Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Legal onus to disclose transgender?

  • 22-12-2015 9:20am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    I saw this article in a different thread and thought it was an important topic especially in relation to our recent gender recognition act 2015.

    http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2015/12/lincolnshire-transsexual-gets-suspended-jail-sentence-for-tricking-woman-into-sex/

    This seems incredibly unfair and harsh that he has been convicted of assault. The article does not give full details but I can only guess the result hinged on when someone initiates the process to legally change gender. I wonder will this potentially be the same here?

    If a person who is trans has not yet applied for a certificate of gender recognition would they potentially face a similar conviction under Irish law for the same circumstance. This to me seems a harsh onus placed on a person that does not exist for other aspects.
    “Had she known the defendant was female and known her true identity she would certainly never have consented at all.”

    You cannot charge someone for assault if you consented but were lied to at the time such as marital status or name so I do not understand why you can convict someone based on gender when it was not a lie but again I can only assume was a technicality if a legal change had not yet been initiated.

    To me you consent to the person you have interacted with not a tickbox on a legal document so I cannot agree with this conviction or the onus it implies but I would like to hear other peoples opinions on the matter.


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Umm...this person knowingly and systematically manipulated and groomed their victim over the course of a year. That's not OK for a cis person and not OK for s trans person....thats equality.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    Umm...this person knowingly and systematically manipulated and groomed their victim over the course of a year. That's not OK for a cis person and not OK for s trans person....thats equality.

    Why do you classify it as manipulation and grooming? Both were in their 20's at the the time so I can hardly see it as grooming and you consider it manipulation for a transgender person to not disclose being trans?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    This is hardly a model case to base this question around. That could have been anyone doing the same thing, regardless of gender. Do I think trans people should disclose? Yes... But on their own terms and time as it can evoke a negative response and is still risky ground. It does not require a badge.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,537 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    J_E wrote: »
    This is hardly a model case to base this question around. That could have been anyone doing the same thing, regardless of gender. Do I think trans people should disclose? Yes... But on their own terms and time as it can evoke a negative response and is still risky ground. It does not require a badge.

    I think the point the OP is making is should trans people be legally obliged to disclose. Absolutely no way in my view.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,205 ✭✭✭cruizer101


    It really is a strange case but an important one to think about.

    The victim claims they wouldn't have had sex had they known this fact, could a victim claim the same for other facts, e.g. person claimed were rich but they weren't, particular religion, sexual preference (claimed straight actually bi), had plastic surgery to alter appearance.

    These are all potential reasons someone could claim they wouldn't of had sex with a person if they knew beforehand, would they be upheld in court?

    I have to admit if I had sex with a girl and then found out they used to be a man I think I would be uncomfortable about it but it has to be taken in context.

    Should everybody disclose everything before every one nite stand, no because that takes away from what one nite stands are, but for more of a relationship there are moral obligations to be honest about who you are and part of that is who you were.

    Should it be legal, I don't think so but I do think it is a topic that requires discussion.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,499 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    I don't think trans has anything to do with thus case.
    the rapist is(was) a woman but pretended to be a man . their future plans to become a man shouldn't matter
    she tricked her into sex. that is rape in my opinion

    whether she should have declared her trans is for a different thread. its a tricky one. I think I would be uncomfortable about dating a trans


  • Registered Users Posts: 144 ✭✭irish_dave_83


    I'm uncomfortable with the fact that they had an online relationship for a year, where he could have told her....a year. To add to this he put up pictures of a arguably better looking man to keep because he was afraid of the relationship breaking up, but she accepted this. So then he was basically forced to have sex with her, not for his satisfaction but to keep the relationship going. In this case there was plenty of time and ample opportunity to disclose this information to her. It wasn't a normal one night stand or anything, there was an element of trust there and he misled her.

    He seems so afraid of losing the relationship he forgot to be honest, but it was doomed from the start because of this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,234 ✭✭✭Meesared


    I don't think trans has anything to do with thus case.
    the rapist is(was) a woman but pretended to be a man . their future plans to become a man shouldn't matter
    she tricked her into sex. that is rape in my opinion

    whether she should have declared her trans is for a different thread. its a tricky one. I think I would be uncomfortable about dating a trans
    Sooo much misgendering and stuff, and a trans person isn't "a trans"


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    I think the point the OP is making is should trans people be legally obliged to disclose. Absolutely no way in my view.

    Yes I was definitely interested in the legal obligation to disclose. You see all the time in online dating discussion people debating when is the best time to disclose certain details about their lives. If they have a disability or more commonly being a single parent. Single parents regularly feel if they mention they have children from the very start they are automatically dismissed by many so they do not feel they get a decent chance yet if they do not disclose they run the risk of getting attached to someone so when they do disclose their children they open themselves up to more hurt if the relationship ends because of this.

    The key distinction is that you do not get convicted of sexual assault for not disclosing a disability or having children. You cannot claim your consent was only conditional so failing to meet this condition makes the encounter assault.

    As far as I am aware the only disclosure to date was having an STI so if you knowingly pass that on without disclosing this prior then you can be concivted of causing the harm in knowingly exposing a person to an STI.

    Making gender a legal obligation to disclose I do not agree with.


  • Registered Users Posts: 144 ✭✭irish_dave_83


    Maguined wrote: »
    Yes I was definitely interested in the legal obligation to disclose. You see all the time in online dating discussion people debating when is the best time to disclose certain details about their lives. If they have a disability or more commonly being a single parent. Single parents regularly feel if they mention they have children from the very start they are automatically dismissed by many so they do not feel they get a decent chance yet if they do not disclose they run the risk of getting attached to someone so when they do disclose their children they open themselves up to more hurt if the relationship ends because of this.

    The key distinction is that you do not get convicted of sexual assault for not disclosing a disability or having children. You cannot claim your consent was only conditional so failing to meet this condition makes the encounter assault.

    As far as I am aware the only disclosure to date was having an STI so if you knowingly pass that on without disclosing this prior then you can be convicted of causing the harm in knowingly exposing a person to an STI.

    Making gender a legal obligation to disclose I do not agree with.

    I don't agree with it either, but I have to say if I was in a relationship for over a year(online or not) and later found out that the lady I was with was previously a man, I would be quite annoyed that they held back that bit of information. I think most people would be. Its different than not telling someone about their child in my opinion.

    Whether it should be punishable by way of a court conviction though, I'm not so sure.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,442 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Maguined wrote: »
    The key distinction is that you do not get convicted of sexual assault for not disclosing a disability or having children. You cannot claim your consent was only conditional so failing to meet this condition makes the encounter assault.


    He was charged with 'assault by penetration', and given a suspended sentence, which is more than fair IMO given the circumstances. In that case the victim could have claimed they did not have informed consent, because they were led to believe they were having sex with a man, and not a person who was transgender.

    Being deceptive about marital status, familial status, disability, etc are completely different circumstances. I do think a person who is transgender should be responsible for disclosing this information to any sexual partners, or risk being held legally responsible if they choose not to.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,537 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    I do think a person who is transgender should be responsible for disclosing this information to any sexual partners, or risk being held legally responsible if they choose not to.

    Why?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    He was charged with 'assault by penetration', and given a suspended sentence, which is more than fair IMO given the circumstances. In that case the victim could have claimed they did not have informed consent, because they were led to believe they were having sex with a man, and not a person who was transgender.

    Being deceptive about marital status, familial status, disability, etc are completely different circumstances. I do think a person who is transgender should be responsible for disclosing this information to any sexual partners, or risk being held legally responsible if they choose not to.

    That's just feeding into other people's hang ups. Where would you draw the line? Would you be legally obligated to give other information that might cause a potential partner to decline to sleep with you?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,499 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    Meesared wrote: »
    Sooo much misgendering and stuff, and a trans person isn't "a trans"


    I don't understand your point.
    at the time the rapist was a woman so she tricked the victim

    I wrote 'a trans ' in a hurry and didn't bother writng the full name. im sorry if that is offensive. that wasn't my interntion


  • Registered Users Posts: 144 ✭✭irish_dave_83


    eviltwin wrote: »
    That's just feeding into other people's hang ups. Where would you draw the line? Would you be legally obligated to give other information that might cause a potential partner to decline to sleep with you?

    Other peoples hang ups? What about the person who omits the truth in this circumstance. It is their hang up in the first place not to disclose this information, why not be up front about it from the beginning.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    I don't agree with it either, but I have to say if I was in a relationship for over a year(online or not) and later found out that the lady I was with was previously a man, I would be quite annoyed that they held back that bit of information. I think most people would be. Its different than not telling someone about their child in my opinion.

    Whether it should be punishable by way of a court conviction though, I'm not so sure.

    I can understand someone being annoyed and to me that is a separate subjective morale debate but certainly I do not believe it should be punishable under law and result in a criminal conviction.

    Where should the line be under the law? Should a spouse receive a custodial sentence for cheating on their marriage? This is not punished under the law and that is someone making a legal contract and commitment to another person yet we do not convict people of cheating.

    If a woman wants to have children and enters a relationship with a man who is infertile but does not disclose this fact he cannot be convicted of anything yet someone has received a conviction based upon a failure to disclose gender.


  • Posts: 50,630 ✭✭✭✭ Ariana Happy Interpreter


    This isn't a straightforward case of not disclosing that he was born a woman.

    He penetrated her with something other than his penis - which is not what the woman had consented to. He allowed her to believe that she was having sex with a penis, not an inanimate object.

    It could be compared to this case, in which a woman discovered that her "boyfriend" was in fact using a sex toy to simulate sex with a penis. Not the same exactly, as it was by a woman who was born a woman, but the reasons for being charged are, imo, identical.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,442 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Why?


    Because a person should retain the right to give informed consent to who they choose to have sex with is why tbh.

    eviltwin wrote: »
    That's just feeding into other people's hang ups. Where would you draw the line? Would you be legally obligated to give other information that might cause a potential partner to decline to sleep with you?


    That's exactly what it's doing, is buying into other people's hang ups. Well, that's one way of looking at it at least. The other way is that they should have consideration for the fact that the other person is entitled to the information in order that they may make an informed choice whether to have sex with that person or not.

    I don't think there is a line that can be drawn tbh, I think anyone who knowingly deceives someone for the purposes of having sex with them, leaves themselves open to criminal prosecution. If you knowingly deceive someone in order to have sex with them, then the other person should be able to claim they were not in a position to give informed consent.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    I don't think there is a line that can be drawn tbh, I think anyone who knowingly deceives someone for the purposes of having sex with them, leaves themselves open to criminal prosecution. If you knowingly deceive someone in order to have sex with them, then the other person should be able to claim they were not in a position to give informed consent.
    The line here is not really about lying about oneself for the purposes of having sex.

    After all, that goes on everywhere, every day, with no real fallout. People lie about not being married. They lie about their names, their occupations, their financial circumstances and even their genders. You name it, someone has lied about it in the hopes of getting laid.

    Rape or sexual assault is not obtaining sex by deceit. That's not a crime in itself. The law has to recognise that consenting to the act and the preamble to the act are completely separate. If someone freely consents to the act, then the why of their consent is irrelevant.

    The line here is in the act itself. In the OP's case, the woman had consented to penetrative sex under the assumption that it would be a penis in a vagina. The act that occurred was not the one that had been consented to, and no opportunity to consent to the "new" act was given.
    It would be the same if the man in this case was not trans at all, but simply decided that his penis was inadequate and used a dildo instead. Just a lot more difficult to find out.

    Should trans people be required to declare their status before engaging in relationships? No. That kind of negates the whole point of legal recognition of transgender people. A trans woman has no more legal obligation to reveal her past than a woman or a man who is functionally infertile, for example.

    Morally, ethically, of course I think there is a duty on all such persons to be open and frank with longer-term partners, but that it not an area that governments should be legislating in.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,442 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    seamus wrote: »
    The line here is not really about lying about oneself for the purposes of having sex.

    After all, that goes on everywhere, every day, with no real fallout. People lie about not being married. They lie about their names, their occupations, their financial circumstances and even their genders. You name it, someone has lied about it in the hopes of getting laid.

    Rape or sexual assault is not obtaining sex by deceit. That's not a crime in itself. The law has to recognise that consenting to the act and the preamble to the act are completely separate. If someone freely consents to the act, then the why of their consent is irrelevant.


    Can a person be said to have freely given consent if they are knowingly being deceived by the other person? That's why I was careful to say that they should retain the right to make a complaint to the authorities if they find out that they were deceived by someone else in order for that person to have sex with them. Whether a criminal prosecution would follow would depend on whether a case could be made or not.

    I would say their consent would be very relevant given that it could be the difference between whether the other person chooses to have sex with them or not.

    The line here is in the act itself. In the OP's case, the woman had consented to penetrative sex under the assumption that it would be a penis in a vagina. The act that occurred was not the one that had been consented to, and no opportunity to consent to the "new" act was given.
    It would be the same if the man in this case was not trans at all, but simply decided that his penis was inadequate and used a dildo instead. Just a lot more difficult to find out.


    It doesn't say though in the article whether the person in question was pre- or post-op, so I just figured they could well have been post-op (hadn't thought of a dildo tbh) (EDIT: Just read the article again there, he did use a sex toy) and I think the reason why the woman said she wouldn't have consented to having sex with him is because he is transgender. As eviltwin pointed out above - some people do have hang-ups about these things, and they are entitled to those hang-ups. The other person is also entitled at that point to say "I don't want to have sex with someone with those hang-ups", and both parties go their separate ways. That's not what happened here though. The defendant had sex with the victim, knowing that he was deceiving her for his own gain - to keep the relationship going, and had she not found out about it accidentally, he would have continued to deceive her.

    Should trans people be required to declare their status before engaging in relationships? No. That kind of negates the whole point of legal recognition of transgender people. A trans woman has no more legal obligation to reveal her past than a woman or a man who is functionally infertile, for example.

    Morally, ethically, of course I think there is a duty on all such persons to be open and frank with longer-term partners, but that it not an area that governments should be legislating in.


    But the whole point of legal recognition of their gender of a person who is transgender, is as I understand it, for administrative purposes, and not a piece of paper they carry around with them on their person as a declaration of their gender to their potential sexual partners. I would say they should have a legal obligation to disclose this information to potential sexual partners because it will avoid cases like the above, where they can find themselves on the end of a criminal prosecution for not disclosing the fact that they are transgender.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Other peoples hang ups? What about the person who omits the truth in this circumstance. It is their hang up in the first place not to disclose this information, why not be up front about it from the beginning.

    Depends on the circumstances. I wouldn't tell a one night stand. If I was planning on seeing the person long term then of course it would have to come out. There's no need to threaten people with legal sanctions for not disclosing it. People have a right to privacy, that's not a hang up, that's normal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,442 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Depends on the circumstances. I wouldn't tell a one night stand. If I was planning on seeing the person long term then of course it would have to come out. There's no need to threaten people with legal sanctions for not disclosing it. People have a right to privacy, that's not a hang up, that's normal.


    Absolutely, people are entitled to their privacy, but when maintaining their privacy is dependent upon deceiving another person in order to have sex with them, then they give up their right to privacy IMO. The other person should not be put in a position where they have sex with someone whom they would not normally have had sex with if they had known that person was transgender.

    There's two people involved in that scenario, and I have very little sympathy for someone who knowingly deceives a person, while expecting that their own privacy should be respected, in order to have sex with another person.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Absolutely, people are entitled to their privacy, but when maintaining their privacy is dependent upon deceiving another person in order to have sex with them, then they give up their right to privacy IMO. The other person should not be put in a position where they have sex with someone whom they would not normally have had sex with if they had known that person was transgender.

    There's two people involved in that scenario, and I have very little sympathy for someone who knowingly deceives a person, while expecting that their own privacy should be respected, in order to have sex with another person.

    How is it deception?


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,442 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    eviltwin wrote: »
    How is it deception?


    Because the person is withholding information that they know could mean the difference between the other person choosing to have sex with them or not. It's the epitome of deception to withhold information from someone knowing it could influence their decision one way or the other, which is why I made the point earlier that obtaining consent by deception isn't actually informed consent at all, or anything like consent given with free will IMO.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    This isn't a straightforward case of not disclosing that he was born a woman.

    He penetrated her with something other than his penis - which is not what the woman had consented to. He allowed her to believe that she was having sex with a penis, not an inanimate object.

    It could be compared to this case, in which a woman discovered that her "boyfriend" was in fact using a sex toy to simulate sex with a penis. Not the same exactly, as it was by a woman who was born a woman, but the reasons for being charged are, imo, identical.

    The basis for the prosecution does seem to be based on the gender rather than on a sex toy.
    “Had she known the defendant was female and known her true identity she would certainly never have consented at all.”

    However we don't know the real details of the court case only the sensationalised snippets so the conviction could of very well have been based on the sex toy being used as you said and gender did not play a factor in the decision at all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Can a person be said to have freely given consent if they are knowingly being deceived by the other person? That's why I was careful to say that they should retain the right to make a complaint to the authorities if they find out that they were deceived by someone else in order for that person to have sex with them. Whether a criminal prosecution would follow would depend on whether a case could be made or not.
    What's the case though? What's the illegal act? If I find out that a woman finds doctors irresistable and I tell her I'm a doctor to get her into the sack, what's the case against me? What have I done that's legally wrong?

    Even then, the trans issue is one step more removed. It's not a direct deceit, it's a lie of omission.

    "Freely consented" is actually a bit redundant, since by defintion consent must be freely given to qualify as consent. But I use the word "freely" to separate it from "informed consent", in that it's consent that has been provided without any form of threat or intimidation, physical, financial or emotional. In the absence of such threats, any consent can be said to be freely given, even if not informed.

    Consent which is given on the back of an inducement (e.g. a bribe or the promise of sex), still qualifies as freely given consent.
    I would say their consent would be very relevant given that it could be the difference between whether the other person chooses to have sex with them or not.
    Yes. Likewise telling a person you hate children or that you used to kick puppies to death or that you're actually a left-wing liberal could also be the difference between a person choosing to have sex with them or not.

    Who decides what is and isn't "relevant" information in this case? Why is it only one's previous gender and not their occupation, or their nationality, for example?
    That's not what happened here though. The defendant had sex with the victim, knowing that he was deceiving her for his own gain - to keep the relationship going, and had she not found out about it accidentally, he would have continued to deceive her.
    You're going for the fraud angle, and that's very relevant. Though in order to show fraud you have to show that the victim has suffered a loss through the deception.
    Again, I'll return to the "have sex with me because I'm a doctor" example. The other person has been deceived, but what loss have they suffered?
    But the whole point of legal recognition of their gender of a person who is transgender, is as I understand it, for administrative purposes, and not a piece of paper they carry around with them on their person as a declaration of their gender to their potential sexual partners. I would say they should have a legal obligation to disclose this information to potential sexual partners because it will avoid cases like the above, where they can find themselves on the end of a criminal prosecution for not disclosing the fact that they are transgender.
    Is that not kind of begging the question though? They should declare they are transgender in case they get arrested for not declaring they're transgender.

    The whole purpose of gender recognition is so that trans people don't have to wear it as a badge. That for official purposes they are their gender and don't have to keep telling society and the government to ignore what it says on their passport because it's wrong. There is no obligation on me to tell anyone my gender. People assume, and because of social norms, they're right 99.99% of the time.
    Likewise a trans male by virtue of being legally recognised as one doesn't and shouldn't have to tell anyone that they used to female.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,442 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    seamus wrote: »
    What's the case though? What's the illegal act? If I find out that a woman finds doctors irresistable and I tell her I'm a doctor to get her into the sack, what's the case against me? What have I done that's legally wrong?

    Even then, the trans issue is one step more removed. It's not a direct deceit, it's a lie of omission.

    "Freely consented" is actually a bit redundant, since by defintion consent must be freely given to qualify as consent. But I use the word "freely" to separate it from "informed consent", in that it's consent that has been provided without any form of threat or intimidation, physical, financial or emotional. In the absence of such threats, any consent can be said to be freely given, even if not informed.

    Consent which is given on the back of an inducement (e.g. a bribe or the promise of sex), still qualifies as freely given consent.

    Yes. Likewise telling a person you hate children or that you used to kick puppies to death or that you're actually a left-wing liberal could also be the difference between a person choosing to have sex with them or not.

    Who decides what is and isn't "relevant" information in this case? Why is it only one's previous gender and not their occupation, or their nationality, for example?
    You're going for the fraud angle, and that's very relevant. Though in order to show fraud you have to show that the victim has suffered a loss through the deception.
    Again, I'll return to the "have sex with me because I'm a doctor" example. The other person has been deceived, but what loss have they suffered?


    You're right, I was aiming at the fraud angle alright, and it would depend entirely upon the circumstances of each case - the person would be entitled to make a complaint, and if they could show any loss they suffered, it would strengthen their case. The people who would decide what's relevant or irrelevant then would be the authorities, who would decide whether there is a case to answer for, and then on that basis decide whether a prosecution is worth pursuing. If you lied about being a doctor on a ONS, a person could still make a complaint, but it's unlikely to lead to a successful prosecution. If a person omitted to mention that they were transgender, then a person could still make a complaint, and depending upon the circumstances, the authorities may determine that a prosecution is worth pursuing.


    Is that not kind of begging the question though? They should declare they are transgender in case they get arrested for not declaring they're transgender.


    Well the reason why I believe that a person should be legally obliged to declare that they are transgender with people they intend on being intimate with, is because a person should be entitled to know who they're getting intimate with, and the fact that a person is transgender is a lot more intimate than telling someone you're a doctor or whatever.

    The whole purpose of gender recognition is so that trans people don't have to wear it as a badge. That for official purposes they are their gender and don't have to keep telling society and the government to ignore what it says on their passport because it's wrong. There is no obligation on me to tell anyone my gender. People assume, and because of social norms, they're right 99.99% of the time.


    Yes, for official and legal matters pertaining to their gender identity, they have every right to have their gender identity respected by government and so on, but they should not IMO, be entitled to keep that information from potential sexual partners, because as I said above - that person is entitled IMO to know who they're getting intimate with.

    The person who is transgender should be legally obliged to disclose the fact that they are transgender, because it's a fairly pertinent detail in whether a person chooses to be intimate with them or not.

    Likewise a trans male by virtue of being legally recognised as one doesn't and shouldn't have to tell anyone that they used to female.


    They should IMO, because being legally recognised as their proper gender should mean that they should also be legally obliged IMO to disclose this fact to any potential sexual partners. At least that way, the other person or persons, can make an informed choice as to whether they want to be intimate or not with a person who identifies as transgender.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Well the reason why I believe that a person should be legally obliged to declare that they are transgender with people they intend on being intimate with, is because a person should be entitled to know who they're getting intimate with, and the fact that a person is transgender is a lot more intimate than telling someone you're a doctor or whatever.
    In your opinion, but not objectively. Which I guess is the angle I was getting at.

    Some people would be far more upset their partner used to be prostitute than used to be a man. Or that their partner is a former soldier who has killed hundreds of people.

    What is the definition of information that is critical for a potential partner to know before they engage in sexual behaviour?

    The only line we have for certain is information which may potentially compromise their health - such as being HIV positive (and I would include knowledge of other STIs there too).

    But outside of that it's pretty subjective - what someone may consider "absolutely critical", such as previous genders, another person may consider to be "meh" level information.

    By singling out transgenderism as being of critical importance you are in effect discriminating against them on the basis of gender. Having a transgender partner cannot result in any physical or objective mental harm against a person (i.e. any aversion you have is entirely of your own making). So there's no good reason why it should be classified objectively as "critical" information.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,537 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Because a person should retain the right to give informed consent to who they choose to have sex with is why tbh.

    But you can lie about hundreds and thousands of things. Surely if you had true legal "informed consent" you would have to disclose everything in life.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 144 ✭✭irish_dave_83


    seamus wrote: »

    By singling out transgenderism as being of critical importance you are in effect discriminating against them on the basis of gender. Having a transgender partner cannot result in any physical or objective mental harm against a person (i.e. any aversion you have is entirely of your own making). So there's no good reason why it should be classified objectively as "critical" information.

    This is your opinion. I would suggest that this information is "critical" to the majority of people. Comparing it to other types of omissions of truth can not be done accurately. We are talking about the most intimate physical act between two people, and for one person to be tricked into it is disgraceful. Its unknown what the person might do after they find out - they may do nothing and say "meh" or they may do something drastic.
    But in your opinion that's their issue, and not the fault of the person who withheld this information?


Advertisement