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

[DallasApple]

Light - Light Yagami death note Photo (25678606) - Fanpop fanclubs

 

[Poeticus]

That baby is TOO CUTE!!
Stop posting him!!!I giggle !!!A lot!

Hehehe. It's one of my favorite photos. It reminds me of the innocence of my early youth. Plus, that bad*** toddler in that photo is smirking like a boss. Muahahaha!

 

[Koldo]

Hehehe. It's one of my favorite photos. It reminds me of the innocence of my early youth. Plus, that bad*** toddler in that photo is smirking like a boss. Muahahaha!

Does he seem innocent to you?!
He looks like an old geezer that happened to find the youth fountain!

 

[Poeticus]

Does he seem innocent to you?!
He looks like an old geezer that happened to find the youth fountain!

Boo hoo! The dude's a G and you kno' it, brah.

 

[Penumbra]

Omission. She allowed him to believe something that wasn't true and a deal breaker.

She had casual sex with someone who was attracted to her.

He believed she was a woman, and she is. I don't think chromosomes entered his mind at all when choosing to have sex with her.

Yes, it is reasonable to assume that a woman has XX chromosomes, when very few don't, even if he is going to throw a fist if he is wrong. These are independent events.

Sorry, but I disagree. It's a mathematically reasonable statement to conclude that a man has XY chromosomes and a woman has XX chromosomes, but it's not always the case, and it has absolutely no impact on their night of sex, so it's an invisible problem in his view and if he is phobic about something like that, I think he ought to inquire about it before hand, to take responsibility of his own emotions.

You didn't get it.
Considering it is strictly your opinion: so what?

So, Tom's the one throwing the temper tantrum and she didn't harm him. It's his issue to work out now, not her ethical fault, imo.

That is clear from your posts.
Why is this relevant to this particular quote?

You said two wrongs don't make right.

I'd agree, except I don't think a wrong was done.

She has sufficient reason to believe many men wouldn't be interested on sleeping with her if they were aware she is a trans woman.

It is rather naive to claim that a trans woman wouldn't be aware of this.

Many, but how many? Most? I don't know. I know most heterosexual men wouldn't want to sleep with someone they perceive to have visibly masculine characteristics, but I have no idea how many men would throw a fit if they sleep with a woman they are attracted to only to later find out about her medical history.

Besides, how emotionally harmed is he? He had sex with a woman he was attracted to, then due to an invisible "problem", throws a fit later.

You didn't answer my question.

I did, with numerous examples. Some omissions can lead to harm, which is unethical, and other omissions have zero impact on the sex, like what her ethnic history is or what her medical history is, when it doesn't affect their night.

The answer depends on what you mean by "harm". If I "harm" a Christian by debating Christianity with her as a non-Christian, am I harming her if she feels bad after we're done? Am I responsible for her feelings, assuming I'm reasonably polite when doing so?

 

[Koldo]

She had casual sex with someone who was attracted to her.

He believed she was a woman, and she is. I don't think chromosomes entered his mind at all when choosing to have sex with her.

He believed she was not a trans.

Sorry, but I disagree. It's a mathematically reasonable statement to conclude that a man has XY chromosomes and a woman has XX chromosomes, but it's not always the case, and it has absolutely no impact on their night of sex, so it's an invisible problem in his view and if he is phobic about something like that, I think he ought to inquire about it before hand, to take responsibility of his own emotions.

Where did that come from?
The reasonable statement in this case is to assume someone is a cisgender woman if she looks like a woman.

Considering it was a deal breaker it is obvious it has relevancy to his one night stand with her.

So, Tom's the one throwing the temper tantrum and she didn't harm him. It's his issue to work out now, not her ethical fault, imo.

Indeed, in your opinion. So?

You said two wrongs don't make right.

I'd agree, except I don't think a wrong was done.

You got lost on the conversation, right?

Many, but how many? Most? I don't know. I know most heterosexual men wouldn't want to sleep with someone they perceive to have visibly masculine characteristics, but I have no idea how many men would throw a fit if they sleep with a woman they are attracted to only to later find out about her medical history.

It is sufficient to say: many.
A relevant enough number.
We could actually make a poll with this kind of question.
Although i doubt it would properly represent our societies.

Besides, how emotionally harmed is he? He had sex with a woman he was attracted to, then due to an invisible "problem", throws a fit later.

This goes way back to my question you didn't answer in my previous posts.

I did, with numerous examples. Some omissions can lead to harm, which is unethical, and other omissions have zero impact on the sex, like what her ethnic history is or what her medical history is, when it doesn't affect their night.

The answer depends on what you mean by "harm". If I "harm" a Christian by debating Christianity with her as a non-Christian, am I harming her if she feels bad after we're done? Am I responsible for her feelings, assuming I'm reasonably polite when doing so?

Perhaps, for some odd reason, you didn't comprehend the question. It has nothing to do with your answers.

I will rephrase it: Do you recognize something to be wrong looking strictly at whether it has caused harm?

I am using the word 'harm' in the same way that you used it in this quote:

All she did was agree to have sex with him. They had an enjoyable time, and there is no physical harm at all. He can play the victim card all he wants, but she didn't harm him.

 

[Penumbra]

He believed she was not a trans.

He didn't ask. She didn't necessarily know what he knew about her.

Maybe they should have played twenty questions before having casual sex with each other.

Where did that come from?
The reasonable statement in this case is to assume someone is a cisgender woman if she looks like a woman.

Considering it was a deal breaker it is obvious it has relevancy to his one night stand with her.

Where it came from is that I'm differentiating between reasonable mathematical assumptions, and reasonable assumptions that a person should make if they have a phobia about something when a simple question can solve it.

Indeed, in your opinion. So?

So what is the counter-point? Your opinion?

You got lost on the conversation, right?

Nope, did you?

It is sufficient to say: many.
A relevant enough number.
We could actually make a poll with this kind of question.
Although i doubt it would properly represent our societies.

This goes way back to my question you didn't answer in my previous posts.

Which question did I not answer?

Perhaps, for some odd reason, you didn't comprehend the question. It has nothing to do with your answers.

What do you mean it has nothing to do with my answers? I answered your question and you said I didn't, so it has everything to do with my answers. I even elaborated to make my answer more specific than your question.

I will rephrase it: Do you recognize something to be wrong looking strictly at whether it has caused harm?

I am using the word 'harm' in the same way that you used it in this quote:

I specifically used "physical harm" in that quote.

I also believe purposely or ignorantly causing someone major emotional harm would be unethical, like if I bullied some kid at school.

But, if my being an atheist "harms" someone who gets all bent out of shape about that, or if Shirley "harms" someone that was attracted to her and gets mad about invisible aspects of her medical history that don't affect him, then I think the responsibility is on the person feeling those emotions rather than being something that I did simply by being an atheist, or she did simply by having a transsexual medical history.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

That is only if we assume most people would have a problem with a transwoman they are attracted to.

That seems a reasonable assumption given the general attitude of men.

 

[Koldo]

He didn't ask. She didn't necessarily know what he knew about her.

Maybe they should have played twenty questions before having casual sex with each other.

He didn't ask indeed.
The point is that she omitted it.

Where it came from is that I'm differentiating between reasonable mathematical assumptions, and reasonable assumptions that a person should make if they have a phobia about something when a simple question can solve it.

First of all, you have to establish he has some sort of phobia.
Second, it is not a matter of whether he should make a particular assumption in that particular instance. But rather whether it is reasonable of him to make it.

So what is the counter-point? Your opinion?

I am sticking to what is written in the OP.
There is absolutely no reason to conclude that Tom is transphobic.

Nope, did you?

You are beginning to lose context in your replies.

Which question did I not answer?

What do you mean it has nothing to do with my answers? I answered your question and you said I didn't, so it has everything to do with my answers. I even elaborated to make my answer more specific than your question.

I specifically used "physical harm" in that quote.

I also believe purposely or ignorantly causing someone major emotional harm would be unethical, like if I bullied some kid at school.

But, if my being an atheist "harms" someone who gets all bent out of shape about that, or if Shirley "harms" someone that was attracted to her and gets mad about invisible aspects of her medical history that don't affect him, then I think the responsibility is on the person feeling those emotions rather than being something that I did simply by being an atheist, or she did simply by having a transsexual medical history.

You still didn't answer my question. And that you firmly believe that you did is the funny part.

I am going to rephrase my question once again: If no harm is caused by a given action, would you conclude that it is not immoral?

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

That seems a reasonable assumption given the general attitude of men.

I think that depends though, I'm from Britian and I don't think we are too bothered down here, a shag is a shag is a shag to British men

 

[Panda]

My questions:


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

I would say no to this because I think when it comes to sexual relationships people should be allowed to reject whoever they want for whatever reason they want.

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

No, I wouldn't say they are obligated to do so but I think it would be beneficial to avoid future harmful outcomes.

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

No. Sexual preference is entirety that, a preference. Different people prefer different things in both looks and personality so I don't really see this as any different.

 

[DallasApple]

NM. Trouble posting.

 

[DallasApple]

Forget it .its stuck on that one..

 

[Poeticus]

Forget it .its stuck on that one..

Hehe. Awww.

 

[Penumbra]

He didn't ask indeed.
The point is that she omitted it.

And he omitted the fact that he has an issue with trans people.

Why is omitting a fact about her medical history that has no actual impact on him, a problem?

First of all, you have to establish he has some sort of phobia.
Second, it is not a matter of whether he should make a particular assumption in that particular instance. But rather whether it is reasonable of him to make it.

I am sticking to what is written in the OP.
There is absolutely no reason to conclude that Tom is transphobic.

I've yet to see any valid reason for why he would be upset over sleeping with someone who he was attracted to, and who did no harm to him, other than a phobia.

You are beginning to lose context in your replies.

Nope.

You still didn't answer my question. And that you firmly believe that you did is the funny part.

I am going to rephrase my question once again: If no harm is caused by a given action, would you conclude that it is not immoral?

I've already answered that, and in more detail than you asked. It depends what you mean by harm. You defined harm as physical harm but I also pointed that that purposely causing emotional harm is unethical too.

I certainly don't think it's immoral if a person does nothing wrong, does not physically harm them in any way, doesn't purposely emotionally harm them, doesn't do anything that should reasonably emotionally harm them, etc. Two people were attracted to each other and slept together, and nobody was married or had an STD or anything like that.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I think that depends though, I'm from Britian and I don't think we are too bothered down here, a shag is a shag is a shag to British men

It's possible, I do not know UK Demographics well enough to comment, though I very much doubt given the level of racism that other marginalised groups would somehow be free of such problems.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

No no no

I pretty much agree with Q

 

[Flankerl]

Penumbra i think you really need to get over the fact that he doesnt have a phobia.

He simply likes women, as in biological real women.


You think that he/she is a real woman. But guess what thats just your opinion. Biologically he/she isnt. Now dont go that road that some biological women cant get children because of defects. They are called defects for a reason.(hint: Its because its not supposed to be that way)



Our guy in question is just the regular guy. He probably thinks that over 95% of all women he sees everyday are real biological women. So why should he/she differ?


Was he sexually attracted to him/her? Who knows. There are those stories that some heterosexual men land in the sack with homosexual men and later regret it.
They arent homophibic. It probably simply happened in a certain moment under a certain condition. Such is life. Like in the story of this thread.



If this happens often to him/her then he/she should probably be more open about his/her history. You cant expect every guy on this planet to ask his potential date if he or she is a biological woman. Thats just crazy.

 

[Koldo]

And he omitted the fact that he has an issue with trans people.

Why is omitting a fact about her medical history that has no actual impact on him, a problem?

The OP doesn't state he has an issue with trans people.

It has an impact on him. Because he wouldn't have had sex with her if he knew it.

I've yet to see any valid reason for why he would be upset over sleeping with someone who he was attracted to, and who did no harm to him, other than a phobia.

I already stated one.
He felt being mislead.

I've already answered that, and in more detail than you asked. It depends what you mean by harm. You defined harm as physical harm but I also pointed that that purposely causing emotional harm is unethical too.

I certainly don't think it's immoral if a person does nothing wrong, does not physically harm them in any way, doesn't purposely emotionally harm them, doesn't do anything that should reasonably emotionally harm them, etc. Two people were attracted to each other and slept together, and nobody was married or had an STD or anything like that.

Something is only immoral if it is wrong. That much is obvious.

If someone were to break into your house and sleep on your couch, has he done anything wrong? Would your answer change depending on whether you were aware of him doing it?

 

[Breathe]

If this happens often to him/her then he/she should probably be more open about his/her history. You cant expect every guy on this planet to ask his potential date if he or she is a biological woman. Thats just crazy.

Not to mention that would probably be quite insulting to a large chunk of women out there.

Imagine just before, er, that, and your partner says, "Now, I just want to make sure: you WERE born female, right?"


I have this crazy, outlandish belief that someone who isn't attracted to men isn't necessarily homophobic, someone who isn't attracted to transgender folk isn't necessarily transphobic, someone who isn't attracted to black, White, Latino, or Arabic people isn't necessarily racist.