A transgendered person is mentioned in /r/okcupid. It goes exactly as you'd expect. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
65 ups - 35 downs = 30 votes
117 comments submitted at 00:49:01 on Apr 21, 2014 by ChefExcellence
A transgendered person is mentioned in /r/okcupid. It goes exactly as you'd expect. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
65 ups - 35 downs = 30 votes
117 comments submitted at 00:49:01 on Apr 21, 2014 by ChefExcellence
Y'know, given the incredibly high levels of murder and violence [SEE EDIT], not to mention the lesser forms of discrimination and harassment, that bigots inflict on the trans community, I don't see why anyone should be offended that some trans people choose not to disclose their trans status to fucking everyone reading their online profiles. If someone wants to wait to discuss this issue with a potential relationship partner until they feel fucking safe bringing it up, more power to them.
(Seriously, y'all. All 'trans panic' circlejerking and fearmongering aside, no trans person is going to try to 'trap' you into having sex with them without telling you first. You know why? Because any trans person who does that is risking their fucking life. Sorry to break it to you, but you ain't good enough in bed to risk that.)
EDIT: I linked the article I did because it collects a great many separate sources about violence against trans people in the service of an attempt to confirm or deny one of the more common statistical claims (that 1 in 12 trans people will be murdered). The fact that the article fails to confirm (or deny) that statistic doesn't change the fact that, from the article:
>There is definitely a disproportionate number of trans people being murdered. This is clear, and horrifying.
and:
>TL:DR – I read a statistic that 1 in 12 trans people’s lived end in murder, and cannot find a primary source for said statistic. However, trans people are being murdered because they are trans, and the murder of even one trans person is unacceptable.
A bunch of y'all are reading the article and coming to the conclusion that this one statistical claim is unprovable and therefore violence against trans people is not a problem. My fault. I should have expected it. I overestimated Reddit's reading comprehension, and will make sure to give y'all simpler material in future.
Okay let me get this straight. Trans people suffer high amounts of violence. And you think that therefore, it is safer to disclose that they are trans once they are physically in front of the person, rather than online before even meeting?
I think when and where and if a trans person discloses should be their choice, not someone else's.
How is this even relevant? This isn't the point I'm trying to make. Please reread my comment.
Yeah, read the comment, thank you.
My original comment said nothing about what I think trans people 'should' do, or what timeline for disclosing trans status would be 'safer', because that's a decision each individual person has to make in accordance with their own individual circumstances. Your original comment tried to get me to confirm or deny a position I was deliberately not taking a position on. My response was clearly too subtle. Let me be blunt, then: I don't think I have the right to decide whether disclosure online, to anyone who views their account, or private personal disclosure, or some other option entirely, is 'safer' for any particular trans person. It's their choice; I'm not going to second-guess anyone; and, given the nature of violence against trans people, it feels a little like victim blaming to do so.
> I don't think I have the right to decide whether disclosure online, to anyone who views their account, or private personal disclosure, or some other option entirely, is 'safer' for any particular trans person
Are you serious? What a warped view of what victim blaming is. Victim blaming is telling someone who was assaulted "it's your fault, you brought it upon yourself by doing that". It's not giving general advice on what is safer to do, or saying that dangerous situations can be avoided. I'm pretty sure you can see the difference between the two.
And just because it's their choice, doesn't mean I have to pretend that whatever choice they make is the best one. Some choices are objectively worse. It doesn't mean that they would be responsible if someone decided to assault them - that would be victim blaming. I'm not imposing my choice upon anyone, just voicing my opinion on what I think is safer. And again, there's a difference between giving general advice on the internet, and saying the same thing to someone who was just assaulted. That would be inconsiderate, and a little closer to victim blaming, yes.
Maybe 'feels like victim blaming' is a little off. It feels... hubristic? Privileged? Mansplainey? Anyway, the point is that there are things I don't feel that I have the right to offer an opinion on, and 'when/how/if it's safe for a trans person to discuss their trans status' is one of the things on that list - both because of how personal the issue is, and because the situations and experiences of trans people are so widely variable that I don't think any one-size-fits-all claim can be 'objectively' correct at all.
> hubristic?
...What? I'm proud of what, exactly?
> Privileged?
Basic reasoning is privilege now?
> Mansplainey?
Ah, so it's a tool of the patriarchy actually? What makes you think I'm a man, anyway? Why does my gender affect the truth of what I say? Also, not a word. I was giving you the benefit of doubt before, but it's becoming increasingly clear what kind of discussion this is.
Your first post implicitly says that some trans people could feel safer by waiting to disclose their status after meeting physically. I offered a counter argument. Either we're talking about that, or you can continue explaining how you don't feel worthy of giving basic advice to trans people.
As for what you say about "one-size-fits-all", yes, obviously situations differ. It doesn't mean that some advice is good in 99% of the cases. Muggings are very variable in circumstances, but it's still good advice not to flash wads of cash in shitty neighborhoods.
Are you being sarcastic or did you not read the article you posted well enough to figure out it's pointing out the most cited "violence against trans" stat is likely bullshit?
I had the weirdest confusion when I reached that section of the source.
I kept wondering if I was missing something seeing as this person seems to be sincere (and using a lot of italics) all while his source actually seems to contradict his claims.
The summary of the article I liked is that (1) violence against trans people is horribly common, and (2) the '1 in 12 trans people are murdered' statistic cannot be explicitly supported, but is within the realm of possibility. It seemed more honest to provide a link that discusses the scope of violence against trans people as best as possible, even if it's an attempt to critique one estimate thereof, since the actual statistics are so messy (since, as the article also points out, violence against trans people is very underreported as well as very common).
Perhaps I overestimated the reading comprehension skills of the average Redditor, and I should have found some site with easy-to-read sound bites instead. Alas.
i dont think ive ever been put in danger by listing my status on an online profile. its disingenuous to wait till the last moment to spring it on someone
well, not physical danger, but what if they were applying for jobs and some employer googled their name and found that on their profile, for example?
its not going to be kind to them when they deal with employee medical
edit: you dont need to use your real name either
I have NEVER gotten this reasoning that they don't need to let the other person know, because they are afraid of violence. Aren't the chances that this asshole is going to be violent the longer he feels "led on" by you? Or is the worry literally that they are afraid people are going to hunt them down through their okCupid profile to murder them? If I was trans I would be much much more worried about this person I am about to go out on a date with may turn violent, which in that case, isn't it much more dangerous to reveal this after the first encounter?
They (the people who insist on immediate disclosure) seem so afraid of something but I don't know what.
Most upvoted person in this thread links to an article that completely contradicts his two paragraphs of text. Wonderful.
From the article:
>There is definitely a disproportionate number of trans people being murdered. This is clear, and horrifying.
From the summary of the article:
>TL:DR – I read a statistic that 1 in 12 trans people’s lived end in murder, and cannot find a primary source for said statistic. However, trans people are being murdered because they are trans, and the murder of even one trans person is unacceptable.
My problem is not the article, which tries to take a fair look at a possibly exaggerated statistic (and concludes, not that the statistic is wrong, but that the author can't find the source). My problem is that y'all can't fucking read.
Right.
Some trans folk work their entire lives to make sure no one sees them as the wrong gender.
Being outed or outing yourself is about as reasonable as you telling someone "I used to be a guy/girl" despite it not being true. Now you have to deal with the weight of people thinking you're not the gender you say you are, despite you lying about being trans in the first place.
And like the mistake /u/Excrucior556 made
>Did I not verbatim say "they're not trying to be devious"?
I'm not directing this at you, but those who read this in general.
>no trans person is going to try to 'trap' you into having sex with them without telling you first.
Except for the outrageous amount who do and or profess to want to do exactly that.
>Except for the outrageous amount who do and or profess to want to do exactly that.
Bullshit.
I spend a lot of time in /r/lgbt and /r/ainbow. It is not an uncommon opinion in either of those places that it is not really wrong in any meaningful way to not disclose until after sex. If you go and ask in which cases ranging from casual sex to relationships to long term ones that you think it is okay not to, you will get a pretty varied set of responses.
> It is not an uncommon opinion in either of those places that it is not really wrong in any meaningful way to not disclose until after sex
Just out of curiosity, why do you disagree with that opinion (assuming you do at all)?
I would say it is an issue of informed consent. In purely legal terms, the consent of consensual sexual activity can be considered to have been vitiated (retroactively cancelled before it ever existed) by the nondisclosure of facts which the sexual partner(s) are legally obliged to disclose. For example, at least insofar as I recall in the UK at least HIV-positive partners are obligated to disclose their status to their sexual partners before sexual activity. This is related to the risk of transmission of the HIV to their uninfected partner. If the HIV-positive person does not do so their partner's consent can later be vitiated because this lack of disclosure impaired the partner's consent; the partner was not in full possession of the facts, essentially.
I would say that it is definitely arguable that sexual activity with a transsexual should be an issue of informed consent. As far as I am aware it is not, and I don't necessarily agree that it should be, but it is definitely arguable.
This does not detract in any way from the rights of trans people; they have their rights, but other people also have the right to refuse to engage in sexual activity with them if they so choose, just as everybody has the right to refuse to engage in sexual activity with other people for any reason they like. If you are a racist and don't want to fuck POC, that's your prerogative and it ought to be respected. If you're a lesbian and don't want to fuck men, that's your prerogative and it ought to be respected. If you're uncomfortable fucking transgender persons, that's your prerogative and it ought to be respected.
Whether or not the duty is upon the transgender person to volunteer this information, or upon their partner to enquire before engaging in sexual activity, is the issue at hand. Rare cases with a serious potential to cause harm (e.g. HIV) place the onus upon the affected partner to volunteer. It is arguable that transsexual persons may be equally rarely encountered, so the critical issue is apportioning 'harm' to conducting sexual activity with a transsexual.
Obviously that is a thorny issue. Emotional harm (perhaps embarrassment, shame, feelings of violation; I don't really know) can result from sexual activity where one partner feels deceived. But we don't demand adulterers tell their affairs they're married. I would certainly have (initially at least) very mixed feelings if I discovered I had unwittingly had sex with a transwoman, that's for sure, and I sympathise with people who would feel tricked, particularly if (as /u/bunker_man is alleging) I was deliberately misled, even by omission, as part of that person's own sexual agenda.
> I would say that it is definitely arguable that sexual activity with a transsexual should be an issue of informed consent.
I don't see any reason for that. Sleeping with a trans person will have no permanent effects on the other partner, unlike (say) an STD. I see no reason to require informing.
Of course, some people will say things like "I wouldn't want to unknowingly sleep with a trans person." But their discomfort does not create an obligation for the other party. Some people wouldn't want to sleep with a republican (or alternatively a democrat). Should people be required to discuss their political opinions before sleeping with each other?
You don't see any reason for that, but that doesn't mean your views are representative or conclusive. It's clear they aren't uncontroversial. And like I said, I haven't considered the option nearly enough to say either way that a transsexual should or should not be legally obligated (a heavy, heavy burden) to disclose. I don't have an opinion either way; I said it was arguable, not that it was definite.
However, I completely disagree with this:
>Sleeping with a trans person will have no permanent effects on the other partner, unlike (say) an STD.
That's for the partner to decide, which is why they should have fully informed consent. If they have religious or moral convictions that preclude them from sleeping with trans people - no matter how abhorrent trans people may find those principles - that is their prerogative and it should be respected. If someone takes all reasonable steps to ensure they are engaging in sexual activity within parameters they are comfortable with, and then discovers they have engaged in sexual activity with someone partially or completely biologically of the opposite gender they thought, that has the potential to cause serious emotional harm and pretending otherwise is farcical.
Just from a personal perspective, I would think that many people - including, I would expect, a lot of people who fully and genuinely support transsexual rights - would want to know in advance before engaging in sexual activity with a transgendered person. Trans people may not like that very much, but that is everyone's right and it is absolute; people have the right to know pertinent things about the people they choose to sleep with. Pretending otherwise is an infringement of personal autonomy.
Society does not consider discovering someone's politics in a social situation difficult, or the consequences of sleeping with someone in ignorance of their politics as seriously harmful. Further, most people hold political opinions; it is not unusual. Therefore, there is no duty to disclose. Society does consider discovering someone's HIV status in a social situation difficult, and the consequences of sleeping with someone in ignorance of their status as seriously harmful. Further, few people are HIV positive; it is unusual. Therefore, HIV-positive people are under a duty to disclose.
Consider trans status in that light. Is it hard to determine in a social context? Perhaps. Is there a risk of serious harm if someone engages in sexual activity without that information, and later learns it? Again, it's definitely a possibility. Are transgendered people a small minority? Yes; it is relatively unusual; I don't have figures but I expect more common than HIV but less common than political views. So should trans people be under a duty to disclose? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it is definitely arguable.
The duty to disclose HIV status isn't related to it being uncommon. Herpes is fairly common, but you can still be held liable if you knowingly withhold that information. It seems like the only time people are legally required to disclose information without being asked is when failure to disclose carries a clear and serious physical risk. Lets say I'm not interested in women with breast implants. It never comes up before I sleep with someone, and I don't realize she has implants until after when she asks if I can tell. Should she be held liable for not disclosing this information? It seems that if trans people can be legally required to disclose they've had reassignment surgery, then any other medical procedures that effect appearance could also be legally required to disclose that information. Disclosure shouldn't be legally required just because someone might have a particular preference; it should only be required when failure to disclose can lead to clear harm regardless of social norms.
>The duty to disclose HIV status isn't related to it being uncommon.
Correct; I intended to use the point solely to help illustrate the importance of risk and I might not have done it well.
>It seems like the only time people are legally required to disclose information without being asked is when failure to disclose carries a clear and serious physical risk.
Not so. In addition to 'identity fraud' (pretending to be someone the victim intended to sleep with, which does not necessarily cause physical injury) caselaw holds that psychiatric injury can constitute actual bodily harm (R v. Chan-Fook) , which means that certain types of distress meeting that threshold constitute harm within the meaning of the relevant legislation. If the purely psychological distress caused to the victim by sleeping with someone 'lying about their gender' from the victim's point of view meets that threshold, it can vitiate their consent just like transmission of a disease or infliction of any other injury.
>Disclosure shouldn't be legally required just because someone might have a particular preference; it should only be required when failure to disclose can lead to clear harm regardless of social norms.
Agreed. So the question is, is the potential for harm upon the victim feeling they have been deceived as to the gender of their sexual partner sufficient to warrant a legal obligation to disclose? Like I've said before, that is a heavy burden that is probably not met here. But it is definitely arguable, and I appreciate a well-considered reply.
More Comments - Click Here
> If they have religious or moral convictions that preclude them from sleeping with trans people - no matter how abhorrent trans people may find those principles - that is their prerogative and it should be respected.
No.
If you have prerogatives, you are responsible for them. It is entirely your own problem if you have consensual sex with someone and then decide it was a bad idea after the fact. STDs are only exempt from this principle because we usually regard intentionally infecting someone with a disease as a Bad Thing To Do.
>If someone takes all reasonable steps to ensure they are engaging in sexual activity within parameters they are comfortable with, and then discovers they have engaged in sexual activity with someone partially or completely biologically of the opposite gender they thought, that has the potential to cause serious emotional harm and pretending otherwise is farcical.
If you sleep with someone you don't trust to tell you the truth, and it turns out they lied to you, it's your own damn fault.
Are you fucking serious? You sound like a self-serving sociopath. Informed consent is a very real and important concept.
>STDs are only exempt from this principle because we usually regard intentionally infecting someone with a disease as a Bad Thing To Do.
So is fucking scarring someone by essentially tricking them into having sex that they are completely uncomfortable with. Why is basic human decency such a hard fucking thing for trans people to grasp? If you're trans, a good portion of the human population will never want to fuck you. This is not a crime, and it's not even morally dubious.
Because we can look at it this way. The amount of people who would be severely dismayed over finding out is an obvious indication that its an issue, and that they may feel victimized over the lack of them being informed of something highly relevant to whats going on. The only reason it is handwaved in terms of being seen as one is the fact that trans people fearing violence are seen as needing leniency in terms of withholding this information in order to get an equal footing on the playing field. So in other words... its something that is obviously on its own something that would be an issue... but we have to decide whether the second issue of some people needing to withhold this information is more important to such a degree that we have to hand-wave the first issue of them doing something that would otherwise be seen as bad in favor of the second.
One argument that is made which holds a little water, but not much on its own is the idea that it is not dishonest to do this simply because of how the trans person thinks about themself. But obviously the entire point of the dishonesty is whether the other person views them that way or not, not even as a person in general, but as an adequate sexual partner. Neither gender nor any of the relevant things of this nature are absolute, so its very bizarre to police someone else's sexual orientation to retroactively declare that something that a huge portion of the population would have a significant issue with, they're "not allowed to" merely because someone else doesn't mind that that person might. (Keep in mind, this isn't some kind of special case. This is true for anything that should be laid out that might be an issue.) And if the average person has a tiny chance of actually coming in contact with a trans person in this way, they can't really be faulted for not preemptively making sure to ask every time over something that there's only a tiny chance that it would ever be relevant to their life.
Of course... Prioritarianism definitely takes precedence over deontology. And so even if it sets a dangerous precedent for honesty as regards the issue, I don't see why someone in a random one night stand case who will never know or need to really needs much protection relative to the person who absolutely needs more protection. Relationships are a darker grey area, since if someone is already invested it might be unfair to them that they were under a situation they might have an issue with. So while I would say that overall it would be a highly dubious action to not tell anyone who it will become a prolonged issue for, I would absolutely understand someone's reasons for doing so, and accept that in a lot of cases its easily forgivable why someone who is in a bad situation feels okay with siding with themself first. The problem is not that people think that its ever understandable that someone would do this, but rather that many simply act like there is zero problem at all with long term withholding in any possible case, as if there was nothing to withhold. Its this black and white thinking that is the problem. People see things in terms of okay/not okay, when in reality they exist along gradients of who is benefiting, and what leniency its acceptable to take at what times. Obviously honesty about anything someone in a relationship and especially a sexual partner would need to know is key. So its a scale of certain degrees of leniency someone takes to open up for their own protection. (That being said though, if they suspect that it would be a problem for a specific person, its really not fair to withhold it a long time until that person is emotionally invested.)
This is one of those issues where it reveals that reality wasn't made with an obvious right answer in mind. There's a lot of variables that might make the right answer different dependent on situation and that it can be really dubious to try to avoid that there's a situation altogether by making a flat statement about it. For that reason I don't particularly concern myself with trying to pinpoint an absolute answer to this. I can see the questionable elements of both sides, but I think the reality is that this is still a new enough issue that no one really knows what the maximally beneficial resolution should be. (That being said, I don't mind pointing out to people far on a side who seem to be blinded that its a two sided issue what the point of the other side is.)
Can someone explain to me why people care so much what a one-time sexual partner's body used to look like in the past? Like if I had sex with someone, and I enjoyed it, I wouldn't really care if I found out the next day that they're transgender.
I probably wouldn't either. But on the off chance you're seriously asking, instead of deliberately pretending to be stupid to implicate that it is beyond comprehension why someone would care, the question itself comes off rather bizarre. If someone is strictly of a specific orientation, they may have any amount of things that they dislike which swing the opposite way. Someone not looking enough like what they are attracted to even. Someone who grew up with a body like your own, (or for gay people, the opposite sex's) which is only not like that in part from virtue of surgery to make it look as best as possible as the opposite could absolutely be something that they would feel dismayed over. You may as well ask why if a straight guy was put in a dark room with another guy he had anal sex with why he would mind after the fact that it was a guy since while having sex he couldn't tell the difference anyways. I'm sure that that argument wouldn't fly.
If what people were attracted to didn't have arbitrary limits based on fluctuations of biology, their emotions, and whatever else then everyone would be a very open ended bisexual. Its bizarre to ask why they would mind this when you have no trouble comprehending why they would mind having sex with an attractive person of a sex they weren't attracted to. It goes without saying that its ridiculous to act confused about this. On the flipside, the whole violence and fear issue explains why trans people do it. But the fact that if that wasn't an issue it would be seen obviously as something highly questionable shows... why those people still find it questionable.
I guess it's weird to me because like... I'm not sexually attracted to fat people, but if I hooked up with someone i found attractive, who used to be fat, and they didn't tell me they used to be fat until the next day, I wouldn't feel betrayed or anything. If I find a body sexy, I don't care how it came to be sexy to me, either. I wouldn't be grossed out if I made out with someone and found out they'd had a nose-job.
Honestly my gut feeling was that people fear it because of a combination of gay panic and not seeing transgender people as their actual gender, but I didn't want to just assume that, so I thought I would ask. I was hoping for a succinct answer that would show me a different perspective, not two paragraphs of filler.
>not seeing transgender people as their actual gender
I'm not sure that that's a significant issue. The type of person who would have a problem probably isn't viewing things in terms of gender at all, and even someone who straight up hates them doesn't always have trouble imagining them as a vague analogous gender concept, even if they don't like the word gender. Their problem is whether they see them as that sex. If they approach sexuality from a sex based angle, the concept that being a different gender is something they should let (either in part or fully depending on the person) override sex is something that many people simply don't do. And one of the big problems of people getting confused at how other people approach the issue is a flatline strictly sex or strictly gender based identity system. Both neither obviously adequately describe someone's orientation, since that can be effected by many variables in the individual. (Note that orientation and how people think of the issues in general obviously are two different things, but which intersect.)
>two paragraphs of filler
Come on. That is a lame-ass excuse to not read the arguments.
I'm going to be blunt here and I am genuinely sorry if this offends anyone, but for me I would hate it because the idea of a man-made vagina is massive turn off for me. It's a spliced, inverted penis. I don't want to have sex with it. Yes that is because i'm squeamish, but it's still my preference.
I certainly wouldn't say it's an "outrageous" number, but you can't deny that there are trans people who do have sex with straight, cisgendered people, don't bother to tell them until after they've already had sex, and then when that person gets upset, they say "I don't see what they're so mad about!"
Obviously trans people do put themselves at risk by being open to certain people; which is why if you're trans and use dating sites like okcupid, you list yourself as trans on your profile, so you're more likely to get responses from people who are aware of your status, don't mind, and are still interested.
If you're meeting them for the first time, try to subtly steer the conversation towards LBGT people, and find out their opinion of trans people.
If they say they're comfortable with sleeping with one, then go ahead and tell them. If they say they're not, or they are clearly transphobic, then you get the fuck out of there.
There are ways for trans people to reduce/minimize the risks of being assaulted/murdered by a transphobe. You don't have to lie to anybody or be deceitful to keep yourself safe.
ok, just look in this thread then. In fact there is a comment currently just above this one saying exactly that.
Go back to tumblr