I have argued that if it is that important to Tom that he does not have sex with a transgendered person, he should take measures to ensure that he does not. It is unreasonable to expect Shirley to take responsibility for Tom's reaction when he was told by friends of Shirley's transgendered status. He had no idea leading up to, during, or after the act.
I never said she is responsible for his reaction - for example if he became violent. She is however indeed responsible for limiting his capacity to give informed consent and it was reasonable for her to expect that a potential partner might find her status as being of import to their decision, likewise it is reasonable for her to realise that he had little reason to suspect her status given the care she has taken to conceal it.
His overreaction is an indicator of a phobia. The expectation that Shirley takes responsibility for his phobia is why I submit his position is also rooted in bigotry. If Shirley overreacted to something similar, I'd be putting her on the spot, too.
This goes far beyond preference based on the OP, in my opinion.
'Over' reaction is the heart of this, exactly what part of his reaction do you consider the 'over' part?
He was deceived in no small part by his own perceptions, but also significantly due to the great efforts she has taken in order to reinvent herself, to disguise what she had once been and to become something else. However, this aspect was of importance to him and apparently a significant sexual preference. Thus by going to great efforts to conceal this, she has directly acted to impede his ability to establish informed consent. This perceived injury is then exacerbated by the reasonable expectation that he had that she was a cis-female (given the low proportion of transgendered individuals) and her withholding contrary information despite the reasonable recognition that the information was important (given the not insignificant portion of people who hold such views). Thus it is therefore reasonable for him to feel her actions are immoral or to feel anger that he was not given the opportunity to make an informed decision.
We are not told the reasons why he refuses to approach her, it could be out of anger, it could be confusion or disgust, we just do not know. You seem to have assumed the later.
I do however notice you missed my question about Bob, who likes transgendered women. Let's say Bob meets Shirely, he is impressed by her personality and appearance but he wants nothing to do with her - until he finds out she used to be male. Is Bob's preference for transgendered partners as bigoted as Tom's for cis-females?
Then how is it her responsibility?
She like I, has the responsibility to disclose information that a reasonable person may expect to be relevant to the development of informed consent of a not insignificant number of people.
If it is so important to you, why did not ask about sugar to begin with?
Because it is a reasonable expectation of the goods and services offered by coffee shops - not one I have ever gone to has not provided free sugar, because they know that it is an expectation held by a significant number of those who drink coffee. Thus, since a large number of coffee shops provide this additive it is a reasonable expectation that you can have of coffee shops in general.
edit:
what a fast moving topic! lol good night people!
