Do transgender people have an ethical duty to reveal their history before having sex?

[begbert2]

@not_alice

**If you care what happens to your dick, then gather up all the needed information before your dick does anything.
**

Counter:

@begbert2

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!

Explanation of the counter for those who missed it the first time: the bolded statement by not_alice explicitly does not answer the question of whether or not it is ethical to refrain from full disclosure. It merely asserts that if witholding the information is unethcal, then the transsexual will do it anyway and simply be behaving unethically.

You might as well answer “Is it ethical to speed” with “I don’t care if it’s ethical, I’m gonna go ninety anyway!” It’s a completely irrelevent non-sequitor, if not, dare I say it, a red herring. It really has nothing to do with the thread at any rate.

Persons wasting hamster chow might be advised to focus on arguments relevent to the thread, perhaps something like “If you can’t pin me down with a specific ethical system, then I can totally pillage and plunder and not feel a shred of guilt! Nyah nyah!” Not to say that that argument has actually been presented by anyone here…but if it was, it would at least be on topic.

And on preview I observe that not_alice has finally figured out that there is disagreement on whether there’s no such thing as (applied) ethics. From there he seems to leaps to the conclusion that that means that he’s right in his bald and unsupported assertion that there’s no such thing as (applied) ethics. Rational people, wether or not they agree with him, will of course note the non-existence of ethics is still his little opinion, and he’s only ‘won’ in his own mind.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@not_alice

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?

Confession accepted. Still waiting on the apology for the obnoxious and offensive question from earlier in the thread, at which point I’ll be willing to talk with you.

[not_alice]

@begbert2

Counter:
Explanation of the counter for those who missed it the first time: the bolded statement by not_alice explicitly does not answer the question of whether or not it is ethical to refrain from full disclosure. It merely asserts that if witholding the information is unethcal, then the transsexual will do it anyway and simply be behaving unethically.

That would be true if in fact you could simply tell me the name of the ethics system to which you are referring to, and then we shall decide together if it is incumbent on the players in question. If it is, you win.

that is all there is too it.
ETA - and why don’t you quote where I “figured” something out instead of putting more words I didn’t say about a topic I didn’t refer to in my mouth?

I can’t prove a negative, that your claimed system doesn’t exist.

But if it does, you can surely put it forward for us to learn from.

And on preview I observe that not_alice has finally figured out that there is disagreement on whether there’s no such thing as (applied) ethics. From there he seems to leaps to the conclusion that that means that he’s right in his bald and unsupported assertion that there’s no such thing as (applied) ethics. Rational people, wether or not they agree with him, will of course note the non-existence of ethics is still his little opinion, and he’s only ‘won’ in his own mind.

Please stop focusing on what you think I said. You are batting .000 on that regard, there is no expectation that you will improve.

Instead, focus on making your own case clear.

Simply share with us the name of the ethics system to which you have been referring since the top of page 2 (we are near the end of 7 now). and allow us to research and learn from your wisdom.

Why is it so hard to simply give us the name odf the system that applies to everyone, as posited in the OP , or provide a link to it on the internet?

Maybe because it doesn’t exist?

[begbert2]

@not_alice

That would be true if in fact you could simply tell me the name of the ethics system to which you are referring to, and then we shall decide together if it is incumbent on the players in question. If it is, you win.

that is all there is too it.

“Don’t be a jerk”.

I win.

[not_alice]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Confession accepted. Still waiting on the apology for the obnoxious and offensive question from earlier in the thread, at which point I’ll be willing to talk with you.

Which question was that, and why does it override your desire to be clear to everyone here?

I will be inclined to apologize regardless if you just let me know what question I asked that was offensive.

[not_alice]

@begbert2

“Don’t be a jerk”.

I win.

Back to school for you my friend.

That is your “ethics system”? How does it apply to the OP? Might others see it another way? How is it bound to everybody to whom the OP could possibly refer?

Amuse us.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@not_alice

Which question was that, and why does it override your desire to be clear to everyone here?

I will be inclined to apologize regardless if you just let me know what question I asked that was offensive.

Early on, when I suggested that it was unethical to withhold information that you reasonably believed would affect the other person’s decision, you asked me whether I would respond to such a situation with violence–a ridiculous and insinuating question. I have no interest in discussing with people who try to turn it from a discussion into an attack on another person’s character, and I have no interest in spending my time defending myself from this or other absurd insinuations (e.g., that I consider lying transsexuals to be rapists).

[begbert2]

Also:

Main Entry: eth·i·cal
Pronunciation: \ˈe-thi-kəl\
Variant(s): also eth·ic -thik\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English etik, from Latin ethicus, from Greek ēthikos, from ēthos character — more at sib
Date: 1588
1: of or relating to ethics <ethical theories>
2: involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval <ethical judgments>
3: conforming to accepted standards of conduct <ethical behavior>
4of a drug : restricted to sale only on a doctor’s prescription

linky

Bolding mine. The question of whether something is ethical can be answered by referencing “accepted standards of conduct” without citing some specific written-out-and-named ethical system and binding people to it. And, given that being a deceptive dick is hardly an accepted standard of conduct, if we get to the point where a transsexual has thought about the universe a bit and realized that there’s a respectable chance that they are witholding information that their partner would really like to know going in, then they are indeed being deceptive and failing to meet accepted standards of conduct in a romantic ‘transaction’.

Thus, unethical. By definition.

How does that amuse you?

[not_alice]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Early on, when I suggested that it was unethical to withhold information that you reasonably believed would affect the other person’s decision, you asked me whether I would respond to such a situation with violence–a ridiculous and insinuating question. I have no interest in discussing with people who try to turn it from a discussion into an attack on another person’s character, and I have no interest in spending my time defending myself from this or other absurd insinuations (e.g., that I consider lying transsexuals to be rapists).

I am truly sorry that you ended up upset. Care to wear my shoes in this thread?

Still, I thought (and still think) that was the underlying intent of the OP to ask about, because that is what happens in such cases. Top of page two was a cite to a current case where a guy was convicted of violence, and locally to where I lived at the time, Gwen Arajo was killed in just such a situation, and “transgender panic/blame the victim” has been the defense in case after case, and posited as a potential justification for violence in the OP’s situation.

So I don’t know if you are aware of the history about such cases or not, if not, may I suggest you look all this up to whatever level of detail you need to learn about it, and to recognize that it is not personal.

I apologize that you were upset regardless.

So, is your position in line with mine - there is no ethical obligation on either party - or more in line with those who posit “transgender panic/blame the victim” as a legal theory and would assert nebulous ethical obligations that they can never quite point to?

[not_alice]

@begbert2

Also:

Main Entry: eth·i·cal
Pronunciation: \ˈe-thi-kəl\
Variant(s): also eth·ic -thik\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English etik, from Latin ethicus, from Greek ēthikos, from ēthos character — more at sib
Date: 1588
1: of or relating to ethics <ethical theories>
2: involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval <ethical judgments>
3: conforming to accepted standards of conduct <ethical behavior>
4of a drug : restricted to sale only on a doctor’s prescription

linky

Bolding mine. The question of whether something is ethical can be answered by referencing “accepted standards of conduct” without citing some specific written-out-and-named ethical system and binding people to it. And, given that being a deceptive dick is hardly an accepted standard of conduct, if we get to the point where a transsexual has thought about the universe a bit and realized that there’s a respectable chance that they are witholding information that their partner would really like to know going in, then they are indeed being deceptive and failing to meet accepted standards of conduct in a romantic ‘transaction’.

Thus, unethical. By definition.

How does that amuse you?

It amuses me greatly.

It also doesn’t answer my questions fully which were designed to make you consider if you were being one-sided in whatever nonsense you came up with, or if there was any other possible interpretation of whatever you chose to cite.

Oh it probably does in your mind, I get that.

But I am pretty sure even your HS teachers would be hard pressed to give it a C- in rational approach and persuasiveness.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@not_alice

I am truly sorry that you ended up upset. Care to wear my shoes in this thread?

No, nor do I care to lie in the bed that you made. In any case, did you learn to apologize from a politician? Talk about your non-apology apologies: you’re sorry that I ended up upset, but not sorry for your behavior?

On second thought, though, I believe this is one of those occasions where I shouldn’t attribute something to malice when there’s another adequate explanation. I don’t think you’ve considered what you’re saying. For example:

So, is your position in line with mine - there is no ethical obligation on either party - or more in line with those who posit “transgender panic/blame the victim” as a legal theory and would assert nebulous ethical obligations that they can never quite point to?

This is doubly bizarre. First, I’ve made my position abundantly clear in this thread, I think. Second, you’ve got quite the excluded middle: on the one hand is your stance, and on the other is a stance that nobody has adopted.

Here’s both my stance and how I’d respond to its violation.

STANCE: In any sexual interaction between two people either party has the right to call it off. The right to call it off trumps the right to continue it, absolutely. (This is true in general; sexual interactions are a specific, and I’m talking about them because I don’t want to get bogged down in side-cases).

If you believe that there is a fact that, if the other person knew it, would cause them to call off the interaction, it’s your responsibility to reveal that fact. The likelier it is that it’d cause them to call it off, the greater your responsibility; the less likely it is that they’d guess this was the case, the greater your responsibility. It’s your responsibility, not theirs, because you possess the knowledge that they don’t possess. It doesn’t matter whether this fact is that you live with your mom, or that you’re not really Brad Pitt no matter how much you look like him, or that your body is differently gendered from your mind, or whatever: you possess that knowledge, they don’t.

If you do not meet your responsibility, you are committing a lie of omission. That is unethical.

A convincing mtf sexually interacting with a heterosexual m under most circumstances (not, I’ll concede, when hanging out with Mr. Dibble’s mates), will reasonably believe that the hm would call off the interaction if the ftm’s ftmitude were known. If they sincerely do not believe this, they have no ethical obligation. But if they do, then they’re obligated to put their cards on the table. To fail to do so is to make a lie of omission, to deceive, to behave unethically.

Finally, I acknowledge that different people have different ideas about ethics. I am a moral objectivist, and I can’t be arsed to teach you what that means. You have access to Google, and your first few hits should be plenty to educate you on that term if you’re not already familiar with it. I am uninterested in debating moral subjectivism vs. moral objectivism.

MY RESPONSE: In the entirely theoretical world of my ever finding myself in this position, it’s completely absurd to suggest that I would do anything violent. We don’t–I don’t–live in a world in which the proper response to unethical behavior is to beat the shit out of the unethical person. In this circumstance, I’d most likely give the liar a piece of my mind. If that weren’t my response, it’d be because I didn’t consider that level of hostility worth my time, and I’d just cut off ties to them.

So no: I don’t adopt your position. Nor do I adopt the position that it’s okay to beat up anyone who deceives me.

Incidentally, I’m well aware that some transgendered folks have suffered horribly. That’s an outrage. It’s horrifying. It’s sickening. Pull out the thesaurus. It doesn’t excuse anyone from committing lies of omission in order to obtain sex.

[VinylTurnip]

@not_alice

That is your “ethics system”? How does it apply to the OP? Might others see it another way? How is it bound to everybody to whom the OP could possibly refer?

Amuse us.

It’s plain that you think you’re scoring a string of rhetorical bullseyes with the “ethics system” thing— and you are absolutely right, the OP has the word “ethical,” right there in the subject line—but I suspect Michelle Bachmann didn’t realize how foolish she sounded asking Geithner for the “TARP Fund Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, either.

Good rule of thumb: before you start gloating, look around and make sure everyone isn’t laughing at you.

[begbert2]

@not_alice

It amuses me greatly.

It also doesn’t answer my questions fully which were designed to make you consider if you were being one-sided in whatever nonsense you came up with, or if there was any other possible interpretation of whatever you chose to cite.

Oh it probably does in your mind, I get that.

But I am pretty sure even your HS teachers would be hard pressed to give it a C- in rational approach and persuasiveness.

Well the lovely thing about interpretations of dictionary definitions is that all the listed definitions are correct and possibly applicable. So even if you wanted to torture definition 1, “of or relating to ethics <ethical theories>” to try and make it mean “it’s only ethical-or-not as it relates to an existing ethical theory, possibly published in a scholarly journal,” my ‘interpretation’ would still be in the running.

Assuming you still want to beat this dead horse of yours (which by my reckoning I just shot through the head), it would behoove (heh) you to try and argue that the OP did not intend to mean the “conforming to accepted standards of conduct <ethical behavior>” usage of the word when he used it. Which frankly I don’t think you can do, because that is, was, and remains the more common use of the term in casual conversation outside of instances where you have explicitly stated that you are assessing things relative to a specific existing system.

You’re free to try, though. Amuse me.

As for “consider[ing] if [I was] being one-sided in whatever nonsense * came up with”, given that the “nonsense” is a dictionary definition, it’s one-sided from authority. But, I’ll be magnanimous in victory - if you can find a dictionary definition that includes your use of the words as a subdefinition but does not include mine or a variant thereof as another subdefinition…I will be mildly impressed by your find but still require you to demonstrate that the OP meant your rather contrived usage and not the common one. Given that that needs to happen for this argument of yours to have a shred of a leg to stand on.
And I never met a HS or college teacher that would not give ground before a dictionary - though I admit I didn’t try it with all of them. The majority of them already knew what the words in question meant, and so were not in disagreement with me about them.

But you go ahead and keep making desperate-sounding little ad-hominem attacks. It’s pathetic but still kind of amusing, in a slipping-on-banana-peels kind of way.

[tomndebb]

TWEEEEEET!

All right, no more paraphrasing other posters or “interpreting” what they have posted. All this nonsense about who “really” said what, (with its attendant “prove I said that”), instead of just addressing the issues is boring as well as a fight ready to happen. Either respond to direct quotations, or, better, simply state your own positions, or drop the topic. (And if this means that you will all have to drop out of this thread, that’s just too darned bad,)

[ /Moderating ]

[Bryan_Ekers]

@tomndebb

TWEEEEEET!

Hey, don’t be cuttin’ the thread’s balls off or nuthin’…

[not_alice]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

No, nor do I care to lie in the bed that you made. In any case, did you learn to apologize from a politician? Talk about your non-apology apologies: you’re sorry that I ended up upset, but not sorry for your behavior?

I am not really sorry and you are not really upset. You think I didn’t see your word games from a mile away?

But thanks for sharing:

STANCE: In any sexual interaction between two people either party has the right to call it off. The right to call it off trumps the right to continue it, absolutely. (This is true in general; sexual interactions are a specific, and I’m talking about them because I don’t want to get bogged down in side-cases).

You say that is not my position, but in fact it is. If one is unhappy with how things are developing, then walk away.

Finally, I acknowledge that different people have different ideas about ethics. I am a moral objectivist, and I can’t be arsed to teach you what that means. You have access to Google, and your first few hits should be plenty to educate you on that term if you’re not already familiar with it. I am uninterested in debating moral subjectivism vs. moral objectivism.

Finally, in post 351 someone bothers to post the name of an ethical system.

Was that so hard?

I hope you won’t take unti post 700 before answering the 2nd half of my question, which is why this system, in your estimation, is bound on everyone, and why everyone is bound to it, and to present som (nonexistent IMHO, but go for it) evidence that it is.

We don’t–I don’t–live in a world in which the proper response to unethical behavior is to beat the shit out of the unethical person.

Was Gwen Arajo unethical? What ethical system was she bound by and ignored, that led to her death? Was just-convicted Andrade acting accorning to a code of ethics when he committed his crime?

Or were people just living their lives, and some of them committed horrible crimes?

In this circumstance, I’d most likely give the liar a piece of my mind. If that weren’t my response, it’d be because I didn’t consider that level of hostility worth my time, and I’d just cut off ties to them.

Again, 100% in agreement with me. Walk away if you find your dick is not getting what it needs.

So no: I don’t adopt your position. Nor do I adopt the position that it’s okay to beat up anyone who deceives me.

But you do adopt my position.

Incidentally, I’m well aware that some transgendered folks have suffered horribly. That’s an outrage. It’s horrifying. It’s sickening. Pull out the thesaurus. It doesn’t excuse anyone from committing lies of omission in order to obtain sex.

In Gwen Arajo’s case, her gender was not a factor in the sex acts she performed. Men and women, well, to be blunt, anyone with parts we all have can do it. Her killers came back repeatedly for such sex. How many times do they have to come back willingly before, in your world, what they are doing for their own benefit, consensually, stops being a lie?

[not_alice]

@VinylTurnip

It’s plain that you think you’re scoring a string of rhetorical bullseyes with the “ethics system” thing— and you are absolutely right, the OP has the word “ethical,” right there in the subject line—but I suspect Michelle Bachmann didn’t realize how foolish she sounded asking Geithner for the “TARP Fund Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, either.

Good rule of thumb: before you start gloating, look around and make sure everyone isn’t laughing at you.

Appealing to Michelle Bachmann when arguing for a postion, that may or may not be in your case, but in the general case is arguing for thinly veiled homophobia or “transgender panic” might not be the best rhetorical technique. Just sayin’.

That people don’t understand and laugh as a defense mechanism, is hardly a persuasive technique either. Well, it does persuade some people in my experience, but only those who want to be in with the laughing crowd socially. Given the pride in ignorance (IMHO) displayed on this thread, I’d hardly consider your appeal to populism worth the electrons it wasted on the way to my screen.

Finally, I don’t doubt that some, many people hold a mistaken view of what ethics actually are. We had the same matter on another thread recently regarding legal ethics. The OP simply could not or would not grasp the explanation legal ethics even though it was repeated by at least a half dozen attorneys in the country the OP is in. So it is not jsut this OP where that misunderstanding occurs.

But I bet it never occurs where someone IS bound by a professional code of ethics. It never has in my experience across a range of professions, anyway. So when you tell me you are laughing, I am inferring that you are not bound to a code of ethics and so don’t understand what it means to be so bound. So your laughter presents itself as the laughter of ignorance, not the laughter of ignorance fighting.

I mean, you say I am right in my rhetorical points, but you choose to not learn or be persuaded, but rather to laugh, and I am supposed to be persuaded by that?

Really?

[MrDibble]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

STANCE: In any sexual interaction between two people either party has the right to call it off. The right to call it off trumps the right to continue it, absolutely. (This is true in general; sexual interactions are a specific, and I’m talking about them because I don’t want to get bogged down in side-cases).

Agreed

If you believe that there is a fact that, if the other person knew it, would cause them to call off the interaction, it’s your responsibility to reveal that fact.

And don’t agree. But then, I wouldn’t, as this is the crux of the OP.

I still don’t see it as catering to a simple preference, but instead, catering to someone’s bigotry. I’m still not convinced (but am willing to listen.)

Like I said before, if asked by a TS who was in the OP’s situation, I would tell them to come clean. It’s the prudent and long-term healthy choice, to be honest and upfront about past sexual history before doing the deed. It certainly is the more socially-acceptable choice. I’m not quibbling at all in that regard.

I’m only disputing that the ethical obligation is there. I think that the TS’s need to be treated as just a woman trumps the man’s need to hold on to his prejudices. I desire that the man be genderfucked, basically. I think genderfucking is an ethical good. Shocking people out of their narrow worldviews is to be desired. Being rigid is not a good thing.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@not_alice

I am not really sorry and you are not really upset. You think I didn’t see your word games from a mile away?

Honey, you don’t want to know what I think you can see.

Finally, in post 351 someone bothers to post the name of an ethical system.

Was that so hard?

I hope you won’t take unti post 700 before answering the 2nd half of my question, which is why this system, in your estimation, is bound on everyone, and why everyone is bound to it, and to present som (nonexistent IMHO, but go for it) evidence that it is.

As I said, I can’t be arsed to educate you about moral objectivism, except for two points:

1. It’s not the name of an ethical system.
2. It’s an exaplanation for why I believe my system is bound on everyone.

Was Gwen Arajo unethical? What ethical system was she bound by and ignored, that led to her death? Was just-convicted Andrade acting accorning to a code of ethics when he committed his crime?

What? If Gwen Arajo committed lies of omission or comission, she was unethical. How is this even a question you’re asking me, once I’ve made it clear? And Andrade was acting perfectly ethically when he beat her to death.

Are you shitting me? Are you really asking this question at this point? I guess your apology really was hollow.

In Gwen Arajo’s case, her gender was not a factor in the sex acts she performed. Men and women, well, to be blunt, anyone with parts we all have can do it. Her killers came back repeatedly for such sex. How many times do they have to come back willingly before, in your world, what they are doing for their own benefit, consensually, stops being a lie?

This question isn’t offensive, it’s just nonsensical. The number of times a wheel turns does not determine its roundness, and the number of times you believe a lie doesn’t determine its truth value.

Y’know, forget it. No apology, no more dialog.

[alexandra]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

If you believe that there is a fact that, if the other person knew it, would cause them to call off the interaction, it’s your responsibility to reveal that fact. The likelier it is that it’d cause them to call it off, the greater your responsibility; the less likely it is that they’d guess this was the case, the greater your responsibility. It’s your responsibility, not theirs, because you possess the knowledge that they don’t possess. It doesn’t matter whether this fact is that you live with your mom, or that you’re not really Brad Pitt no matter how much you look like him, or that your body is differently gendered from your mind, or whatever: you possess that knowledge, they don’t.
[…]
A convincing mtf sexually interacting with a heterosexual m under most circumstances (not, I’ll concede, when hanging out with Mr. Dibble’s mates), will reasonably believe that the hm would call off the interaction if the ftm’s ftmitude were known.

Bolding mine

Let’s assume you’re right and that it would be a reasonable assumption that under most circumstances that a hetero man wouldn’t want to sleep with a mtf woman.

Why not? Bigotry against the existence of transsexuality - well, that’s plain unethical in itself. How about an absence of desire for a trans person - totally acceptable of course, but is that enough to deem it an ethical duty for the trans woman to make sure they will definitely be sexually satisfied?

Doesn’t this mean that someone would be only ethically obliged to reveal their status in the case where society’s prejudice on the grounds of taste deems them unattractive to the majority?

Isn’t that a screwed up way of determining the ethics of behaviour? Via the tastes of the majority?

(Note: I’m not saying the majority’s prejudices are bad, evil or even wrong; just that they are merely that - and do not constitute any sufficient guide for what’s wrong and what’s right IMO.)

My position on this stems from the fact that I do not believe anyone has good reason to be hurt, harmed, traumatised, etc. by sleeping with a trans person. The opposite of desire shouldn’t be repulsion, but indifference. How is someone harmed by sleeping with a transexual? They may feel sexually indifferent to the person they slept with with that knowledge in mind. That is not reason enough to put an ethical burden on the trans person to reveal their history - potentially putting themselves at risk of something more than sexual indifference.