# Do transgender people have an ethical duty to reveal their history before having sex? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 19, 2009, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-transgender-people-have-an-ethical-duty-to-reveal-their-history-before-having-sex/493638 "2009-04-19T17:47:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-transgender-people-have-an-ethical-duty-to-reveal-their-history-before-having-sex/493638/321 "2009-05-04T21:11:52Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > No, it doesn’t. You seem to lack reading comprehension. That quote does not say all ethics is dismissable. It doesn’t even come close to saying that. Then what, pray tell, do you suppose he is trying to say? He argues that until you can contrive a way to forcibly apply a single specific ethical system to the transsexual group, to the exclusion of all other ethical systems (including the “selfish bastard” ethical system), then you may not enforce _any_ ethical system on them. It is, of course, impossible to objectively force one specific ethical system on people if all ethical systems, including contrived and stupid ones, are assessed as having equal merit, which means that no ethical systems apply to anybody. Why would he make this argument if not than to say the the transgnedered needn’t be bothered by trifling things like ethical considerations for people they might be inclined to lead unawares into sex with a transsexual? (I _will_ accept “I don’t think he had any rational reason for stringing those words together” as a valid response.) Edit: his post prior to this one makes it further clear what his position on this matter is. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Bigotry (as any fool with a dictionary could find out) is a strongly-held _irrational_ or **uninformed** prejudice. > > Like the uninformed opinions of transwomen (and especially their vaginas) displayed by some posters in this thread. What’s there to know? The predjudice has nothing to do with the flesh bits they happening to be wearing at the moment; it’s whether they fall into the class of people who _ever_ had some assessed-as-relevent abnormality to their sexuality or sexual history. I don’t see how the _current_ condition of their naughty bits somehow trumps the fact that their prior condition is also relevent to the question. And the sexual preference of all gays could be quite easily argued as irrational. And the sexual preference of most straights could be quite easily argued as uninformed. So what is _YOUR_ definition of bigotry? Does it include these two groups? Can we overtly disrespect and seek to subvert _their_ sexual preferences? Personally, I don’t see that large a moral difference between tricking somebody into having sex with somebody they don’t want to have sex with, and _forcing_ somebody to have sex with somebody they don’t want to have sex with. So it seems to me that any rationale that supports knowingly deceiving a person into sex would very likely also support raping that person. And if gays are bigots…does that mean that I can morally rape any lesbian? You know, justifiying it by dehumanizing-I-mean-disrespecting their bigotry against me and my gender in the matter of sex? > [@MrDibble](#): > > No, ultimately, I’m disrespecting their right to have their investigative work done for them, just because they’re in the majority. Despite the arguments of those who wish to absolve the transsexual of their obligation to be a moral and decent human being, the issue at hand is _not_ the obligations of the other guy. The question is what are the ethical responsibilities of the transsexual. And the “they should have to ask, and hope the transsexual is not an overt liar in addition to a deceiver by omission” position is overtly one that claims that the transsexual has no ethical responsibilities whatsoever. Screw em, rob em, and stab them in the back when you’re done, if they’re fool enough to sleep with _you_! > [@MrDibble](#): > > And their “right” to be a bigot. I could give a stuff what they do after that, as long as they’re comfortable with having their bigoted behaviour called what it is. Everyone has the right to make irrational and uninformed decisions - not just you. And frankly, as a man who ignorantly prefers women, I am willing to be called a bigot (though I will assess the people who do so as fools themselves), as long as nobody knowingly decieves me as to the nature of my romantic partners. I’m willing to put up with the harm that is unethically done by fools who wish to slander my name, but not the harm done by sneaky bastards who want to sabotage my romantic and/or sexual relationships. > [@MrDibble](#): > > You may think you’re just being snarky here, but actually - a person who doesn’t lift the veil before getting married is a fool, just like a person who expects everything to be exactly as it appears, and gets upset when reality doesn’t conform to his blinkered view of the world. Ah, so you subscribe to the “Let the buyer beware - because if somebody deliberately does horrible things to them, it’s entirely the victim’s fault for not detecting and avoiding the attack themselves” ethical philosophy. That’s a very handy set of ‘ethics’ to have, if you want to have carte blanche to go around hurting people and doing evil for your own selfish benefit. It’s also one that _allows_ transsexuals to snooker people without ethical qualm, which would make it handy to have while arguing the side you’re arguing. ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2009, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-transgender-people-have-an-ethical-duty-to-reveal-their-history-before-having-sex/493638/322 "2009-05-04T21:17:25Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Bullshit - the bigotry lies in _why_ you decide someone doesn’t fit your preference, not simply in having a preference. Wow, I didn’t realize one had to justify his/her sexual turnoffs. I’ve never even heard of that being a requirement for being an enlightened individual before. > [@](#): > > The bigotry, quite simply, lies in denial of the reality of transexuality’s existence at all, which is what I’m seeing in this thread. I don’t know where you (and I see it from **kittyhawk** too) get this from. [Well, OK, I’ve seen some ignorant and perhaps offensive comments in this thread, so I guess I see where you get it from – but it’s not always true]. I fully respect a person’s right to do whatever they want to do to with respect to their genitals, their sexual identity, their dress, their choice of sexual partners, etc. If someone asks to be called a “she” even though I’ve known them as Larry since I was seven, fine, “she” it is. I’ll not be an ass about it, and I’ll respect whatever you want. But I don’t get why I can’t say, “You’re a woman, I’ll treat you as such, but the thought of having sex with you is about as unappealing as the thought of a gay man going after a woman.” There’s a mental component to sex as well as a physical, and the knowledge that there used to be a penis involved (or still is, in some cases) is a mental turnoff to me. Also, so what if my sexual attraction vanishes after the big, Crying Game-esque reveal? The very introduction of a penis into the equation is a turn-off, even if it’s gone. It’s a deal-breaker, much like a vagina is for a gay man. I mean, hell, if I’m on some deserted island enjoying a dish the natives call “Long Pig,” I’m under no obligation to keep eating the dish once they tell me it’s human flesh. No matter how delicious I thought it was before, the very idea that I know that the flesh is human is an insurmountable “turn off” to me. And so it is with penis.\* [sub]\*For those who are analogy-impaired, please don’t respond with things like, “How dare you compare transsexuality to cannibalism!” Please take me at my word that I find transgenderism/transsexuality wholly acceptable and cannibalism wholly disgusting. I’m only trying to address that a “reveal” can influence a decision, and for it to do so is not inherently bigoted.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2009, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-transgender-people-have-an-ethical-duty-to-reveal-their-history-before-having-sex/493638/323 "2009-05-04T21:20:53Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Sure. > This does indeed dismiss all ethics and condone all cruelty - which is the foundation of his position. To him, it’s okay to cruelly trick people because it’s okay to be cruel. (Which apparently releives him of the burden of worrying about how irrational it is to _expect_ men to interrogate their prospective partners about every possibly rare issue that may possibly exist.) Please stop trying to interpret what I said. It is cllear you don’t understand it when over and over you paraphrase it in a way that indicates you are way out in right field. Would you you do me that courtesy please? It is ok if you don’t get what I am saying, I will live with that. I’d much prefer it that way than for you to continue to mangle it on my (unauthorized) behalf, what with your self-claimed and unprompted admission of homophobia from your 1st post in thread being nearly forgotten to posterity. Post 54, in its entirety: > [@begbert2](#): > > I think a person should mention being trasnsgendered at the first sign of intimacy - I certainly know that I would want to know - for the frank reason of halting the intimate activity before it got started. > > But then, I _am_ a homophobe. Not that I want to bother people in the slightest about things that don’t have to do with me…but the gender status/history of anybody who I’m getting romantic/intimate with _does_ have to do with me. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2009, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-transgender-people-have-an-ethical-duty-to-reveal-their-history-before-having-sex/493638/324 "2009-05-04T21:31:13Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Please stop trying to interpret what I said. It is cllear you don’t understand it when over and over you paraphrase it in a way that indicates you are way out in right field. Would you you do me that courtesy please? It is ok if you don’t get what I am saying, I will live with that. I’d much prefer it that way than for you to continue to mangle it on my (unauthorized) behalf, what with your self-claimed and unprompted admission of homophobia from your 1st post in thread being nearly forgotten to posterity. > > Post 54, in its entirety: If you don’t want me to keep pointing out how stupid your arguments are, then stop posting them. That’s the easy solution. Yes it tacitly admits that you’re wrong, but given that the closest thing you’ve got to a defense against me is a series of blatantly fallacious ad-hominems (note that even if true, they’re still fallacious), it may be time to face facts and go slinking off into the night. Or possibly defend your position coherently - but I don’t want to put too much pressure on you. Oh, and this tactic of trying to assert that I don’t understand your position? You just keep running with that. I’m sure it’ll do you a lot of good. (Well, more than trying to actually _defend_ your indefensible nonsense, anyway.) ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2009, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-transgender-people-have-an-ethical-duty-to-reveal-their-history-before-having-sex/493638/325 "2009-05-04T21:36:48Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Then what, pray tell, do you suppose he is trying to say? He argues that until you can contrive a way to forcibly apply a single specific ethical system to the transsexual group, to the exclusion of all other ethical systems (including the “selfish bastard” ethical system), then you may not enforce _any_ ethical system on them. It is, of course, impossible to objectively force one specific ethical system on people if all ethical systems, including contrived and stupid ones, are assessed as having equal merit, which means that no ethical systems apply to anybody. Begbert, I am only going to ask this one more time, next time I am heading to the mods for relief. Please do not attribute arguments to me I have not made. My position is summed up in a single sentence, which I have stted several times in this thread: \*\*If you care what happens to your dick, then gather up all the needed information before your dick does anything. \*\* This has nothing to do with ethics. It is simply _caveat emptor_. I have also asked for those who say that the answer is yes to the OP to show me both the ethics system and the evidence that we are all bound by it. I don’t care what your “personal ethics” are, nor do I think they are even “ethics” but rather pseudo-high-sounding rationalizations, and this goes gfor everyone in this thread, including me if I ever said something about my “personal ethics”, which I haven’t done and won’t do. Even in the rare case where one’s “personal ethics” was the result of deep and extended study and consideration, it **still** would not be bound on anyone else, and hence the answer to the OP is demonstrably **NO**. If you want to counter my argument, that is the entire position right there. A single counter-example, that holds up to scrutiny will shoot me down. Instead of trying to make up a deeper understanding of my point than is necessary, just do your best to come up with a counter-example that holds up to scrutiny. And once again, please stop attributing arguments to me that I did not make. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2009, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-transgender-people-have-an-ethical-duty-to-reveal-their-history-before-having-sex/493638/326 "2009-05-04T21:39:04Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > If you don’t want me to keep pointing out how stupid your arguments are, then stop posting them. That’s the easy solution. Yes it tacitly admits that you’re wrong, but given that the closest thing you’ve got to a defense against me is a series of blatantly fallacious ad-hominems (note that even if true, they’re still fallacious), it may be time to face facts and go slinking off into the night. > > Or possibly defend your position coherently - but I don’t want to put too much pressure on you. > > Oh, and this tactic of trying to assert that I don’t understand your position? You just keep running with that. I’m sure it’ll do you a lot of good. (Well, more than trying to actually _defend_ your indefensible nonsense, anyway.) Thus spaketh the homophobic agoraphobe who, by his own admission, has never even met a homosexual. Anyway, in case anyone is reading this thread, they will be reminded now how far off base you are in interpreting me, if it was not otherwise clear in a long thread. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2009, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-transgender-people-have-an-ethical-duty-to-reveal-their-history-before-having-sex/493638/327 "2009-05-04T21:43:41Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > There is no legal requirement that informed consent be obtained in any sexual encounter, by either (or any!) partner. You really think it it legally OK to have sex with someone without obtaining their consent? I strongly recommend that you do a little research on the question before you try it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2009, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-transgender-people-have-an-ethical-duty-to-reveal-their-history-before-having-sex/493638/328 "2009-05-04T21:46:47Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You really think it it legally OK to have sex with someone without obtaining their consent? I strongly recommend that you do a little research on the question before you try it. > > Regards, > Shodan You really don;'t know the difference between “informed consent” as a term of art, and “consent” wrt sexual behavior? Or are you just reacting without thinking. Having seen you other posts in many threads, I think you are smart enough even if I wouldn’t always agree with you. So I prefer to think you simply missed the boat on this one, and jumped off the pier too quickly. Really, you are going to have to do serious, and ultimately unsuccessful contortions to demonstrate the two terms are the same. So why not back off now and save face on that? ETA: and Shodan, try quoteing the entire context, and you will see there was no room for misunderstanding what I was referring to. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2009, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-transgender-people-have-an-ethical-duty-to-reveal-their-history-before-having-sex/493638/329 "2009-05-04T22:00:09Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Begbert, I am only going to ask this one more time, next time I am heading to the mods for relief. > > Please do not attribute arguments to me I have not made. > > My position is summed up in a single sentence, which I have stted several times in this thread: > > \*\*If you care what happens to your dick, then gather up all the needed information before your dick does anything. > \*\* > > This has nothing to do with ethics. It is simply _caveat emptor_. > > I have also asked for those who say that the answer is yes to the OP to show me both the ethics system and the evidence that we are all bound by it. Okay, let’s look at this. “My position is summed up in a single sentence” and “I have also asked” are **explicitly** contradictory. You have floated at least two positions in this thread: that it’s caveat emptor and therefore the transsexual may try and deceive the incautious because they aren’t morally obligated to respect the other person’s desires, and the _separate_ position that if nobody can bind transsexuals to a specific ethical system, that they are not constrained by ethics at all. Clearly, as any non-total-fool can see, my assessment of your dismisal of ethical systems based on the lack of uniform consistency and universally accepted applicability thereof is a response to your _second_ postion there, not the “caveat emptor” position. This is pretty obvious. To anyone. I also respond to your caveat emptor position in my prior response to **MrDibble**. I responded to both positions of yours in the same post! I can handle _everything_ you can throw at me, you see. If you _seriously_ think I am misinterpreting your position, then please, point out my (specific) errors. In the absence of your doing so, I will continue to think that I _am_ correct in assessing your position, and you are simply loathe to admit it. And as for bringing the mods in, feel free. You think they haven’t been reading the thread already? I seriously don’t think I’ve done anything wrong here. Repeating and pointing out the flaws in the opposition’s arguments are the heart and soul of Great Debates, after all -and even if one of your restatements is incorrect in the particulars, it’s not illegal to state it. But feel free to bring this to the Mods’ attention. In the astronomically unlikely off-chance that I am indeed infracting on forum rules, I will accept my chastisement humbly. Until then I will continue to proudly challenge you to actually engage in that activity called “debate”. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Thus spaketh the homophobic agoraphobe who, by his own admission, has never even met a homosexual. > > Anyway, in case anyone is reading this thread, they will be reminded now how far off base you are in interpreting me, if it was not otherwise clear in a long thread. Yeah, in the opinion of all those people who think that Ad Hominem isn’t a fallacy. It doesn’t matter if satan himself (existed and) were the one posting eviscerations of your arguments - your arguments would still be eviscerated to the full degree of the counterarguments’ merit. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2009, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-transgender-people-have-an-ethical-duty-to-reveal-their-history-before-having-sex/493638/330 "2009-05-04T22:18:49Z")
[quote=“begbert2, post:329, topic:493638”] Okay, let’s look at this. “My position is summed up in a single sentence” and “I have also asked” are **explicitly** contradictory. You have floated at least two positions in this thread: that it’s caveat emptor and therefore the transsexual may try and deceive the incautious because they aren’t morally obligated to respect the other person’s desires, and the _separate_ position that if nobody can bind transsexuals to a specific ethical system, that they are not constrained by ethics at all. {I have never spoke of deception, you have accused me of it several times, never quoting where I said it. Now you will have to take it up with the mods. > [@](#): > > Clearly, as any non-total-fool can see, my assessment of your dismisal of ethical systems based on the lack of uniform consistency and universally accepted applicability thereof is a response to your _second_ postion there, not the “caveat emptor” position. This is pretty obvious. To anyone. OK, I am sure that is persuasive to everyone. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > I also respond to your caveat emptor position in my prior response to **MrDibble**. I responded to both positions of yours in the same post! I can handle _everything_ you can throw at me, you see. I am sure you can outlast me and type as many responses as is humanly responsible. > [@](#): > > That doesn’t mean any of them make sense or that you have my permission to make stuff up and attribute it to me, especially when you have been asked not to. > If you _seriously_ think I am misinterpreting your position, then please, point out my (specific) errors. In the absence of your doing so, I will continue to think that I _am_ correct in assessing your position, and you are simply loathe to admit it. :rolleyes: Oh are you junior modding now? > [@](#): > > But feel free to bring this to the Mods’ attention. In the astronomically unlikely off-chance that I am indeed infracting on forum rules, I will accept my chastisement humbly. Until then I will continue to proudly challenge you to actually engage in that activity called “debate”. I would be gad to debate with you. Just clarify the meaning of the word to me. Does it, to you, mean making shit up without citatioin and attributing it to someone else? > [@](#): > > Yeah, in the opinion of all those people who think that Ad Hominem isn’t a fallacy. It doesn’t matter if satan himself (existed and) were the one posting eviscerations of your arguments - your arguments would still be eviscerated to the full degree of the counterarguments’ merit. Not sure what part of you body you pulled the first p[art of that out of, but you haven’t evisscerated anything I say, if you keep making up stuff I **DIDN"T SAY** and then responding. well or not well, to that. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2009, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-transgender-people-have-an-ethical-duty-to-reveal-their-history-before-having-sex/493638/331 "2009-05-04T22:35:33Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > \*\*If you care what happens to your dick, then gather up all the needed information before your dick does anything. > \*\* > > This has nothing to do with ethics. It is simply _caveat emptor_. I actually agree with that statement. Where we seem to be at odds is in determining what is needed, and how to gather it. In 99.99% of cases, all that a person needs to determine if their potential sex partner is compatible is a date or two. Their eyes tell them things, the conversations, touches, kisses, etc. tell them things. This is enough to determine compatibility and it’s the standard method of gathering information before using your dick(or vagina). It’s the cases where there is more than meets the eye that we’re talking about here, which brings us to the second point. Some have stated that if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and tastes like a duck, but used to be a chicken, then why should you care if you’re after duck? Because looks aren’t everything is the simple answer. Humans, and the real situation, being somewhat more complex than ducks, this is more complex in the real world, but the underlying principle holds. > [@not\_alice](#): > > I have also asked for those who say that the answer is yes to the OP to show me both the ethics system and the evidence that we are all bound by it. There is no universal system of ethics and there is no compelling authority enforcing it. Ethics are part of the social contract and ethics regarding intimate personal relationships should be negotiated between the parties. If there is no disclosure, then this negotiation can not be fairly done and the parties are not on an even footing. As someone who values equality and the fairness of give and take, I believe this should be part of a relationship which proceeds to the intimate levels. This is my own belief, and not binding on others without their consent. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2009, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-transgender-people-have-an-ethical-duty-to-reveal-their-history-before-having-sex/493638/332 "2009-05-04T22:40:04Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > You really don;'t know the difference between “informed consent” as a term of art, and “consent” wrt sexual behavior? In case anyone’s missed it amid all the eye-rolling, tongue-clucking, and sneering, **not\_alice** is pointing out, in his inimitably genteel and self-effacing way, that the term “informed consent” has a specific legal meaning outside of what a couple of posters obviously intended (their intended meaning being nonetheless easily understood by those of us with rudimentary skills at assessing context). Anyone who actually gives a shit can find plenty of information about the term on Wikipedia; I do not. I’d prefer to focus on the actual topic at hand in this thread, upon which the legal definition of “informed consent” thusfar has absolutely no bearing, since we are not discussing a legal obligation. Smatterings of applause for **not\_alice** ’s excellent red herring attempt will be tolerated, however. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2009, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-transgender-people-have-an-ethical-duty-to-reveal-their-history-before-having-sex/493638/333 "2009-05-04T22:49:19Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > {I have never spoke of deception, you have accused me of it several times, never quoting where I said it. Okay, in the off chance you haven’t noticed the entire discussion to this point, the thread is about whether a transsexual is morally/ethically obligated to inform their prospective partner of their atypical sexual status. There are those who entertain the idea that witholding that information would fall under the category of “lying by omission”. If so, it would qualify as deception. This is pretty much the entire basis for this thread’s entire discussion - if there was no perception that withholding the information was itself an ethically dubious act, this thread would not exist. That is where the deception comes into the discussion - I have of course not accused _you_ of deception (unless you are in the set of transsexuals who have withheld that information in a similar scenario) - but of course it would require reading comphension to correctly parse the sentences you are quoting and replying to. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Now you will have to take it up with the mods. Assuming they decide to take it up with _me_, anyway. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Oh are you junior modding now? Nope. Junior modding, you’ll note, is when you make mod-type assessments of the actions of _others_. I am, by amazing coincidence, the same person as myself, and so may -nay, am _obligated_ to assess the legality of my own actions. And the ethicality, too, but of course, I believe that ethics exist in a meaningfull way (that is, that they apply to humans). Some people may differ on that. > [@not\_alice](#): > > I would be gad to debate with you. Just clarify the meaning of the word to me. Does it, to you, mean making shit up without citatioin and attributing it to someone else? Nope. Fortunately, I cited you explicitly in [post 313](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11104953&postcount=313), so I am preserved from any slanderous accusations of such behavior that anybody might make against me in that regard. Not that a person can reasonably expect that other people will let inconvenient facts stop them from making accusations, mind you. That would be _honest_ debate, and we all know that unless we can bind our opposition to a specific moral code that requires honest debate, they are not ethically bound to engage in honest debate at all. Or _any_ ethical activity, really. And because they’re not, of course, we should all remember the simple rule “Let The Debater Beware”. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2009, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-transgender-people-have-an-ethical-duty-to-reveal-their-history-before-having-sex/493638/334 "2009-05-04T23:00:17Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > You really don;'t know the difference between “informed consent” as a term of art, and “consent” wrt sexual behavior? Actually, I would prefer to point out that informed consent, in the sense we are discussing, is encoded into the law. > [@](#): > > Kansas Statute, K.S.A. 21-3502, addresses the crime of rape. > > (a) Rape is: > > (1) Sexual intercourse with a person who does not consent to the sexual intercourse, under any of the following circumstances: > > (A) When the victim is overcome by force or fear; > (B) When the victim is unconscious or physically powerless; or > (C) When the victim is incapable of giving consent because of mental deficiency or disease, or when the victim is incapable of giving consent because of the effect of any alcoholic liquor, narcotic, drug or other substance, which condition was known by the offender or was reasonably apparent to the offender; > > (2) Sexual intercourse with a child who is under 14 years of age; > (3) Sexual intercourse with a victim when the victim’s consent was obtained **through a knowing misrepresentation made by the offender** that the sexual intercourse was a medically or therapeutically necessary procedure; or > (4) Sexual intercourse with a victim when the victim’s consent was obtained **through a knowing misrepresentation made by the offender that the sexual intercourse was a legally required procedure within the scope of the offender’s authority.** [Cite.](http://www.kcsdv.org/maritalrape.html) So, there are a couple of examples of how informed consent, without misrepresentation, is part of the law. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2009, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-transgender-people-have-an-ethical-duty-to-reveal-their-history-before-having-sex/493638/335 "2009-05-04T23:05:14Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Actually, I would prefer to point out that informed consent, in the sense we are discussing, is encoded into the law. > [Cite.](http://www.kcsdv.org/maritalrape.html) > > So, there are a couple of examples of how informed consent, without misrepresentation, is part of the law. > > Regards, > Shodan To to be fair we’ll note that _concealing your transsexuality_ is not illegal - unless you figure out a way to make the _lack_ of transsexuality into a medically or legally compelling issue. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2009, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-transgender-people-have-an-ethical-duty-to-reveal-their-history-before-having-sex/493638/336 "2009-05-04T23:59:35Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > . Smatterings of applause for **not\_alice** ’s excellent red herring attempt will be tolerated, however. You are accusing me of a red herring? I have repeatedly stated my position, the answer to the OP, in very simple terms. One sentence is all it takes. Now we are well into the 7th page of nothing but red herrings of people avoiding presenting the very simple counter argument to my position that would render it false. The OP posits a simple yes or no question. I say NO and have stated why. If you say yes, and you mean to show that my simple and clear argument is wrong somehow, then focus on the actual argument. I typed it in bold above, so it is easy to see. Forget all the rest, do you have something to counter that single bolded phrase? Unlike most here (IMHO) I am actually willing to be shown wrong here. Show me the ethics system that binds me, and I will go to bed tonight with a new understanding of personal relationships. But if no one here can put their collective minds together and come up with a single counterexample in 7 pages, then perhaps you will have to be the ones going to bed tonight with the new understanding, that I am right (along with some others, such as but not only Mr\_Dibble) and that you are wrong. There is no shame in erring. We are all here to fight ignorance and have ignorance fought right? If you are not open to learning and recognizing that you are wrong sometimes (as in this case), then, can you say you are really open to having ignorance fought? Or are you pure of ignorance and need not have it fought? 'cause I didn’t realize that Unca Cece participated in these threads 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2009, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-transgender-people-have-an-ethical-duty-to-reveal-their-history-before-having-sex/493638/337 "2009-05-05T00:11:34Z")
[quote=“begbert2, post:333, topic:493638”] There are those who entertain the idea that witholding that information would fall under the category of “lying by omission”. If so, it would qualify as deception. This is pretty much the entire basis for this thread’s entire discussion - if there was no perception that withholding the information was itself an ethically dubious act, this thread would not exist. [/quote[ Yes, there are “those”. Even if that is true that it is “Lying by deception”, which I do not cede, it is still besides the point, because there is no ethical system that binds everyone in the OP’s question (essentially everyone) that covers that ground. In case you yourself didn’t understand what the thread was about. Show me the ethics system which renders the answer to the OP unequivocally yes, and I willl post I am wrong in the color and size font that you specify. But if you fail, please accept that you are not right. > [@](#): > > That is where the deception comes into the discussion - I have of course not accused _you_ of deception (unless you are in the set of transsexuals who have withheld that information in a similar scenario) - but of course it would require reading comphension to correctly parse the sentences you are quoting and replying to. Maybe you should read your own advice to me as though it was for you. Feeling guilty much? > [@](#): > > And the ethicality, too, but of course, I believe that ethics exist in a meaningfull way (that is, that they apply to humans). Some people may differ on that. Oh, so now it is a **personal belief** of **yours**. In other words, no one else is compelled to accept it (your ethics) as binding on them. So now you are agreeing with me! You are entititled to your beliefs, I will even let you slide that one person’s “ethics” are in fact “ethics” and not simpley situaltional biases or prejudices. But you have stated no it is your belief, and that it may not be everyone’s belief. Given that, your only possible rational conclusion has to be that the answer to the OP is no, same as mine would be (although for now only slightly different reasons). Glad you came around at last! > [@](#): > > Nope. Fortunately, I cited you explicitly in [post 313](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11104953&postcount=313), so I am preserved from any slanderous accusations of such behavior that anybody might make against me in that regard. Yuo, that is jut you putting quote marks on something and then accusing me of saying something unrelated to what I ever said ro what you actually quoted. > [@](#): > > Not that a person can reasonably expect that other people will let inconvenient facts stop them from making accusations, mind you. That would be _honest_ debate, and we all know that unless we can bind our opposition to a specific moral code that requires honest debate, they are not ethically bound to engage in honest debate at all. Or _any_ ethical activity, really. And because they’re not, of course, we should all remember the simple rule “Let The Debater Beware”. As I said, listening while they guy in the mirror spits out advice like this would be a good exercise for you someday. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2009, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-transgender-people-have-an-ethical-duty-to-reveal-their-history-before-having-sex/493638/338 "2009-05-05T00:13:27Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > To to be fair we’ll note that _concealing your transsexuality_ is not illegal - unless you figure out a way to make the _lack_ of transsexuality into a medically or legally compelling issue. Agreed–it is accurate that “informed consent” within its legal meaning is irrelevant here. > [@kittyhawk](#): > > Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the “weird implication” you’re referring to is that the only reason a person would not want to have sex with a transsexual whom they would have otherwise found desirable is because they don’t consider the transsexual to belong to their presented gender. > > What other reasons could there be? Imagine two women of equivalent attractiveness, personality, and character. If you find both of them equally desirable to begin with, then why exactly would you lose interest in the second upon learning she was a transsexual? First, I appreciate your tone of asking questions and engaging in genuine discussion. Breath of fresh air, that. Here’s my take on transgenderism: 1. The idea of a female mind in a male body is viscerally incomprehensible to me. I do not feel that my mind is gendered: I feel that my body is gendered. If I were to wake up in a female body tomorrow, that would be pretty dang inconvenient for a variety of reasons, but I wouldn’t feel that it had any impact on my core identity as me. 2. Nevertheless, I recognize that different people have fundamentally different experiences of gender from what I have. I recognize that my own lack of a conception of a gendered mind in no way suggests that other folks don’t perceive themselves to have a gendered mind. 3. I’ve seen references to medical research on the gender of minds. I haven’t read the references directly. I’m kind of apathetic on the issue, because… 4. I’m quite willing, under virtually all circumstances, to treat someone as the gender that they genuinely wish to be treated as. Whether there really is a medical basis for female minds in male bodies, or whether it’s a particular modern way of dealing with discomfort with gender stereotypes, is irrelevant to me in virtually all cases: I’ll treat people as the gender they wish to be treated as. 5. There’s one exception to this: if I weren’t monogamous, who I had sex with. Now I need to explain the exception. I’ll number these reasons for convenience also. 1. I don’t perceive of myself as having a gendered mind, but I do perceive of myself as having a mind with strong sexual preference. Were I to wake up in a female body, I suspect I’d still be attracted to female bodies, not male bodies. 2. A woman who was born a woman has had a very different life experience from a woman who was born as a man. 3. I’m perfectly willing to accept that a woman may be born with a man’s body. I’m also willing to accept that surgery may alter that male body to appear as a female body. **But it’s still a male body**. Even if the person is neurologically female, their phenotype is male (with surgical alterations). 4. I’m not attracted to surgically altered male bodies. I’m not attracted to women with surgically altered male bodies. I’m not attracted to men with female bodies. I’m attracted to women with female bodies. 5. Intercourse with a mtf transgendered person would mean my genitalia touching inverted male genitalia. That squicks me out in a really, really big way. Point 3 is the crux. I do not believe it is bigoted. On the contrary, I believe denying it is absurd: to deny that it’s a surgically altered male body, not a female body, in which our ftm transgendered person lives would require the force of several postmodern gender theorists. That’s the difference, kittyhawk. Once more: for virtually every purpose, a person’s declared gender is irrelevant to me, none of my business, and I’ll treat them as they want to be treated (this is similar to my response in another thread in which I, an atheist, will happily refrain from profanity around religious folks). But in the one purpose in which someone’s sex actually matters to me, I’m concerned about the sex of their body in addition to the sex of their mind, and while I’ll stipulate the sex of their mind, I cannot do so with the sex of their body. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2009, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-transgender-people-have-an-ethical-duty-to-reveal-their-history-before-having-sex/493638/339 "2009-05-05T00:13:33Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Actually, I would prefer to point out that informed consent, in the sense we are discussing, is encoded into the law. > [Cite.](http://www.kcsdv.org/maritalrape.html) > > So, there are a couple of examples of how informed consent, without misrepresentation, is part of the law. > > Regards, > Shodan You might now want to look up “informed consent” and compare it to the definition you gave before your soapbox tips over. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2009, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-transgender-people-have-an-ethical-duty-to-reveal-their-history-before-having-sex/493638/340 "2009-05-05T00:20:31Z")
[quote=“Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness, post:338, topic:493638”] Agreed–it is accurate that “informed consent” within its legal meaning is irrelevant here. > [@](#): > > 1. Intercourse with a mtf transgendered person would mean my genitalia touching inverted male genitalia. That squicks me out in a really, really big way. > > Point 3 is the crux. This seems to be the case I am referring to. I am not sure on your position wrt the OP. I get you are squicked out. Knowing you are squicked out by your dick touching this other person’s genitalia, would you simply do everything necessary to find out ahead of time and make sure it never happens? BTW, as I recall it, Gwen Arajo was killed and buried and her genitalia never touched any of her killers’ genitalia. > [@](#): > > I do not believe it is bigoted. On the contrary, I believe denying it is absurd: to deny that it’s a surgically altered male body, not a female body, in which our ftm transgendered person lives would require the force of several postmodern gender theorists. And the mental health community around the world. If you are going to build a strawman, make sure you build it accurately 🙂 Still, I have to confess I don’t get what your position is wrt to the OP. Yes, ethically bound or no, not ethically bound to tell you? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-transgender-people-have-an-ethical-duty-to-reveal-their-history-before-having-sex/493638.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-transgender-people-have-an-ethical-duty-to-reveal-their-history-before-having-sex/493638.md?page=18)