Legal onus to disclose transgender?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're doing it again - why should the welfare of people who are transgender, over-ride the welfare of their potential sexual partners?

I'm aware of the potential for violence and death that is suffered by people who are transgender, but that should not be used as an excuse for them to hide the fact that they are transgender from someone whom they intend to have sex with.

Again, have you given a minutes thought to the person who they have sex with, who discovers afterwards that they had sex with someone who is transgender, and the effect on their mental health?

Not the best way to further understanding of people who are transgender IMO by excusing them from the potential emotional and mental health issues that they could inflict on other people due to their deceiving that person. What about the stress inflicted upon that person, through no fault of their own?

I find the idea of legally forcing people to out themselves to be abhorrent. It's an invasion of their right to privacy for a start plus it then places them in more danger of violence and death.

I'm not excusing trans people from anything. I'm looking at this from their point of view.

I'm not ignoring the views of people they choose to have sex with either and I also don't believe all of those people have entirely homogenous viewpoints on this either.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I find the idea of legally forcing people to out themselves to be abhorrent. It's an invasion of their right to privacy for a start plus it then places them in more danger of violence and death.

But nobody is forcing anyone to out themselves, and there is no invasion of their privacy, and there is no danger of violence and death... while they are not deceiving anyone in order to have sex with them. You've yet to explain why another person's welfare is treated as an irrelevance in comparison to the person who wants to have sex with them?

Are there no potential consequences for them on discovering that the person they had sex with is transgender?

I'm not excusing trans people from anything. I'm looking at this from their point of view.

I'm not ignoring the views of people they choose to have sex with either and I also don't believe all of those people have entirely homogenous viewpoints on this either.

I think, with all due respect, and using the victim in the opening post as an example - you're not looking at both perspectives equally at all. It truly does come across like your over-riding concern is for the person who chooses to deceive another person in order to protect themselves, while expecting their privacy to be respected, with very little regard for the real victims in these cases.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But nobody is forcing anyone to out themselves, and there is no invasion of their privacy, and there is no danger of violence and death... while they are not deceiving anyone in order to have sex with them. You've yet to explain why another person's welfare is treated as an irrelevance in comparison to the person who wants to have sex with them?

Are there no potential consequences for them on discovering that the person they had sex with is transgender?

I think, with all due respect, and using the victim in the opening post as an example - you're not looking at both perspectives equally at all. It truly does come across like your over-riding concern is for the person who chooses to deceive another person in order to protect themselves, while expecting their privacy to be respected, with very little regard for the real victims in these cases.

With all due respect I think your language throughout this discussion about trans people has been highly inflammatory - you have cast them as deceitful and selfish and frankly predatory suggesting they "very little regard for the real victims in these cases" so it really is rich for you to lecture me about what my concerns are and how I'm not looking at an equal perspective when your perspective is entirely one sided.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

With all due respect I think your language throughout this discussion about trans people has been highly inflammatory - you have cast them as deceitful and selfish and frankly predatory suggesting they "very little regard for the real victims in these cases" so it really is rich for you to lecture me about what my concerns are and how I'm not looking at an equal perspective when your perspective is entirely one sided.

That's a very unfair judgement of my position, when at no point did I ever even so much as imply I was talking about people who are transgender as a whole. I made no generalisations about people who are transgender, and I didn't at all imply that they were all deceitful, selfish or predatory.

I was specifically talking about people who are transgender who do engage in deceiving people for their own gain. I'm aware that the majority of people who are transgender would never think of doing any such thing as the person in the opening post has done.

I don't hold people who are transgender to a different standard than anyone else who isn't transgender - if someone deceives someone else in order to have sex with them, they should be held to the same standard as everyone else in society.

Maguined wrote: »

It is not a whole other tangent, if you believe someone should be convicted for failing to disclose any other information people might find critical like having children then you are at least being consistent in your belief. However if you do not believe other factors should be punishable under law and only STI's and gender are the punishable factors then to me this appears discriminatory.

I'm not concerned with other factors that are outside the scope of this thread though. We're specifically talking about deception based on gender here, where a person willfully withholding the fact that they are transgender in order to deceive another person should be IMO punishable by law. Of course it's inherently discriminatory on the basis of gender, but I don't strive for consistency based on gender anyway as I don't believe in a gender blind legal system.

To my knowledge there has never been any criminal charges against deceiving someone apart from STI's. People have been deceptive with their names, professions, marital status and children all the time and there has been no criminal convictions.

Do you beleive there have been criminal charges for other factors? More importantly do you believe they should be punished by the law?

There have been numerous people convicted of bigamy, fraud, etc, the laws exist already, but securing a conviction is based on a number of factors and often it's nigh on impossible to secure a conviction as there isn't a case worth pursuing.

As for people saying that this can lead to mental hurt or anguish for someone sleeping with someone they did not know was transgender I do not believe that is valid as any other form of mental hurt or anguish is also not punishable under law. There are many factors that could lead to such hurt because you found out something about a partner you do not agree with but there is no legal recourse.

Thankfully, for the victims od a crime, the Courts do take into account the emotional and mental impact of a crime committed against the victim.

A mass murder or rapist could serve their prison term and be released and become intimate with someone and have no obligation to disclose their crimes. I am fairly sure the majority of people would feel mental anguish if they found out they had been intimate with someone who had comitted a crime but that is not punishable by law so to suggest it should for gender is preposterous.

We're not talking about murderers or rapists here though, those are different from fraud or deception, so we don't strive to equate other issues with them in order to be "consistent". It's not preposterous IMO to suggest that someone who wilfully withholds the fact that they are transgender from someone else, with the aim of deceiving them, knowing that the person would not have sex with them if that person knew they were transgender, should be held responsible for their actions, up to and including punishment by possible criminal sanctions.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not concerned with other factors that are outside the scope of this thread though. We're specifically talking about deception based on gender here, where a person willfully withholding the fact that they are transgender in order to deceive another person should be IMO punishable by law. Of course it's inherently discriminatory on the basis of gender, but I don't strive for consistency based on gender anyway as I don't believe in a gender blind legal system.





There have been numerous people convicted of bigamy, fraud, etc, the laws exist already, but securing a conviction is based on a number of factors and often it's nigh on impossible to secure a conviction as there isn't a case worth pursuing.

Thankfully, for the victims od a crime, the Courts do take into account the emotional and mental impact of a crime committed against the victim.

We're not talking about murderers or rapists here though, those are different from fraud or deception, so we don't strive to equate other issues with them in order to be "consistent". It's not preposterous IMO to suggest that someone who wilfully withholds the fact that they are transgender from someone else, with the aim of deceiving them, knowing that the person would not have sex with them if that person knew they were transgender, should be held responsible for their actions, up to and including punishment by possible criminal sanctions.

Normally I dont engage in whataboutery and call it out but honestly in this case I think its highly relevant because while the the issue is gender identity you really cant dismiss everything as irrelevant in my view. If you believe in this idea of "imformed consent" then why must gender identity be the only thing that is focused on. You havent given a satisfactory answer other than dismissal.

Also I think this new idea you have introduced of withholding information from a person knowing that it would make a difference is a little odd. Why is this now only confined to people who know it would make a difference? How do people know it would make a difference? What about people who dont know if it would make a difference or not? Should they be convicted?

seamus wrote: »

It's not preposterous IMO to suggest that someone who wilfully withholds the fact that they are a vegetarian from someone else, with the aim of deceiving them, knowing that the person would not have sex with them if that person knew they were a vegetarian, should be held responsible for their actions, up to and including punishment by possible criminal sanctions.

This is your argument. I use vegetarian there half for comedic effect, but also because there are some odd people out there who would legitimately refuse to sleep with a vegetarian.

If someone wants to make the same argument for vegetarianism, they're welcome to. I understand what you're doing, but I personally would see a considerable difference between someone who is a vegetarian and someone who is transgender. Being transgender goes to the very core of who that person is as a person, and if they cannot have an expectation that their potential sexual partners will have no issue with them being transgender. It puts an unfair expectation on that person IMO.

However you are stunting the argument here by adding the word "knowing" in, because now you're making it conditional and it means the other party will have to have explicitly said, "If you are transgender I do not consent to sex with you". No, that can't be implied or assumed.

The argument in reality stinks of, "If it happened to me, I would be really upset, so I think it should be illegal". There's not any rational basis on which to single out transgender people for mandatory disclosure.

I wouldn't personally be perturbed either way tbh, but the point I'm making is that I can't speak for other people who would be perturbed, to the point where they would want to make a complaint to the authorities, who would then decide based upon the facts of each case whether the person who engaged in the deception had a case to answer for, and whether a case was worth pursuing, with the aim of securing a criminal conviction against the person.

The rational basis for singling out people who are transgender is that not everyone is going to agree that they are the gender they identify as, and consent would have been conditional on that basis, so I think a case could be argued that consent was not present because the person was not in a position to consent when they were misled to believe that the person they had sex with, is not a person they would have had sex with had they known they were transgender.

The idea of telling someone "Tough! You got what you wanted out of the interaction because you had sex with that person based on their gender you believed them to be!", that doesn't sit right with me at all tbh, and stinks of a phrase I don't often use - victim blaming.

You've certainly put forth plenty of decent arguments for mandatory disclosure of lots of things, including people who deceive about their job status, family status, etc. But nobody has provided reasons why transgender in particular is the only one that's important to disclose above other concerns.

It goes to the very core of a person's sexuality. It's that simple - if someone would not have sex with someone based upon their gender, then a person who is transgender who withholds that information from them is IMO likely to have far more of an impact on their mental and emotional health and wellbeing than the other reasons mentioned above.

One thing it's important to note is how incredibly rare this kind of deception is anyway. Transgender people, trans women in particular, put themselves at massive risk in coming out to a male partner who is unaware of their status. Doing so after having engaged in sex has the potential to lead to severe harm or even death if the other party takes it badly.

Absolutely, I think most people are already aware of how rare these circumstances are, and that's why cases like the one in the opening post are going to attract media attention. I think the argument that people who are transgender put themselves at massive risk in informing their potential sexual partners that they are transgender, ignores the fact that people put themselves at massive risk by informing people of anything about themselves. The argument shouldn't be used as an excuse to allow people to abdicate their responsibility towards their potential sexual partners because they risk that person refusing to have sex with them. The other person should have every right to make that choice - if they wouldn't have sex with someone who is transgender, then the person who is transgender is doing themselves no favours by deceiving that person in order to have sex with them IMO.

With regard to any potential harm coming to the person for disclosing to their potential sexual partners that they are transgender - we have laws against that kind of behaviour already, up to and including criminal sanctions for harassment, assault or indeed murder (which is also, an incredibly rare outcome in those circumstances).

There's a good argument for trans people coming out beforehand - it's a better idea for the trans person's health and safety to do so, moreso than that of their partner.

For sure, and like Joey said earlier - honesty is the best policy. I also said earlier I can understand and empathise with a person who is transgender agonising over the decision to inform their potential sexual partners that they are transgender, and in my experience at least, they do. But for the... handful of people that would - there should be IMO, legal consequences for their actions.


(I think the media are at fault for sensationalising and promoting a stereotype of people who are transgender who would have any interest in deceiving people in order to have sex with them tbh, it's an exaggerated, ignorant stereotype IMO, but arguing that people who have "hang ups" about not wanting to have sex with someone on the basis of their gender, is disingenuous in equal measure, and doesn't do understanding of people who are transgender any favours IMO)

seamus wrote: »

I don't think any of us really are disagreeing here. The question is not whether deception in general is an issue, I think we can all agree that lying to get laid is dubious, and some lies are bigger than others.
But what we're debating here is whether transgender people specifically should be legally compelled to reveal their status to every single potential sexual partner beforehand.
Replace "transgender" with "black" or "traveller" and you'll see why the idea is so abhorrent (noting of course that the former would be obvious )

I think the whole "replace such and such, with such and such" style of argument ignores whole swathes of context. It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny, because one person can be all of the above too! It's one of the reasons I detest identity politics - because it focuses on specific issues, as opposed to recognising that people are far more complex than simplistic identity labels. Take someone who identifies as transgender for example - they may identify as transgender, but may have no intention of transitioning, or may be comfortable with hormonal transitioning and foregoing medical surgery.

I genuinely don't see what would be abhorrent about compelling people who are transgender to inform their potential sexual partners that they are transgender, as clearly it's far, far more complicated than simply the visual cues.

It goes to the very core of someone insecurity. There are plenty of straight men who would not consider sex with a trans woman to be "gay", and plenty of men who if they found themselves "duped" wouldn't be that bothered about it.

"Plenty of people are fine with it, so you should be too"... I'm not sure that someone who feels they have been deceived should be receptive to that argument tbh as it ignores the impact that they feel having been deceived. It's interesting that you would argue that the victims insecurity is their issue, while at the same time arguing that for a person who is transgender, their insecurity should be protected by not compelling them to disclose their status to a person they wish to have sex with!

In reality, it doesn't affect the individual's sexuality unless they want it to - unless they have their own insecurities about their sexuality. I understand why someone would get confused, but the "core" of someone's sexuality is what they find attractive in a partner. And in real terms the genetic gender is irrelevant - it's the visual cues that matter.

If someone has issues with their sexuality, there's nothing wrong with that IMO, as long as they're not trying to project their insecurities with themselves onto other people and then trying to claim that the other person is the person with the problem. If someone who identifies as transgender has insecurity issues with themselves to the point where they would not disclose that they are transgender, then they are the person with the insecurity issues, and not the person they wish to have sex with.

In my opinion at least, a person's gender is very much a relevant factor in whether I would choose to have sex with them, and choosing not to have sex with someone on the basis of their gender is not something I feel that I personally should be made to feel ashamed for. That's not insecurity, it's simply personal taste. I can't be attracted to someone I'm not, and I'm certainly not going to have sex with someone just to appease someone else's insecurity issues with themselves.

For me personally (and I don't imagine I'm alone in this regard), it's far more than just about the visual clues, especially when someone can be so easily deceived with an artificial sex toy and not notice that something was particularly amiss!

It's insecurity in reality that's issue, not recognising that your sexuality isn't defined by who you have sex with, but rather what you find attractive.

Well it's hard to argue against that one tbh, because that's how you define your sexuality. It wouldn't be how I would define my sexuality as I believe it's far more complicated than simply who I find attractive - I find plenty of people attractive for numerous reasons. It doesn't mean I would ever want to have sex with them, and not wanting to have sex with them isn't anything to do with any insecurities someone else thinks I might have with my own sexuality. I'm quite comfortable with my own sexuality and it's not an issue for me.

I can't say the same about someone who is transgender who chooses to hide the fact from someone they wish to have sex with. That is by definition the epitome of someone who is insecure in themselves, and they should have no right to make their insecurities with themselves someone else's issue so that they can feel better about themselves.

J_E wrote: »

I can imagine it would cause trans people a lot of anguish and worry to feel like they have to legally disclose who they are.

Isn't the whole purpose of the Gender Recognition Act that people who identify as transgender have their gender legally recognised though? That means that they are making an official, legal declaration of their gender and they want society to recognise their gender.

I can understand it may cause a person anguish in their interpersonal relationships with other people to have to declare something which may mean putting themselves at risk, but that makes them no different to anyone else in that case.

What if they are somewhere in between - what if they are currently transitioning?

The other person should be entitled to know beforehand who the person is that would like to have sex with them, so that if they are either heterosexual or homosexual, they're not put at risk of being traumatised by having had sex with someone whom has knowingly deceived them by not declaring their gender if they identify as transgender.

What if the person they are hooking up with for the night turns out to be violent in reaction?

Again, and that point has been made numerous times now, but that is no different than the risk anyone takes, be they transgender or not. There is a risk that their sexual partner could react violently for an infinite number of reasons. There are laws to prosecute people for that. It isn't made clear in the article in the opening post, but the woman doesn't appear to have reacted violently to being deceived by the man in question.

RadiationKing wrote: »

Well yes, Jack, actually it is different and you know that. What is the risk of someone getting violent if they find out their prospective sexual partner is, let's say, a vegetarian versus being trans?

The woman in the opening post doesn't appear to have reacted violently to finding out her sexual partner is transgender. As for any possible comparable risk between vegetarians and people who are transgender, it's impossible to quantify really as the risk is based upon perception rather than reality.

We both know damn well which is more likely. Sure they could act violently towards a vegetarian but that probability is so small it's not even worth considering and frankly I'm at a loss as to how you think the two are even remotely comparable. Whereas violence against trans people is well documented. And while it's all well and good that there's laws to prosecute people who are violent like that, it's cold comfort to someone who's hospitalised.

That's why trans people hide that fact, not due to "insecurity" but due to the very real threat of violence they face. And that won't change until people accept that sleeping with someone who's trans isn't the end of the world. "Traumatised"? Please.

Cold comfort indeed to someone who would not want to have sex with someone who is transgender and found they had been deceived by that person. Perhaps you should consider where the woman in the article in the opening post was coming from before you are so dismissive of her feelings.

Things won't change while some people who are transgender continue to think only of themselves and their feelings and what they want for themselves, with no regard for their sexual partners. Their insecurity is their problem, and they have no right to put responsibility for their insecurity on anyone else, and then claim that other people shouldn't have any issue with that sort of behaviour.

Maguined wrote: »

Can this same sentence not be applied to the insecurity of those that become intimate with a transgender person? Before they found out the person was transgender they obviously were attracted to them to the point of willingly engaging in intimate behaviour so the attraction was there and it is only their insecurity when they find out after the fact the person was transgender and you want to shift the responsibility away from their choices onto the other person.

I don't think it can tbh, because the person who is transgender knows they are transgender, and the person they have sex with (in this case it was with the aid of a sex toy, unknownst to the victim), doesn't. The attraction was there for the person they were led to believe was congruent with their sexual orientation - I'm straight, I don't want to have sex with someone who's sex was ever identified as male, throughout any part of their life.

If it happens that the person who wants to have sex with me knows that I would not think of them as a woman, that's their tough luck. The Gender Recognition Act is there for people to declare their legal identity, and in doing so, they then don't get the best of both worlds - they have a responsibility towards any potential sexual partners IMO to inform them that they are transgender and accept that the person may not want to have sex with them.

You are making the argument that gender is special and should be held legally responsible because it is "core" to that person however that is a subjective term. In Northern Ireland the sectarian divide was very much the "core" of a persons character to many individuals so would you support the idea that someone could be legally prosecuted for sexual assault because they did not disclose whether they were unionist/repbulican to a partner?

For a person who is transgender, recognition of their gender is significant enough to them that they campaigned for the Gender Recognition Act. The Act should have placed the responsibility on people who identify as transgender, to declare to their potential partners their ifenti gender.

If a person wants to campaign for legal recognition of their political identity, then by all means, knock themselves out. It's not something I consider particularly significant, so I wouldn't be interested in lending my support to it.

How about a less contentious one in marital status. For many people relationships have an ultimate goal of marriage and they would never be intimate with a married person as that relationship will not result in a committed marriage in the long term and this is "core" to that person so should this be punishable?

Same again though, I'm not interested in having married people declare their status to their potential sexual partners, and if someone else wants to campaign for that - good luck to them!

I am not saying you should be fine with intimacy with a transgender person simply because others are okay with it. I am saying should gender be legally punishable and you say it should when other factors are equally as important to many people but you do not want them legally punishable.

For a person who is transgender, to knowingly hide their gender identity from their sexual partners, should be at least a civil, if not criminal offence. If other people consider other things as important to disclose as a person's gender identity, then they should be able to make arguments for those issues elsewhere, because it just comes across as very disingenuous to suggest that because I am advocating for one thing, I should advocate for everything, or I'm being inconsistent.

First off, I think many people find transgender issues to be difficult to understand. We live in a binary world society that doesn't understand that things aren't actually binary. We are taught that things are a certain way and when we learn that they aren't, then that change can be difficult to deal with.

That said, I think life must be much more difficult for people who identify as transgender. Although, at least they have the advantage of getting used to the idea.

---

There are two inter-related threads on similar issues here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057537188
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057539251

As the OP there puts it:

A number of police officers in England had long term sexual relationships with low level environmental activists and even fathered children with them. The women were not criminals.

Does this constitute rape by deception?

The response is.

In relation to the crime of rape, there is a general rule that fraud as to the nature and quality of the act and fraud as to the identity of the sexual partner vitiates consent.

So, I suspect with the case at hand, I think the issue is that the woman was penetrated by something other than a penis.

---

So, what of a male who is transitioning to female, who has sex with a lesbian (her thinking a strap-on is being used) and gets her pregnant?