Is it wrong if you want to know a partners or potential partner's biological/original gender?

[Galen.Iksnudnard]

Consider the following situation:

Two people are at a social gathering. One, call her Shirley, is an transgender woman, the other is a straight cis-male, call him Tom. Tom approaches Shirley, believing that she is a cis-female. They flirt and Tom takes Shirley back to his place where they end up in bed together, and eventually consent to intercourse.

Later on, Tom learns through a mutual friend, John, that Shirley is in fact a transgender woman, and was assigned male gender at birth. After that, Tom is angry, and refuses to approach Shirley. He claims he feels "violated" and was was “deceived”, and it was “unethical”, because if he’d known she was trans, he would not have consented to intercourse.

My questions:

1. Was Tom wrong to suddenly reject Shirley on the basis that she is transgender?
2. Should Shirley be obligated to tell Tom her birth gender before consent?
3. Is it wrong for cisgender individuals to only prefer other cisgender individuals, to the exclusion of transgender people?

If you could explain why you answered the way that you did, that would be helpful.

Also you could imagine the situation mentioned above in reverse, but I don't think the answer should be different.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Yes, no, and no.

 

[Galen.Iksnudnard]

Yes, no, and no.

Agree with the first two, a bit on the fence with the third. If you could explain why you answered the way you did, that would help out too.

Personally it seems like rejecting a person for being trans would be similar in practice to rejecting a potential partner because you find out they're 1/8 black/hispanic or some race that you dislike, even though they look "white". The very act of rejection itself depends on the assumption that trans people are somehow "frauds," and not really who they say they are.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Agree with the first two, a bit on the fence with the third. If you could explain why you answered the way you did, that would help out too.

I know people who won't date black people, because they prefer light skin, just like some prefer chubby folks to skinny folks. I don't know anyone who's gotten into this situation (though I hear the marriage-to-divorce ratio is actually pretty high for trans-cis couples), but I assume it can be a preference without bigotry for some. Getting angry about it seems to imply bigotry to me though, which is why I said "Yes" to the first question.

 

[Breathe]

Was Tom wrong to suddenly reject Shirley on the basis that she is transgender?

No. His choice. If he doesn't want to be with a transgender, that is his choice.

Should Shirley be obligated to tell Tom her birth gender before consent?

Before intercourse or dating, yes.
Otherwise, I would consider it deceitful.

Is it wrong for cisgender individuals to only prefer other cisgender individuals, to the exclusion of transgender people?

Short answer: no. Choice.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

No, no, and no.

1. While I think he should be a gentleman about it, this is a normal human reaction. I think he should explore the relationship a bit more, as there was an initial attraction, but it's his choice. He should just be aware of the consequences of having sex before getting to know someone.
2. She is free to be who she is without disclosing her past. That doesn't mean it might not be a bad idea, but she should also understand the consequences of sex without really knowing someone.
3. You should feel free to be with who you want to be with. I don't care for bubbly girly- girls, so I am going to prefer tomboys.

 

[Quintessence]

Was Tom wrong to suddenly reject Shirley on the basis that she is transgender?

No. Each individual has every right to decide who they do (or don't) want to have an intimate, sexual relationship and they can reject someone for any reason. In this specific case, I can completely understand someone wanting to discontinue a sexual relationship if they're heterosexual. I could understand it for someone of any sexuality considering sex reassignment surgery doesn't perfectly duplicate the sex organs of either biological sex. If you're just looking for sex, being with anyone with potentially sub-performing genitals is grounds for rejection, regardless of cis or trans status. Some of us might call that shallow, but frankly it's not our business to tell someone they ought to have sex with someone.

Should Shirley be obligated to tell Tom her birth gender before consent?

They're not obligated, but it'd be rather unwise not to mention it beforehand given there's a good chance they're going to find out once the clothes come off. And then you end up with situations like in the OP which are awkward for everybody.

Is it wrong for cisgender individuals to only prefer other cisgender individuals, to the exclusion of transgender people?

Absolutely not. As before: each individual has every right to decide who they do (or don't) want to have an intimate, sexual relationship and they can reject someone for any reason. People have the every right to any kind of personal preference they want, actually, whether it's sex, favorite colors, automobiles, or restaurants.

 

[LuisDantas]

1. Was Tom wrong to suddenly reject Shirley on the basis that she is transgender?
2. Should Shirley be obligated to tell Tom her birth gender before consent?
3. Is it wrong for cisgender individuals to only prefer other cisgender individuals, to the exclusion of transgender people?

I pretty much agree with Breathe: it is No, Yes and No, in that order.

I'm all for respect towards trangenders, but actually having sex is obviously a very personal matter, and it seems to me that a respectful sex act involves full disclosure of that relevant fact. If for no other reason, because hiding it can lead to a lot of hurt later.

As for the third, are we still talking about sexual relationships? Because if we are, then there is no wrong preference to speak of. People feel attracted or fail to quite arbitrarily. That is neither right nor wrong, it just is how it works.

 

[Galen.Iksnudnard]

Was Tom wrong to suddenly reject Shirley on the basis that she is transgender?

No. Each individual has every right to decide who they do (or don't) want to have an intimate, sexual relationship and they can reject someone for any reason. In this specific case, I can completely understand someone wanting to discontinue a sexual relationship if they're heterosexual. I could understand it for someone of any sexuality considering sex reassignment surgery doesn't perfectly duplicate the sex organs of either biological sex. If you're just looking for sex, being with anyone with potentially sub-performing genitals is grounds for rejection, regardless of cis or trans status. Some of us might call that shallow, but frankly it's not our business to tell someone they ought to have sex with someone.

Hmmm... the problem I have with this interpretation is that Tom was attracted to Shirley UNTIL she said that she was assigned male gender at birth. All that really changed in the meantime is that Tom found out something about Shirley that she didn't like.

Also about functioning organs, there's no shortage of cis men with erectile disfunction or worse, yet they don't necessarily have the same stigma as trans people of any gender.

Say that Tom is an anti-semite doesn't like Jews. Shirley doesn't "look Jewish" as Tom might say, and Shirley converted to Catholicism a few years back. Would it be any different than say, instead of John revealing that Shirley is trans, John revealed that Shirley was born to parents of the Jewish faith?

Also for having to give consent, I'm mainly of Irish descent. Should I have to go around telling people I'm Irish before having sex, just in case people don't like Irish people? If not, how is this any different?

 

[Quintessence]

Hmmm... the problem I have with this interpretation is that Tom was attracted to Shirley UNTIL she said that she was assigned male gender at birth. All that really changed in the meantime is that Tom found out something about Shirley that she didn't like.

I think it could be more than that, though. Assuming Tom is heterosexual, finding out Shirley is (in his mind) "really a man" is pretty serious, especially in a case where the attraction is superficial. We're not talking about a deep relationship here involving love and trust; we're talking about someone seeking a lover. I think it's possible that if this Tom-Shirly relationship had more depth to it, he might not drop her like a hot potato upon finding out she's transsexual. Relationships, whether it's shallow one night stands or deep, long-term romances are a very personal affair. It's not my place to judge or make dictums on other people's relationship choices. My own relationships on the other hand...

Also about functioning organs, there's no shortage of cis men with erectile disfunction or worse, yet they don't necessarily have the same stigma as trans people of any gender.

That's true. Me being me, I'd prefer to see some survey data or another objective assessment to establish the nature and magnitude of these stigmas for a given population.

Say that Tom is an anti-semite doesn't like Jews. Shirley doesn't "look Jewish" as Tom might say, and Shirley converted to Catholicism a few years back. Would it be any different than say, instead of John revealing that Shirley is trans, John revealed that Shirley was born to parents of the Jewish faith?

Not really. I do see what you're driving at here. It seems you perceive the rejection of someone on the basis of being transsexual as bigoted. And in at least some cases, I'd definitely agree with you. Still, this doesn't negate that sex is a highly personal affair and I don't feel it's my place (or anyone else's) to dictate who one should or shouldn't have sex with. Now, if you're going to take that attitude and bring it into areas of your life where such discrimination is illegal (e.g., employment, housing), I have a huge problem with that.

Also for having to give consent, I'm mainly of Irish descent. Should I have to go around telling people I'm Irish before having sex, just in case people don't like Irish people? If not, how is this any different?

As a general rule, if it's something that would bear relevance to your performance in bed or the act of sex (e.g., erectile dysfunction, STDs, transsexuality, aversion to BDSM, etc.), then it might be a good idea to bring it up. If it isn't - as in this example - it doesn't really matter.

 

[DallasApple]

I think since sex is such a personal act and as someone else mentioned Tom probably believed that he had sex with someone who was "really a man" that his reaction was completely understandable.I think something like that is far more likely to cause a deep "shock" than finding out they are of Irish decent or were born to parents of Jewish consent.

Thinking that he actually had sex with a man could mess with his psyche on a level he may not have an easy time getting over.

Its not really about "right or wrong" .He "felt' violated and deceived period and under the circumstances I sympathize with him.

So no he was not "wrong" to reject her .Its his personal choice and right to not want to have sex with anyone for any reason including a person who was born his same sex (physically).

The only thing I cant say is if she was "obligated" to tell him.That part I guess I would have to say ..if you want to hop in the bed with rank strangers???Maybe that part he's responsible for.I think if they had "dated" yes..that is a HUGE part of her life .Not disclosing that would be along the lines of not disclosing ..I don't know ..that you have a child .Not mentioning it would to me be because you were deliberately trying to hide it.

And by the way as far as getting to know someone .Really who would ever even think to ask "by the way are you transgendered"? So it would be on her to divulge it.JUST in case he might have an issue with it.If he did whether other people might think that is shallow or not isn't the point.Hes not "obligated" to date(or have sex) with her or anyone .

 

[bobhikes]

Personally I think Tom is completely wrong. He was thinking with his hormones. If he was hung up on a biological partner he should of took the time to find out. Shirley is obligated to tell Tom the truth only if asked.

If you have a hang up about a person's religion, nationality, skin color or whatever its your responsibility to insure your bigotry not anyone else. You would be wrong to take advantage of someone and dump them afterwards because of your own bigotry.

That being said Shirley should just write the guy off as a jerk and move on. If Shirley is going to hold Tom responsible Shirley needs to take on some blame and be more selective in who Shirley sleeps with. Shirley obviously did not know enough about Tom before sleeping with him.

 

[DallasApple]

As a general rule, if it's something that would bear relevance to your performance in bed or the act of sex (e.g., erectile dysfunction, STDs, transsexuality, aversion to BDSM, etc.), then it might be a good idea to bring it up. If it isn't - as in this example - it doesn't really matter.

No ...I think as a general rule if you take someone to bed after only knowing them a couple of hours you are taking the risk they may suck in bed ,and may have an STD.I'm trying to imagine meeting someone at a party that there is a mutual attraction and going over 'by the way..I have an aversion to BDSM...Oh really? Heck well I sometimes cant even get it up..Oh that's NOTHING I have herpes AND HIV! ...Well ...I was born physically a male and I had gender reasignment surgery....BEAT that!

 

[Quintessence]

No ...I think as a general rule if you take someone to bed after only knowing them a couple of hours you are taking the risk they may suck in bed ,and may have an STD.I'm trying to imagine meeting someone at a party that there is a mutual attraction and going over 'by the way..I have an aversion to BDSM...Oh really? Heck well I sometimes cant even get it up..Oh that's NOTHING I have herpes AND HIV! ...Well ...I was born physically a male and I had gender reasignment surgery....BEAT that!

*snicker*

Fair enough. You want to play that game, accept the risks that come with it, right?

 

[DallasApple]

[QUOTEShirley is obligated to tell Tom the truth only if asked.][/QUOTE]

But lets be honest.WHO is likely to even think to ask something like that?I honestly doubt most people have even considered if they would have or not have a sexual relationship with a trans gendered person.On top of the fact its pretty rare especially those that have fully transitioned with surgery .That would not be a "question" to even ask a person you think you might want to have sex with or date .

 

[DallasApple]

*snicker*

Fair enough. You want to play that game, accept the risks that come with it, right?

I hate to be mean ..but yeah...If you go home with someone you just met and they say "oh ...no...no whips and chains Im not into that" I would hardly call that "non disclosure" or deception.I do think its sleazy and maybe kind of evil to have unprotected sex with someone knowing you have an STD.But then again if you take no measures to protect your self..HELLO its not "new news" we can catch stuff that way.

 

[Penumbra]

Was Tom wrong to suddenly reject Shirley on the basis that she is transgender?

I don't know if it's "wrong" or not but I would say it's not very logical. He was physically and emotionally attracted to her, so I don't see the big deal.

Should Shirley be obligated to tell Tom her birth gender before consent?

If they're having casual sex I don't see what the big deal is. Her trans status apparently didn't effect his enjoyment of the time they spent together.

If Shirley is looking for a long-term partnership it would be wise to tell him at some point, preferably before she invests a lot of time getting to know him.

There are some thought experiments to think about the ethics:

-If a woman has Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (in other words, she was born a physical woman that nonetheless has XY chromosomes), should she be obliged to tell everyone before dating or sex?

-Like the OP mentioned, if she is Jewish, should she make that fact known just in case Tom is anti-semitic? Would the answer be different if she was in a place where most people are anti-semitic? Or, if she was a woman that has had a large number of sex partners, is she obligated to make this fact known, in case Tom doesn't want to sleep with a woman that has had a lot of sex partners? I guess the point of this question is, there are various things about a person that might turn the person off, even if they're not logical- is it the person's obligation to share details about him or herself in case the other person cares, or is it the person who has a particular hang-up's job to make sure none of his hang-ups are present before proceeding, assuming that there is no direct negative impact on the partner (like being HIV positive, or married, or something)? Does the frequency of the existence of that hang-up matter with regard to the answer?

Is it wrong for cisgender individuals to only prefer other cisgender individuals, to the exclusion of transgender people?

Again I don't know if it's "wrong" but I don't think it's logical. Unless maybe someone is looking for a partner that can reproduce and wouldn't accept dating an infertile man or woman.

Also you could imagine the situation mentioned above in reverse, but I don't think the answer should be different.

If I found out a cute guy was trans it wouldn't make a difference to me.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

No Yes No

Much of society is build on the concept of informed consent, clearly by withholding pertinent information Shirley was infringing on the degree to which Tom could be informed. Given it is a criteria that is commonly considered relevant to such a decision (about intercourse) Shirley should well have been aware that Tom might well have found it to be something that might alter his decision.

A parallel for this within the field of sex is rather difficult to identify, the first that comes to mind is disease but that seems inappropriate... perhaps Shirley was married, this is a relevant factor that might influence Tom's decision and it would be incumbent upon her to notify Tom - so that he didn't later find an angry giant on his doorstep with a baseball bat - at least not without knowing it was a possibility lol.

With preferences, in much the same way as I do not think it is wrong for some individuals to have preferences for tattoos, or red hair, or black skin, or tall ladies, or fat blokes, or amputees etc, I do not believe that it is appropriate that suggest preferences based on birth (and continued) gender is less legitimate. Especially once you recognize a significant portion of the transgender community was wholly one gender at birth (as opposed to those that are born with mixed gender facilities) and that made a choice (that was at least partially based on their preferences) to become another gender (while for those born with mixed gender, a preference was used to determine which gender they might try to fully actualize).

As for the situation in reverse, it would probably be a less relevant factor given the degree to which homophobia is less present within females compared to males. That stated, IMO he should inform her that he was not male at birth. If he were not and she were to react as outlined in the initial scenario after intercourse I would consider it entirely reasonable on her part - not particularly pleasant but entirely reasonable.

 

[Katzpur]

Consider the following situation:

Two people are at a social gathering. One, call her Shirley, is an transgender woman, the other is a straight cis-male, call him Tom. Tom approaches Shirley, believing that she is a cis-female. They flirt and Tom takes Shirley back to his place where they end up in bed together, and eventually consent to intercourse.

Later on, Tom learns through a mutual friend, John, that Shirley is in fact a transgender woman, and was assigned male gender at birth. After that, Tom is angry, and refuses to approach Shirley. He claims he feels "violated" and was was “deceived”, and it was “unethical”, because if he’d known she was trans, he would not have consented to intercourse.

My questions:

1. Was Tom wrong to suddenly reject Shirley on the basis that she is transgender?
2. Should Shirley be obligated to tell Tom her birth gender before consent?
3. Is it wrong for cisgender individuals to only prefer other cisgender individuals, to the exclusion of transgender people?

If you could explain why you answered the way that you did, that would be helpful.

Also you could imagine the situation mentioned above in reverse, but I don't think the answer should be different.

My personal feelings are that if you're going to have sex with someone after knowing him/her for just a couple of hours, you can't afford to be particularly picky about the details.

 

[Koldo]

But lets be honest.WHO is likely to even think to ask something like that?I honestly doubt most people have even considered if they would have or not have a sexual relationship with a trans gendered person.On top of the fact its pretty rare especially those that have fully transitioned with surgery .That would not be a "question" to even ask a person you think you might want to have sex with or date .

That part of his post made laugh for a second.
Asking whether a woman is actually a trans could lead to very weird situations. Many women would probably feel offended with this question. After all, if you had to ask, it means the woman looks like one to some relevant degree.