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

[MysticSang'ha]

When you say that they "want nothing to do" with trans-females, do you mean in a similar tone as to how Hitler wanted nothing to do with Jews?

No. Tom's reaction. He wanted nothing to do with Shirley on an intimate level when discovering she is post-op trans-female.

It goes beyond preference. His was a visceral reaction that I'm suggesting ought not to be Shirley's problem. It's his problem. His responsibility. She's just being herself.

 

[Penumbra]

Let's say that it is safe to assume that the majority of cis-males in the world prefer cis-women, therefore: should trans-women notify cis-males that they are not cis-women?

No, I don't believe so.

I don't think a person with partial black ancestry has to bring that factor up even if she or he lives in a white racist society. That's their issue, not hers.

I don't think a trans woman has to put a qualifier or disclaimer on her womanhood for other people.

 

[Poeticus]

No. Tom's reaction. He wanted nothing to do with Shirley on an intimate level when discovering she is post-op trans-female.

It goes beyond preference. His was a visceral reaction that I'm suggesting ought not to be Shirley's problem. It's his problem. His responsibility. She's just being herself.

Oh - okay, thanks for the clarification! Do you think it's okay if cis-males want nothing to do with trans-females on a sexual level?

I don't think a person with partial black ancestry has to bring that factor up even if she or he lives in a white racist society. That's their issue, not hers.

Is it appropriate to bring in race or ethnicity as a metaphor for this situation?

 

[DallasApple]

I don't think a person with partial black ancestry has to bring that factor up even if she or he lives in a white racist society. That's their issue, not hers.

I agree.I don't think anyone 'has to" disclose anything.Having said that I would find it odd that a person with black ancestry would keep that a secret in order to secure a relationship with a racist.

 

[Penumbra]

To those that are using the term cis in scare quotes, or saying that using the term makes them feel dirty or that they detest the term, here is a quick note.

Cis and Trans are both Latin prefixes. Trans means "across, beyond, or to the opposite side". Cis means "on the same side as".

The prefix trans has applications in words like transfer, transition, transcendence, and therefore became used for transgender or transsexual people, because they go across, beyond, or to the opposite side of, aspects of their body or gender. Like having a gender identity that is on the opposite side of their physical sex, at first, and then transitioning the body. For some people that do not have a clear sex, or have a gender identity that is neither male nor female, they may use the "beyond" meaning of the prefix, like in the word transcendence, to mean that the dichotomy of gender or sex is not relevant to their identity or sex.

Cis as fewer applications, but is used in some places like chemistry. Some people began using the prefix to describe non-trans people, seeing as how it's the opposite Latin prefix. To be cissexual, cisgender, cis-female, or cis, means that one's gender and sex are on the same side as each other.

It's not really a word I use, and didn't use it until page 21 of this thread in response to someone else using it, primarily because a) trans issues rarely come up in conversation anyway, and b) most people won't know the term. But linguistically, there's nothing wrong with the term itself.

So don't worry, it's not going to make you dirty for using the word if you choose to. I promise.


Similarly, the words homo and hetero are prefixes derived from Greek. Homo means "the same", and hetero means "different" or "other". So we can use the prefixes to describe homogeneous or heterogeneous mixtures, and can use the prefixes to describe sexual orientation as homosexual or heterosexual.

Now, I could freak out and say I don't want to be called heterosexual or cissexual, and rather should just be called "normal". Or I can maintain the use of "heterosexual" in quotes but not homosexual, or "cissexual" in quotes but not transsexual, implying one word is more valid than the other. Because, I could argue those homosexual people and cissexual people have to be the ones with the descriptions, not me. But of course I'm not going to do that, because there only reason I can think to do so would be to try to set myself above or better than minorities of sexual orientation or gender identity, when the human condition has multiple variances of things.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I agree.I don't think anyone 'has to" disclose anything.Having said that I would find it odd that a person with black ancestry would keep that a secret in order to secure a relationship with a racist.

Have you watched imitation of life?

Anyway Shirley did not know he was transphobic, they just had sex that is it.

 

[Koldo]

What else would you call such a disproportionate reaction about invisible information like that? I've yet to see someone establish a rational reason for such revulsion.

It is right on the OP. He felt mislead.

That doesn't answer my question.

I was very clear about my question:

"Not just wise for her safety, or wise for other reasons, but to the point where she'd be ethically in the wrong if she doesn't actively disclose her ancestry to a casual sex partner in a racist society, because he might feel violated and deceived if she doesn't."

I specifically want to see if you'll say she was ethically in the wrong, for not disclosing partial black ancestry to a white man in a white racist society.

Yes, she would be ethically in the wrong.
This doesn't mean she should disclose her ethinic status if she felt her life was threatened though.

But it's not working because your example compared to the OP's example is the difference between rational fear and irrational fear.

Coming home and finding an unexpected intruder there is a rational fear, because people can die from it. Finding out you had sex with someone who's medical history or chromosome status was not what you expected, but that you were attracted to and caused no harm to you by being herself, is not comparable to breaking into someone's house.

But he did not deliberately cause you rational fear, which is what, according to you, would count as harm. He caused no harm.

 

[Breathe]

Well, the difference is that one female is cis and one female is trans. That's a pretty big distinction, correct?

It depends who you ask. For many, I'd say yeah, it's a very big distinction.

And seeing them attempt to describe that distinction is entertaining. [...]

I don't think they are; I feel like it's comparing apples and origins.

And the chromosomes impact their night how?

Because Tom may feel like he slept with a member of the same sex.

Even if you don't see a distinction yourself or think that it's a big deal, that doesn't mean some people feel the same. It's no different from imposing your own sexual standards upon others.

 

[Poeticus]

It depends who you ask. For many, I'd say yeah, it's a very big distinction.

I think it's a very big distinction also. Is it wrong if someone prefers cis-female? It's not a crime or against the law, correct?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I'm curious to how Tom should have had inquire whether or not Shirely was a trans-woman?

 

[Penumbra]

Yes, she would be ethically in the wrong.
This doesn't mean she should disclose her ethinic status if she felt her life was threatened though.

Koldo, if you think that a woman with partial black ancestry would be ethically in the wrong for not bringing up the topic and disclosing her ancestry prior to casual sex in a white racist society, due to the possibility of a white man feeling violated and deceived, then I think we're on two totally different wavelengths for what constitutes proper ethics.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Oh - okay, thanks for the clarification! Do you think it's okay if cis-males want nothing to do with trans-females on a sexual level?

Sure. Why not? But it's not her responsibility to cater to his sensitivities. He had sex with a trans-female. If it was that big of a deal to completely avoid someone like her, then it's his responsibility to ensure that never happens for him.

It's not her responsibility to read his mind and say, "Oh, btw, since I understand hardly anybody wants to sleep with somebody like me, you need to know that I'm transgendered. I understand if you want nothing to do with me now."

Heaven forbid, that isn't compassionate toward Tom. That's an extreme self-loathing on her part. And yet, this is what it looks like folks here are suggesting. She should assume that nobody wants anything to do with her, and should act accordingly and call it "empathy" or "compassion" towards Tom.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think Tom should have warned Shirley beforehand that he's a bigot so she could have avoided sleeping with him.

 

[Penumbra]

Because Tom may feel like he slept with a member of the same sex.

And why would that be a big deal? Rational fear is response to rational danger, irrational fear is in response to nonexistent danger, or is disproportionate to actual danger.

It's okay not to be attracted to the same sex- people often just aren't attracted to their own sex. But it's a different thing entirely to be attracted to someone, and then later feel violated due a perception of them being the same sex. Because at that point, it's no longer about physical attraction, attraction to personality, or anything like that, but rather it's about revulsion from a concept.

Even if you don't see a distinction yourself or think that it's a big deal, that doesn't mean some people feel the same. It's no different from imposing your own sexual standards upon others.

I'll ask the same question to you that I asked to Koldo.

If, in a time or place that where it's common for white people to be racist, would she be ethically in the wrong, if a woman with partially black ancestry did not volunteer and disclose her ancestral history prior to having casual sex with a white man, due to the possibility of him feeling violated or deceived?

 

[Penumbra]

I'm curious to how Tom should have had inquire whether or not Shirely was a trans-woman?

He could ask.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Koldo, if you think that a woman with partial black ancestry would be ethically in the wrong for not bringing up the topic and disclosing her ancestry prior to casual sex in a white racist society, due to the possibility of a white man feeling violated and deceived, then I think we're on two totally different wavelengths for what constitutes proper ethics.

Sunstone had quoted this before, but I think it's most appropriate here:

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

If transphobia exists in society, should we not learn from our past mistakes and become more welcoming to transgendered people and not continue the same mistakes of wishing they wouldn't exist in our lives?

 

[Koldo]

Koldo, if you think that a woman with partial black ancestry would be ethically in the wrong for not bringing up the topic and disclosing her ancestry prior to casual sex in a white racist society, due to the possibility of a white man feeling violated and deceived, then I think we're on two totally different wavelengths for what constitutes proper ethics.

It just might be the case.

 

[Koldo]

If transphobia exists in society, should we not learn from our past mistakes and become more welcoming to transgendered people and not continue the same mistakes of wishing they wouldn't exist in our lives?

I agree completely.

 

[Penumbra]

Sunstone had quoted this before, but I think it's most appropriate here:

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

If transphobia exists in society, should we not learn from our past mistakes and become more welcoming to transgendered people and not continue the same mistakes of wishing they wouldn't exist in our lives?

I would hope so.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I think Tom should have warned Shirley beforehand that he's a bigot so she could have avoided sleeping with him.

I think so too. Instead of the question being about placing oneself in Tom's position, we should be asking if we would want to know if a potential partner is an ignorant bigot first.

One night stand? Heck, I've been there and discovered I'd slept with people who later turned out to be somebody I wouldn't have liked much. But OMG THE HORROR I FEEL SO VIOLATED never crossed my mind.