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

[MysticSang'ha]

What does this have to do with what you said on that quote?

I'm saying that I think it's ridiculous to expect Shirley to have a bigger obligation than Tom simply because she is transgendered. They both are having a good time, but the conversation has been focused on how legitimate are Tom's feelings, to which I think his feelings are not Shirley's problem, not her responsibility, not her burden.

That's why I asked you to clarify what responsibility does Tom have toward his experience? I ask because I keep getting the picture that Shirley bears more responsibility simply because she is transgendered.

 

[dawny0826]

I'm saying Tom is angry for a fairly understandable reason: he felt deceived because this was not mentioned. If given the foreknowledge, he may or may not have continued, but he probably feels his pride was shot, especially from finding out from a friend. Perhaps he now feels as though he has slept with a man.?

Hi Breathe.

I hope that it's okay that I'm jumping into your conversation with others. I really like the fact that you're thinking of Tom and his feelings. I think that Tom's feelings are important too. Tom isn't a terrible person for feeling this way. Much has been hammered into his brain after years of programming and exposure to stereotypes and then he has his own expectations of relationships which are important to him.

But, what's important to keep in mind here, are the following key points, in context to the original scenario provided regarding Shirley and Tom:

- Tom and Shirley just met.
- This was their first sexual encounter.
- Shirley physically presents as a woman and I would imagine this includes sexual reassignment surgery. Otherwise, why would a man like Tom sleep with her in the first place?

So, if you place what we know from the OP into context you have a man and a woman having a casual sexual encounter. What might happen in their relationship is yet to be seen.

What responsibilities do we have to someone that we meet for the first time and are having a sexual encounter with?

Shirley and Tom might want to let each other know if they may put each other at risk for disease, but, otherwise, do people who feel comfortable having sex upon their first encounter typically share everything about themselves before getting physical? Probably not.

Shirley may not be a person to discuss that part of her past with a partner unless she's in a committed relationship, which is understandable too. Shirley may feel comfortable with Tom, assuming that he's an accepting person and that she doesn't need to reveal such things about herself, especially not during the first encounter. They may never see each other again, afterall.

Maybe it's not a big deal to you, and maybe it's not even a big deal to me, but it may be to Tom.

Whether you or I agree with Tom is irrelevant.

I agree with you.

But that is your opinion. Toms may not be the case.
Tom may consider her to still be male. Even if you say "no, she isn't", that still may not be Tom's view.

But, this is where Tom has to get a little real, Breathe. She is a woman, regardless as to how Tom may view her. And Tom viewed her has a woman until someone else told him about her past, not the present - the past, which does not have a direct impact on their casual sexual encounter. Unless she is placing him in physical danger of something, she's not obligated to share her past.

Your views are not necessarily Tom's, and you or I have no right to impose our own sexual norms or preferences on someone else.

You're seeing it as an issue about transfolk, I'm seeing it as an issue of lack of choice through deception by omission that could have easily been avoided and potentially saved both individuals a lot of embarrassment.

This is a woman who has fully transitioned. She is not a man.

If Tom has issue with his embarassment, he should probably question why he slept with someone that he hardly knew, anyway. There are always risks involved with casual sex encounters, particularly, when you don't fully know the person that you're sleeping with.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I would not call refusing to approach her...especially considering he is not obligated to "throwing a childish tantrum".It might have been the best/most responsible thing to do considering how he felt about it .

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.

Sounds like a childish tantrum to me. Instead of taking responsibility for his actions, he becomes angry, points the finger, and his refusal to approach Shirley in all reality is likely to make things much worse than improve them.
There is nothing wrong with having preferences and rather not sleeping with certain types of people. But what is wrong is when you take a gamble and instead of accepting what happened you blame and take it out on the person who really has no obligation to be concerned if things didn't work out to your liking.

 

[Koldo]

Why is she obligated to mention something that wouldn't affect the experience either way? It's like saying, "Well, this won't make any difference whatsoever, but just in case it may offend you to have this one-night stand with me..."

It would make a difference in the experience. It wouldn't have happened, or do you think otherwise?

I don't think it's reasonable to expect to have that much entitlement in a one-night stand where practically no other details are discussed between the two people who have sex with each other.

I have already explained why this detail should be mentioned.

Yes: His reaction is unacceptable because it inherently implies she was wrong not to tell him, which I don't think she was. Saying that she had an obligation to do so reeks of self-entitlement from Tom.

You really have to make up your mind and take a stand somewhere.
Why wasn't it wrong of her to omit she was a trans woman?

Sure, so long as he doesn't blame others or throw a tantrum at them because his criteria weren't met.

Actually, it wasn't just because they were not met.
It is because he felt mislead.

 

[Breathe]

I hope that it's okay that I'm jumping into your conversation with others. I really like the fact that you're thinking of Tom and his feelings. I think that Tom's feelings are important too. Tom isn't a terrible person for feeling this way. Much has been hammered into his brain after years of programming and exposure to stereotypes and then he has his own expectations of relationships which are important to him.

But, what's important to keep in mind here, are the following key points, in context to the original scenario provided regarding Shirley and Tom:

- Tom and Shirley just met.
- This was their first sexual encounter.
- Shirley physically presents as a woman and I would imagine this includes sexual reassignment surgery. Otherwise, why would a man like Tom sleep with her in the first place?

Hi dawny, I understand all this. For the record, I don't disagree.

What responsibilities do we have to someone that we meet for the first time and are having a sexual encounter with?

I wouldn't personally know, since I wouldn't have a one-night-stand, but the idea of telling someone something which may come back and bite you in the backside seems like a good idea.

But, this is where Tom has to get a little real, Breathe. She is a woman, regardless as to how Tom may view her. And Tom viewed her has a woman until someone else told him about her past, not the present - the past, which does not have a direct impact on their casual sexual encounter. Unless she is placing him in physical danger of something, she's not obligated to share her past.

This is a woman who has fully transitioned. She is not a man.

But this is the the thing, dawny: maybe Tom doesn't see her as a 'true' woman because she used to be a man, or so sees her as different from a 'cis' woman.

We don't agree with him.
But that's his view. Of course he's going to be angry.

If Tom has issue with his embarassment, he should probably question why he slept with someone that he hardly knew, anyway. There are always risks involved with casual sex encounters, particularly, when you don't fully know the person that you're sleeping with.

I understand, but I have this crazy belief you should let someone know something which may come back and bite you on the ***.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Not once given my opinion on transfolk throughout the whole discussion.

That's why I ask. Because it looked pretty harsh against Shirley and much more understanding of Tom's hostility.

See above.


See above.

Hey look, Breathe, I'm asking for clarification. Because you are presenting some arguments here that I disagree with, and I need to be sure I'm disagreeing and we're not just talking past each other.

I'm saying Tom is angry for a fairly understandable reason: he felt deceived because this was not mentioned. If given the foreknowledge, he may or may not have continued, but he probably feels his pride was shot, especially from finding out from a friend. Perhaps he now feels as though he has slept with a man.

Yet, I think Tom is reacting in such a manner because his position is one of ignorance and bigotry. Not of a simple preference. It's like trying to understand somebody who is really really really upset because their favorite peanut butter was gone AND they felt attacked by the store that usually stocks the peanut butter. It's an irrational position, the store is not in the wrong, and that person is not seeing things rationally or in a healthy manner. I find Tom's position to be just as antagonistic.

(And I mentioned nothing about Shirley being in the wrong.)

Maybe it's not a big deal to you, and maybe it's not even a big deal to me, but it may be to Tom.

To which I keep wondering why it's so important that we give that much weight to Tom's position. It's irrational. He may have felt like he slept with a man, but he didn't.

Whether you or I agree with Tom is irrelevant.


But that is your opinion. Toms may not be the case.
Tom may consider her to still be male. Even if you say "no, she isn't", that still may not be Tom's view.

Again, I ask why if the science and the understanding of transgendered people is important, that you are insisting we continue to understand Tom's POV?

Your views are not necessarily Tom's, and you or I have no right to impose our own sexual norms or preferences on someone else.

You're seeing it as an issue about transfolk, I'm seeing it as an issue of lack of choice through deception by omission that could have easily been avoided and potentially saved both individuals a lot of embarrassment.

So, then, do you empathize with Tom? You bring up deception on the part of Shirley, but you mentioned before that you never said she's in the wrong....so what is it? Shirley never deceived anybody. She had a great night. So did Tom. Now Tom is really freaked out and I'm getting the picture that Tom's justified because Shirley didn't disclose on a one night stand that she used to be assigned male.

If you are seeing it as an issue of lack of choice through deception by omission, then how are you not attributing responsibility on Shirley for Tom's freak out? Or are you?

Oh, and as an added side-note about the veiled attacks on me being a transphobe, I'm not. My best friend growing up's sister is a transwoman and I grew up around her both before AND after her life from male to female. (For additional reference, this is in addition his homosexual brother and mixed-race niece and nephew.)

As you're mentioning names, so will I: if you remember Gaura Priya who was a member here, I actually encouraged her to resume going for her life as a woman.

I remember her, and I'm glad you support her, but she's not part of the discussion here. Plus this is a specific situation that shows that some people are supportive of transgendered people as long as they don't have to sleep with one because the OMG WHAT THE HELL DID THAT PERSON MAKE ME DO NOOOOO!!!!!

Shadow Wolf is actively debating and is a part of the discussion. I felt her involvement was relevant since she has been doing what she can to talk from a trans point of view.

So let's cut out the malicious attitude about me being some kind of transphobic bigot, shall we? Or am I just wasting my time on RF?

Please. Let's not blow this out of proportion. I called Tom a bigot. I never called you that. I'm asking if you do agree with Tom and you're taking that as an attack that I'm calling you a transphobic bigot. If you have a guilty conscience and are projecting because you don't want to be seen that way, that you don't want to look like the bad guy, but you really really think Tom is totally justified in his anger, that isn't my problem. But you still have not clarified what your position is.

Plus, we're in a debate. This is not wasting time. At least not for me. So if you think I'm bringing in a malicious attitude, you haven't been paying attention enough to what I actually do here at RF. I think you're way way off the mark on that one, Breathe. So let's get back to the topic and clarify your position. I clarified mine.

Was Tom in the wrong for his reaction? Is he transphobic because of his reaction? Do you call freaking out a simple manner of preference? Does Shirley bear more responsibility than Tom due to the fact that she's trans-female? Should she assume that people are not going to want to have sex with her, and act accordingly?

 

[Koldo]

I'm saying that I think it's ridiculous to expect Shirley to have a bigger obligation than Tom simply because she is transgendered. They both are having a good time, but the conversation has been focused on how legitimate are Tom's feelings, to which I think his feelings are not Shirley's problem, not her responsibility, not her burden.

That's why I asked you to clarify what responsibility does Tom have toward his experience? I ask because I keep getting the picture that Shirley bears more responsibility simply because she is transgendered.

That is not what you said on that quote.
Read it again and then we will talk about it.

A distinction must be made between the general argument/opinion and the specifics. I intentionally singled out a specific that can stand on itself.

You said that it is being suggested that:

1) Shirley did something wrong for being who she is.
2) Shirley did something wrong for engaging in the same activity as Tom.

 

[DallasApple]

And Tom viewed her has a woman until someone else told him about her past, not the present - the past, which does not have a direct impact on their casual sexual encounter.

In my view the knowledge after the fact affected him psychologically.Its not a great analogy but if I for example had a one night stand that I was for various reasons(that were fairly logical) assuming he was single even though I never flat out asked.And I found out after the fact he was married(lets say had an open marriage) it wouldn't directly affect that we had physically enjoyable sex(assuming that's the case) at the time we did but it would mess with my head knowing I had slept with a married man after.

I wouldn't say that it was 'his fault" ..But if that was against my principles I might still be upset about it..wondered why he left out what I considered an important detail.And the experience(the one night stand) with him would be surrounded in negativity in MEMORY.The fact the we enjoyed the sex at the time we had it would be of no comfort to me.And if I chose to not approach him ..I would not call that a "temper tantrum".

BUT I would also be kicking MY self in the butt and swear off of one night stands.I would not be so trusting anymore.

I also think it would be harsh and insensitive for anyone that called me friend..to dismiss my feelings and say SOOOO>>>>>How is that HIS FAULT! YOU knew the risk!You had a one night stand! Hes not responsible for your feelings! That important you should of ASKED!Whats your problem with open marriages anyway!Are you a close minded bigot!

I think there needs to be a "balance".

 

[MysticSang'ha]

That is not what you said on that quote.
Read it again and then we will talk about it.

A distinction must be made between the general argument/opinion and the specifics. I intentionally singled out a specific that can stand on itself.

You said that it is being suggested that:

1) Shirley did something wrong for being who she is.
2) Shirley did something wrong for engaging in the same activity as Tom.

Yes, I am saying that. Do you suggest otherwise?

So far, I've read words like deception, lying, naivete, misled, on the part of Shirley, and words like understandable, justified, and Tom's anger makes sense on the part of Tom....so I don't think it's much of a stretch to I think that there are accusations of wrong-doing on the part of Shirley and that she's culpable in Tom's distress.

But you know, if that's not the case, then I think I'm being misled here. I think I'm being deceived. Maybe I should throw a childish tantrum and try to get people to feel sorry for me for being misled and deceived in a debate at RF.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, I am saying that. Do you suggest otherwise?

So far, I've read words like deception, lying, naivete, misled, on the part of Shirley, and words like understandable, justified, and Tom's anger makes sense on the part of Tom....so I don't think it's much of a stretch to I think that there are accusations of wrong-doing on the part of Shirley and that she's culpable in Tom's distress.

But you know, if that's not the case, then I think I'm being misled here. I think I'm being deceived. Maybe I should throw a childish tantrum and try to get people to feel sorry for me for being misled and deceived in a debate at RF.

It isn't a stretch to think that, however that has nothing to do with those two statements in the post you made back then. This is a third one.

 

[DallasApple]

So far, I've read words like deception, lying, naivete, misled, on the part of Shirley, and words like understandable, justified, and Tom's anger makes sense on the part of Tom....so I don't think it's much of a stretch to I think that there are accusations of wrong-doing on the part of Shirley and that she's culpable in Tom's distress.

Lets be fair girlfriend. So far you also must have read words by quite a few such as ..bigot ,transphobe,childish ,immature ,irresponsible etc.. on Tom's part.

 

[dawny0826]

I wouldn't personally know, since I wouldn't have a one-night-stand, but the idea of telling someone something which may come back and bite you in the backside seems like a good idea.

Why should Shirley assume that this would come back to haunt her? How do we not know that Shirley wouldn't have talked about his part of her life, had the two had additional encounters?

His friends didn't provide Shirley the opportunity to speak for herself. They jumped in and talked to Tom.

What if Tom spent a considerable amount of time in prison but got his life together? What if it was something that he was incredibly sensitive about? Let's say he had been incarcerated for something awful in his past. Not really something that he feels comfortable discussing upon his first encounter with a hot lady. That's something that he might bring up later.

Sterility isnt a comfortable topic and if someone knows about this going into a relationship, it could be very awkward bringing it up. It needs to come up eventually, if you're in a relationship where having children is important to one or both partners, but, is this something you need to talk about upon the first encounter? Probably not.

But this is the the thing, dawny: maybe Tom doesn't see her as a 'true' woman, or sees her as different from a ciswoman.

I totally understand this. We can't fault Tom for his feelings and views and according to the second scnenario presented, Tom and Shirley did okay in a platonic capacity.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

In my view the knowledge after the fact affected him psychologically.Its not a great analogy but if I for example had a one night stand that I was for various reasons(that were fairly logical) assuming he was single even though I never flat out asked.And I found out after the fact he was married(lets say had an open marriage) it wouldn't directly affect that we had physically enjoyable sex(assuming that's the case) at the time we did but it would mess with my head knowing I had slept with a married man after.

I wouldn't say that it was 'his fault" ..But if that was against my principles I might still be upset about it..wondered why he left out what I considered an important detail.And the experience(the one night stand) with him would be surrounded in negativity in MEMORY.The fact the we enjoyed the sex at the time we had it would be of no comfort to me.And if I chose to not approach him ..I would not call that a "temper tantrum".

BUT I would also be kicking MY self in the butt and swear off of one night stands.I would not be so trusting anymore.

I also think it would be harsh and insensitive for anyone that called me friend..to dismiss my feelings and say SOOOO>>>>>How is that HIS FAULT! YOU knew the risk!You had a one night stand! Hes not responsible for your feelings! That important you should of ASKED!Whats your problem with open marriages anyway!Are you a close minded bigot!

I think there needs to be a "balance".

It's balanced when we hear enough people considering Shirley's feelings as much as Tom's. So far, it's horribly one-sided toward how Tom's feelings are realized. I keep saying that if it's that important to not sleep with a transgendered person, then it's up to the person to make sure they don't. That isn't dismissing feelings. It's placing them in the responsibility where they belong.

So, I don't dismiss feelings, but I do call them as I see it. There's nothing wrong with suggesting that one feels a certain way due to ignorance and a culturally conditioned bigotry. We live in a system that marginalizes and discriminates against trans-folk, so it's understandable to mark those feelings down as being a part of a sick culture. However, we can grow and learn from such conditioning. Such forces are powerful, and many times we don't know how we continue to perpetuate the perspective that trans-folk aren't people like the rest of us, but they ought to have the same freedoms that cis-folk do.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It would make a difference in the experience. It wouldn't have happened, or do you think otherwise?

I think that normally, it makes sense for Shirley not to assume that Tom could be so alienated by her being a transgender as to refuse to have sex with her altogether if that fact isn't noticeable. This is particularly true in a one-night stand, where there's an implication that neither partner cares much about the other's history, medical or otherwise.

You really have to make up your mind and take a stand somewhere.
Why wasn't it wrong of her to omit she was a trans woman?

I think "omit" is a loaded word to use here, but see above.

Actually, it wasn't just because they were not met.
It is because he felt mislead.

Too bad for him, then, because his feeling that he was mislead doesn't mean he actually was.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Lets be fair girlfriend. So far you also must have read words by quite a few such as ..bigot ,transphobe,childish ,immature ,irresponsible etc.. on Tom's part.

Of course. Such is the nature of the debate.

But now what? How do people get along in a society? I prefer equality and freedom for all people. And I don't think Tom's position is going to get us there anytime soon.

 

[Penumbra]

So personality and/or appearance are the only valid source of preferences?

There are many men i recognise as being extremely attractive, but I have no desire to enter into a homosexual relationship.

I think there is a difference between aesthetic appreciation of someone's appearance, and being attracted to someone's appearance.

There are many married women I recognise as being extremely wonderful people, but I have no desire to enter into a adulterous relationship. Or an incestuous one, or...

And that's because there are real consequences for adultery and incest, rather than imaginary consequences.

Ideological criteria are every bit as valid as whether or not I like the shape of a girl's rear. And one can easily and coherently point to such issues (rather than with many personality issues such as 'chemistry') and explain them in a principled and reasoned manner; I would want to know if my potential partner were transgendered, it would have a not insignificant impact on my decision of whether or not to have sex with them as I do not desire to enter into what borders (it isnt really) on a homosexual relationship, I would potentially like to have biological children, identification of whether or not they were legally classified as a woman (and thus issues such as potential for marriage etc) and so forth.

But when you're having casual intercourse with a woman, would you ask about her level of fertility? Should a non-trans woman tell you that she is not fertile, before having intercourse with you?

I might still enter into the relationship, but it is a relevant factor for consideration and indeed were I to decide that the benefits of the proposed relationship were insufficient to offset the detriments (opportunity costs for example) then I would not feel it warranted for such an ideological criteria to be deemed bigotry.

This thread isn't about a relationship; it's about casual intercourse.

 

[dawny0826]

In my view the knowledge after the fact affected him psychologically.Its not a great analogy but if I for example had a one night stand that I was for various reasons(that were fairly logical) assuming he was single even though I never flat out asked.And I found out after the fact he was married(lets say had an open marriage) it wouldn't directly affect that we had physically enjoyable sex(assuming that's the case) at the time we did but it would mess with my head knowing I had slept with a married man after.

I wouldn't say that it was 'his fault" ..But if that was against my principles I might still be upset about it..wondered why he left out what I considered an important detail.And the experience(the one night stand) with him would be surrounded in negativity in MEMORY.The fact the we enjoyed the sex at the time we had it would be of no comfort to me.And if I chose to not approach him ..I would not call that a "temper tantrum".

BUT I would also be kicking MY self in the butt and swear off of one night stands.I would not be so trusting anymore.

I also think it would be harsh and insensitive for anyone that called me friend..to dismiss my feelings and say SOOOO>>>>>How is that HIS FAULT! YOU knew the risk!You had a one night stand! Hes not responsible for your feelings! That important you should of ASKED!Whats your problem with open marriages anyway!Are you a close minded bigot!

I think there needs to be a "balance".

I agree. I think that caution is in order when approaching casual encounters such as this. It was their choice to sleep together without knowing more about the other.

As Tom obligated Shirley to express this part of herself, Tom also could have asked this about his sexual partner, if it's something that bothers him, so.

 

[DallasApple]

It's balanced when we hear enough people considering Shirley's feelings as much as Tom's. So far, it's horribly one-sided toward how Tom's feelings are realized.

I think that's because the OP did not offer what her feelings were and ask if she was right or wrong to feel how she felt.The Op was ABOUT Toms feelings.

There was no elaboration or even questions ASKED about Shirley.The OP was directing people to discuss(debate) Tom's feelings and reactions.I don't think its a surprise then many tried to answer from that angle.

 

[DallasApple]

Of course. Such is the nature of the debate.

But now what? How do people get along in a society? I prefer equality and freedom for all people. And I don't think Tom's position is going to get us there anytime soon.

Unfortunately? Baby steps.It can't be forcibly crammed down throats.Or shouted into people.Look at the progress (and how long it took) just for regular ole gays and lesbians to gain some respect and some legal rights.Yeah that sucks..Wish we could skip over (fold time) and all be arrived..But the reality is (as history shows) its not realistic.And transexuals IMHO are even harder to understand.For your average person to grasp.+ there just aren't as many .

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I think that's because the OP did not offer what her feelings were and ask if she was right or wrong to feel how she felt.The Op was ABOUT Toms feelings.

There was no elaboration or even questions ASKED about Shirley.The OP was directing people to discuss(debate) Tom's feelings and reactions.I don't think its a surprise then many tried to answer from that angle.

Exactly....I'm thinking you're not seeing the obvious here. Shirley's part in the OP is that she's a prop for Tom's feelings, she's not even being considered as part of the equation. You want "balance", you say? It's not even there in the first place.