigotry.it’s about making your partner go against THEIR NATURE,Trust, AND THEIR SEXUAL PREFERENCES WHICH YOU MUST HONOR.NOT BEING ATTRACTED TO A TRANSWOMAN DOES NOT MAKE YOU BIGOTED.
Why are you yelling?
Because no one seems to be getting that part I consider it rather inconsiderate to say that all guys must stay with a transwoman even if it goes against their nature and their desires.Anyone who really loves someone would not lie about something so huge.They would also let a person go if that is what would make them happy.
This comment has no relation to your previous comment. The previous one was trying to claim it’s not bigoted to not want a trans person solely because they were trans.
This comment also has problems. Do you think that people must be in love before they start a relationship? Otherwise, it doesn’t make much sense. The last sentence is also irrelevant. If my wife decides to leave me, of course the ethical thing to do is let her go, but that doesn’t necessarily mean her behavior in leaving is ethical. If she’s leaving because she found out I have a black ancestor, she’s still a bigot.
But if you were attracted to the person, and then changed your mind when you found out they were trans? That’s in the range of bigotry.
“But if you were attracted to the person, and then changed your mind when you found out they were trans? That’s in the range of bigotry.”
Maybe this is apples and oranges but for argument’s sake let’s say you were attracted to a young woman,dated her,fell in love and then found out she was only 14 years old. Granted,you’re facing a crime here but just sayin’.
I’d say you’re leaving because of the illegality of the relationship and likely worry about taking advantage of them. Completely different situation.
Also, “just sayin'” is highly unethical. It’s an attempt to put forth an argument but still try to hide behind something so it doesn’t bounce back on you. If you believe the logic or want to play devil’s advocate with a situation, be upfront about it.
“Also, “just sayin’” is highly unethical. It’s an attempt to put forth an argument but still try to hide behind something so it doesn’t bounce back on you. If you believe the logic or want to play devil’s advocate with a situation, be upfront about it.”
Just sayin’ is unethical? To be straightforward then I think you’d want to know ahead of time the a person is underage. Some men would have strong objections to dating a transgendered person as well if they knew it. I couldn’t keep that from someone who was going to be my life partner. In the back of my mind I’d be thinking if he found out would he feel betrayed. Would he hate me? I would have to tell him at the beginning.
Possibly unethical behavior by party 1 does not determine what is ethical for party 2.
I’m not saying that not mentioning trans status is unethical or ethical here, just that it’s irrelevant to the point. If after not mentioning the status and coming out with it, the other party was hurt and didn’t trust you for hiding it, I see leaving as ethical. If the other party doesn’t feel those things, just isn’t attracted to the trans person solely because they are trans, then it’s bigotry.
Yes, the “Just Sayin'” dodge is unethical. It’s like “I’m just putting it out there”. It’s an attempt avoid responsibility for the statement. Do you not believe this is happening or do you not believe it’s a bad thing to do this? Something else?
I thought I made my position clear this time speaking from the standpoint of a transexual if I was one. I’ve never thought of “just sayin” as unethical. I haven’t thought about it one way or the other really. Just sayin.
You made your position clear, it just wasn’t relevant to the subthread. I think I made that clear.
Look how people use “just sayin” and similar phrases. It’s all about putting out an opinion without having to defend it.
The question is is a transgendered woman obligated to tell. I don’t know. It’s up to her. If I were her I would find it necessary to tell him for my own peace of mind. Granted,that’s not in keeping with the question though. I did look up “just sayin” and you are right. It is a dodge.
I join tgt in detesting “I’m just sayin’“, which joins “whatever” and “it is what it is” (my least favorite) as dodges.
My least favorite is any form of “I’m entitled to my opinion”.
To add to this, I believe that possible unethical behaviour from party 2 DOES inform what would be ethical for party 1.
If there is the potential risk of violence or any form of harm in response to the revelation then I would consider it ethically permissible to withhold it until either further data came to light making it safe to do so or party 1 could, well, escape.
(I don’t think I like the idea of anyone in a vulnerable group staying in a situation where someone close to them and often alone with them might discover their status and do them harm or even kill them.
So for that reason I’d want anyone with strong doubts as to their acceptance by the partner/s in question to get out as quickly as possible.)
The bottom line on this is the transgender person has to upfront about the effects of being transgender; it is the only ethical path. Regardless if the non-transgender one wants to remain together, attracted and intimate the knowledge may make it impossible. Don’t fool yourself; it is a serious betrayal if you do not tell the person you’re in a relationship with. Not because your living as a different gender then assigned but because you had the knowledge of a medical condition that has many significant factors to it. If a significant other knows going into a relationship that they have a condition that won’t allow them to have children, requires specialists, may affect general health, costly, and yes has a stigma if discovered, they have to tell their partner, anything else is selfish and deceptive. There will come a time, an accident, insurance exam, death, or whatnot where the partner will find out, the sense of betrayal will be there, how each cope with it will very but the non-transgender partner is not at fault if how they feel about their partner changes.
As for the stigma, it exists; some can deal with, as many interracial and homosexual couples have done, but both individuals knew from the start what they were getting into. The partner deserves to make the choice to face it. The concern about the potential for the transgender to get hurt or killed if outed to their partner or potential partner does not justify removing that choice through deception.
Finding someone who would be accepting of the condition has to feel impossible but the way to do it is not through deception. If I found out that my wife had MS and knew before we got married but didn’t tell me, I would feel betrayed on many levels, would that make me stop loving her? I would like to think it wouldn’t, but betrayal is a very hard to overcome, even if there was a good reason behind it.
Not because your living as a different gender then assigned but because you had the knowledge of a medical condition that has many significant factors to it. If a significant other knows going into a relationship that they have a condition that won’t allow them to have children, requires specialists, may affect general health, costly, and yes has a stigma if discovered, they have to tell their partner, anything else is selfish and deceptive.
The first few can be overcome without mentioning trans history. They are a smokescreen.The last is just a repeat of the argument that the partner has a right to know things that they have no need to know. So long as my girlfriend was honest with me about her sexual health, I don’t need to know if she had 1 prior boyfriend or 100 prior boyfriends. There’s sure stigma with the latter, and I may be prejudiced against girls that some would call sluts, but I have no right to know that information.
Tgt, I really am not very interested in replying to you because you are dishonest and don’t operate in good faith. You have brought a great deal of substance to this blog in the past and have made me change my mind on several things but your dishonesty makes any argument or premise you put forth suspect.
Now to my reply of yours, you put forth the premise, without backing it at all, that the partner has no need or right to know, while also at least leaving open that with such knowledge things may change. I would suggest such information that would have such an impact on the relationship must be disclosed if the likelihood is high that such information will eventually be known. You equate someone’s personal choice such as sleeping around with the gender and identity of an individual, people grow and change their ways, a person’s health and medical conditions may change over time but being a transsexual and the eventual disclosure of the condition is not. Any way they explain why they can’t have children, have to be on drugs, see specialist, and all the rest requires active deception, not just omission, which will lead to feeling betrayed.
Your inability to recognize that it is wrong to hide such medical conditions, their effects and cost to a loved one is telling, if one is willing to actively lie to their spouse about such a big thing in one’s life then there can be no trust. Additionally if something personal about you would subject your loved one to stigma, the resulting bigotry, and personal cost you have a responsibility to tell them, if you don’t it is selfish and unethical.
Tgt, I really am not very interested in replying to you because you are dishonest and don’t operate in good faith. You have brought a great deal of substance to this blog in the past and have made me change my mind on several things but your dishonesty makes any argument or premise you put forth suspect.
What was dishonest? When did I not operate in good faith? Can you give me an example? I may have misspoken or changed my mind on a topic. If so, I would like to correct it. I have repeated this sentiment many times. I have also noted at those times that these general attacks without evidence are often undertaken by people who can’t back them up.
Now to my reply of yours, you put forth the premise, without backing it at all, that the partner has no need or right to know, while also at least leaving open that with such knowledge things may change. I would suggest such information that would have such an impact on the relationship must be disclosed if the likelihood is high that such information will eventually be known. You equate someone’s personal choice such as sleeping around with the gender and identity of an individual, people grow and change their ways, a person’s health and medical conditions may change over time but being a transsexual and the eventual disclosure of the condition is not.
My point in the comparison is that it doesn’t matter why X is the current medical condition. It only matters that X is the current medical condition. If I can’t have kids, Does it matter if it’s due to acute testicular trauma causing permanent problems or due to being born intersex? No it doesn’t. My point in the comparison is that history is irrelevant to who someone is now.
I agree that it is my opinion that history is irrelevant. I believe that because people are always changing. What someone did and was in the past does not necessarily affect who they are now. I would not want to be in a couple with someone who is religious. If someone lied about their beliefs to me, that would be a problem. If they were religious but aren’t now? Not mentioning the prior religious belief is not lying and not a problem to me. If I asked directly about prior beliefs, I’d expect either the truth or “that’s none of your business.”
As for medical reasons: being trans is not on the list of medical issues that I think need to be disclosed. I consider that a physical ailment, and so long as the children thing is clear, not an issue. Really, the only medical issues that seem important are (1) mental illnesses, (2) anything that deviates from standard health (like a diagnosis of cancer).
Any way they explain why they can’t have children, have to be on drugs, see specialist, and all the rest requires active deception, not just omission, which will lead to feeling betrayed.
Really? I don’t see that. I don’t see where deception is needed for any of those things.
I can’t have kids. The doctors have assured me it’s an impossibility physically. Done.
I have hormone imbalance issues. I see a specialist to manage them. Done.
I take pills for above. Done.
There’s no need to go past omission.
Your inability to recognize that it is wrong to hide such medical conditions, their effects and cost to a loved one is telling, if one is willing to actively lie to their spouse about such a big thing in one’s life then there can be no trust.
I see trans more like my Osgood Schlatter. It’s generally fixed. I’m likely to need to rely on NSAIDs as I get older, but it was really only a major issue in the past.
Additionally if something personal about you would subject your loved one to stigma, the resulting bigotry, and personal cost you have a responsibility to tell them, if you don’t it is selfish and unethical.
This I see as a strong argument, but I don’t believe it overtakes the risk of harm trans people take on by simply stating their trans state. It’s a balancing test, and I think that a trans person balancing against stating their status is not unethical.
You might notice that when this thread was first created, I specifically did not give an opinion on the ethics of the trans person not disclosing. I was of two minds about it. I am not proud to say that when I first saw this topic on this blog (I think it was another thread), I was repulsed by the idea of dating a girl who previously had the physical gender characteristics of a guy. I’m pretty sure I took the position that disclosure was required, or maybe I just stayed out of it. Over time, and learning a bit more about the real danger that trans people are still in, my mind changed. I still have an unconscious ick factor, but I don’t think my lamented bigotry is nearly as important as a trans person’s safety.
What was dishonest? When did I not operate in good faith? Can you give me an example? I may have misspoken or changed my mind on a topic. If so, I would like to correct it. I have repeated this sentiment many times. I have also noted at those times that these general attacks without evidence are often undertaken by people who can’t back them up.
You miss represented what I said, twisted words, and were dishonest, it ended with me calling you a douche and dishonest. I think it was one of the gay marriage posts. I don’t have time to look for it.
My point in the comparison is that it doesn’t matter why X is the current medical condition. It only matters that X is the current medical condition. If I can’t have kids, Does it matter if it’s due to acute testicular trauma causing permanent problems or due to being born intersex? No it doesn’t. My point in the comparison is that history is irrelevant to who someone is now.
They would still be transgender, even post reassignment, so when it comes out to the loved one, then what?
“I agree that it is my opinion that history is irrelevant. I believe that because people are always changing. What someone did and was in the past does not necessarily affect who they are now. I would not want to be in a couple with someone who is religious. If someone lied about their beliefs to me, that would be a problem. If they were religious but aren’t now? Not mentioning the prior religious belief is not lying and not a problem to me. If I asked directly about prior beliefs, I’d expect either the truth or “that’s none of your business.”
Again you’re talking about someone’s actions not what condition they have.
As for medical reasons: being trans is not on the list of medical issues that I think need to be disclosed. I consider that a physical ailment, and so long as the children thing is clear, not an issue. Really, the only medical issues that seem important are (1) mental illnesses, (2) anything that deviates from standard health (like a diagnosis of cancer).
So just so long as it is not on tgt’s medical issues list it is all good? If someone had MS, my mother had it; I very well may not start anything with that person because I don’t want to go through it again. If they didn’t tell me and I found out later why all the doctor appointments and pills I would feel betrayed and be pissed.
Anyway they explain why they can’t have children, have to be on drugs, see specialist, and all the rest requires active deception, not just omission, which will lead to feeling betrayed.
Really? I don’t see that. I don’t see where deception is needed for any of those things.
I can’t have kids. The doctors have assured me it’s an impossibility physically. Done.I have hormone imbalance issues. I see a specialist to manage them. Done.I take pills for above. Done.
If you’re in a relationship and the person is going through all that you really think it is that simple and will require no deception? Those answers may fly for a friend or someone you work with but for a significant other? What level of intimacy, trust and caring is does this hypothetical couple have? If my loved one has a medical condition I am learning whatever I can, asking questions and doing whatever I can to get them better.
I see trans more like my Osgood Schlatter. It’s generally fixed. I’m likely to need to rely on NSAIDs as I get older, but it was really only a major issue in the past.
Because having a reassignment surgery, taking hormones and generally trying to make a body which was born one gender look like another is just like knobby knees. You’re really going to use this as an argument? This medical issue is a bit more involved and has a few more long lasting side effects and impact.
This I see as a strong argument, but I don’t believe it overtakes the risk of harm trans people take on by simply stating their trans state. It’s a balancing test, and I think that a trans person balancing against stating their status is not unethical.
Let me get this straight, I can lie, coerce and manipulate my way into someone’s bed who, if the truth was known, may otherwise not want to just so long as the potential for me to be harmed is present.
What of the emotional harm done to the sucker who didn’t know he was involved with a transgender for 10 years, who now has to explain what is going on to all their friends, neighbors and family, just because some EMT or clerk somewhere outed them? Do you think most of those folks would classify not telling him of the transgender status a betrayal?
So non-attraction or a desire to not be raped equals bigotry?Yeah that makes perfect sense.
I didn’t say nonattraction equals bigotry. I said nonattraction for certain reasons implies bigotry. See my recent example above about a black ancestor.
Where does “desire to not be raped” come in? If you are assuming a trans person will rape you, you’re a bigot.
Um, yes it does.
If you like women then you like women.
Trans women are women.
So… why would it “go against their sexual preferences” (much less their “nature” ) to find a woman sexually attractive or fall in love with her?
You’re silly and your views are transphobic bigotry.
Keep in mind that transgender/transsexual individuals are mentally damaged people. The fact that they don’t want to disclose to you their biological sex is not because they afraid of being murdered, that’s just an excuse and a victim mentality they use to guilt trip you into getting what they want. Real biological women are murdered and raped everyday yet they go on with their everyday existence. The real reason trannies don’t want to tell you what their biological sex is because they get off on “passing” for whatever gender they are trying to imitate, it validates their delusion if you think for example that a tranny imitating a woman is an actual born woman, it literally gets them off. That’s why they will never tell you. They are sick fucks and they need straight males to validate their perverted delusions. Thankfully for you, if you are a decent heterosexual male you won’t have to worry about accidentally fucking a tranny cos you’ll probably know things like the family and at least some history of the girl you are trying to court. Anyways, in the end trannies end up sleeping with sickos who claim to be straight but obviously aren’t.
Another thing is that even the so called most “good looking” of trannies just ends up looking like a plastic surgery freak and they always try to imitate the looks of blow up dolls so they end up looking like ugly hookers. So if you’re into skanks then you might come across a tranny. However, if you’re into natural beautiful women then you have nothing to worry about cos no plastic surgery in the world can imitate the natural beauty of a woman, you’re just born with it.
Oh yeah and a lot of the comments here are from trannies trying to convince straight men or women that is okay to sleep with them, don’t fall for it. Also, some perverted sickos who claim to be straight men but instead love to have sex with men who have dicks and claim to be women aka Thai shemales, will try to convince straight men that its okay and normal to Fuck shemales. Misery loves company. It makes them feel less creepy convincing other people about their fucked up choices, but in the end they are still creeps.
Another funny thing is that male trannies boast about them being better looking and better at being women than actual real women. That’s how far their delusion goes, they claim to be women yet in the same breath hate real women, which contradicts their whole identity.
Yet they don’t realize that when catty real women diss each other they use “tranny” as a slur to describe how fake and ugly and skanky another chick looks, not how perfect and feminine.
You’ll also noticed that there are more male to female trannies and that just proves that it’s all about sex and being a perv. No offence to non-perverted guys.
Wow! That’s a neat trick…how do the murdered ones pull it off?
Then again, this statement is pretty typical of the grasp of reality illustrated by the whole comment, which appears to be all bias, and no fact, knowledge, or rational analysis at all.
Bluish made a typo. If you had an ounce of brains you know you can’t edit on WP once you hit the post button. The fact is Bluish is telling the truth of the twisted mentality of these mentally ill people. You don’t like it? Tough. Your kind are in the tiniest of minorities. Lots of women like me find this trans stuff completely repellent in its contempt for real women. I believe the surgeries and hormone treatments for the mentally ill, which these people are, should be outlawed. I believe they eventually will.
Now, if I wanted to be mean, Susan, I would point out that if YOU had an ounce of brains, you would know that I realized that Bluish misspoke, but that since the rest of the comment was so dumb, I decided to have some fun with an amusing misstatement. meanwhile, you are ignorant, hateful, and a bigot on this topic, and dead wrong. Of course the procedures will never be banned. They are fully accepted as valid and necessary by the AMA.
Meanwhile, you’re banned. You don’t come to my blog and insult me the second I open the door. get lost.
This shouldn’t even have to be asked. Of course you should tell your partner you were biologically born male/female. You see, if you don’t, then you’ll forever have the knowledge that your partner has never truly accepted you. That’s not true love, that’s your poor partner falling for an image you set up and not the real you. Our past is what shapes our future whether we like it or not. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being transgender but there is everything wrong with deceit. People are more open minded today, allow your partner to demonstrate that open-mindedness. If you fail to tell them it means you never had faith in them to love you unconditionally.
Just as a person has the right to change thier sex or date the same sex. Other people also have the right to only want to date the opposite sex or to not want to date a transgender person. it doesn’t make them a bad person to not want to. It’s dishonest to not tell the truth to a person before sex comes into the picture.
Yes, you have the right to be bigoted or be wierded out by anything…but why is sex the dividing line? Not handholding? Not staring into each others’ eyes? Not shaking someone’s hand? I can’t justify your line.
There is nothing wrong with being a bigot.
I think that a transgender would have a moral obligation to tell a mate about their past life as another gender. A lot of people have religious beliefs that you are always the gender you were born with and that it is a sin to have a sexual relationship with a transgender just as much as the believe it is a sin to have a sexual relationship with someone of the same gender. Keep in mind that not everyone considers someone who was artificially changed to another gender is the same thing as someone being biologically born a specific gender. Women often get upset finding out a guy who claims they are a certain height is actually a short guy. In fact women feel a man should be obligated to disclose his actual height and tell her if he had any bone lengthening done in his past to make him taller.
Why just a mate? Why not friends?
In fact women feel a man should be obligated to disclose his actual height and tell her if he had any bone lengthening done in his past to make him taller.
Citation needed. I see ethical discussions with the practice of bone lengthening, but no evidence of even one woman being pissed that a guy made himself taller through bone lengthening, much less a general group of women. That’s very different than wearing lifts or modifying pictures to appear taller than one really is.