Legal onus to disclose transgender?

Maguined

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

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?

Whether someone is already married would also be seen as critical to the majority of people but that is not punishable. Do you believe someone lying about their marital status should be punishable or is not critical to the majority of people?

Tasden

A person is still the same person regardless of their gender, whether born that gender or not imo. So consent to that person is still consent imo whether trans or otherwise, regardless of whether they choose to disclose or not.

The deception regarding using an object is what I believed to be the issue when i first read the story. Which I would agree with.

Personally, I would think it is best to disclose but I don't believe it should be a legal obligation.

JPNelsforearm

What type of bubble do you live in, to think the vast majority of men wouldn't think its critical information to know? Thats borderline rape imo, massive violation.

2 day ban Saying that all trans people who do not disclose their gender identity are borderline rapists is not acceptable on this forum

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

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.

But, if their gender identity is of critical importance to the person who is transgender (subjective), then why should it not be considered of equally critical importance to their potential sexual partners?

I agree that objectively speaking there is unlikely to be any physical harm done (apart of course from possibly 'assault by penetration' which is what the person in the opening post was charged with, something that a person who is not transgender could equally be charged with tbf), but the impact on a persons mental and emotional health is hardly something that can be brushed aside so easily if the justification for a person who is transgender not being obliged to disclose, is to protect their own emotional and mental health?

Objectively speaking, of course you're right in that it is discrimatory, but on a subjective level - people are entitled to be discriminatory about who they would choose to have sex with, and I think that something which goes to the very essence of their sexuality is not something that should easily be ignored so that other people who want to have sex with them are comfortable doing so without fear of repercussions on the basis that they are knowingly deceiving that person.

I know it's of course only my opinion, but I think in the absence of any legislation regarding this issue, there's likely to be more cases like this present themselves in the future. I think if people who identify as transgender were obliged by law to disclose the fact that they are transgender, there would likely be less of these sorts of cases present themselves.

I can empathise with a person who is transgender agonising over the decision to inform their potential sexual partners, but I think it's better that they do, and at least give the person a chance to make an informed decision for themselves. I wouldn't recommend anyone hide behind the "it's none of their business" veil, because it's absolutely the other person's business IMO if they want to have sex with them.

seamus

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

This is your opinion.

Yep, exactly.

I would suggest that this information is "critical" to the majority of people.

And that's your opinion.

Hence it is not objectively critical information.

A person's HIV status, for example, is critically important. There are some people who personally wouldn't care, others who actively chase HIV positive partners, but we can say objectively that a partner's HIV status has a direct affect on the individual's health or wellbeing. Therefore it is critical information to have before engaging in sex.

You cannot say the same about someone's transgender status. That doesn't affect the health or wellbeing of a potential sexual partner (remember we're talking about sex here, and sex alone. Not relationships or children).

One eyed Jack

Maguined wrote: »

Whether someone is already married would also be seen as critical to the majority of people but that is not punishable. Do you believe someone lying about their marital status should be punishable or is not critical to the majority of people?

In fairness, that could take the discussion off on a whole other tangent. It already is punishable to an extent because we have bigamy laws, fraud, etc, which is where I was coming from earlier in that if a person is found guilty of having committed fraud, they are punished for it.

Intentionally misleading someone into believing that you are something you're not, could result in civil and criminal charges being brought against you. It's just a matter of the person being able to make their case for either a civil or possible criminal prosecution.

irish_dave_83

Maguined wrote: »

Whether someone is already married would also be seen as critical to the majority of people but that is not punishable. Do you believe someone lying about their marital status should be punishable or is not critical to the majority of people?

That is not a similar comparison at all, if you cant see that, I cannot help you. In this case they had a relationship for over a year and when they eventually had sex, he was still legally a female. Somehow this thread is turning it into the fault of the girl because of her preferences. Yet no one sees the deceitfulness of this omission of truth on which the case is based. Penetration with the sex toy is what he was convicted of, however he would never have been convicted in the first place if he told her the truth from the outset as she probably would not have returned his advances.

irish_dave_83

seamus wrote: »

Yep, exactly.

You cannot say the same about someone's transgender status. That doesn't affect the health or wellbeing of a potential sexual partner (remember we're talking about sex here, and sex alone. Not relationships or children).

It would not affect their health but may well affect some peoples well-being, and mental state. And that may be their own doing to an extent, but it shouldn't be disregarded because of it.

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

But people choose to be intimate all the time with people they don't know anything and if you extrapolated that to the nth degree then basically every person would have to have an entire life biography to hand over before any intimacy if requested.

Annasopra

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

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.

And that is just your opinion.

irish_dave_83

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And that is just your opinion.

Yes obviously, I didn't see you point that out to anyone else when they commented?

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

Yep, exactly.
And that's your opinion.

Hence it is not objectively critical information.

A person's HIV status, for example, is critically important. There are some people who personally wouldn't care, others who actively chase HIV positive partners, but we can say objectively that a partner's HIV status has a direct affect on the individual's health or wellbeing. Therefore it is critical information to have before engaging in sex.

You cannot say the same about someone's transgender status. That doesn't affect the health or wellbeing of a potential sexual partner (remember we're talking about sex here, and sex alone. Not relationships or children).

We can't realistically guarantee that though, it could easily cause them emotional and mental distress (and I know we could say that about anything, but this thread is specifically about people who are transgender and their potential sexual partners).

Of course we could all say "sure how would you even know whether a person you're having sex with is, or isn't transgender?", and it's true - in all likelihood we couldn't know, but, that point becomes moot when the fact is that we do know, but we only found out after we had been deceived.

I would say in those circumstances a person should be able to seek legal recourse.

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But people choose to be intimate all the time with people they don't know anything and if you extrapolated that to the nth degree then basically every person would have to have an entire life biography to hand over before any intimacy if requested.

You wouldn't have to have any biography to hand, and what we're talking about here is being intentionally and wilfully deceptive. No need for a biography, or disclosing everything about yourself, but if the other person were to find out later that they had been deceived, they are entitled to the opportunity to make a complaint to the authorities, which could lead to a possible criminal prosecution.

There's no guarantee of it, but a person could avoid all that by choosing not to be wilfully deceptive in order to fulfil their own selfish sexual desires (and I would apply that standard to anyone btw, whether they are transgender or otherwise. I don't see why someone should get a free pass on the basis of their being transgender either).

Annasopra

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

Yes obviously, I didn't see you point that out to anyone else when they commented?

Yes because you were highlighting other posts as merely opinion but almost stating your posts as more than opinion

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You wouldn't have to have any biography to hand, and what we're talking about here is being intentionally and wilfully deceptive. No need for a biography, or disclosing everything about yourself, but if the other person were to find out later that they had been deceived, they are entitled to the opportunity to make a complaint to the authorities, which could lead to a possible criminal prosecution.

There's no guarantee of it, but a person could avoid all that by choosing not to be wilfully deceptive in order to fulfil their own selfish sexual desires (and I would apply that standard to anyone btw, whether they are transgender or otherwise. I don't see why someone should get a free pass on the basis of their being transgender either).

Deceived about what? You can lie about lots of things. We are talking about an act of sex here. Its not like its an act of marriage where you are then legally and contractually binded to that person after.

If we extrapolated out your idea of "informed consent" and a person having to know everything about a person before they have sex with them to it's conclusion then I'm sorry but we would all literally have to have a walking biography to hand over for "informed consent".

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Deceived about what? You can lie about lots of things. We are talking about an act of sex here. Its not like its an act of marriage where you are then legally and contractually binded to that person after.

Deceiving another person by not mentioning the fact that they are transgender. We could talk about all the other ways in which people are deceived, in other threads, and all those waya in which people deceive other people still doesn't excuse someone IMO from telling a potential sexual partner or partners that they are transgender if they know that the disclosure of that information is likely to cause that person to reject their advances.

You mention that we're talking about sex here as though it's insignificant by comparison with marriage. Why compare them at all? Sexual encounters are a potential legal minefield of their own making without needing to make any comparisons to other legal and social contracts.

Have you given a minutes thought to the person who is the victim of deception?

Why should a person who is transgender be afforded an excuse or an exemption to protect their own emotional and mental health, while they are free to potentially damage someone else's emotional and mental health?

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

If we extrapolated out your idea of "informed consent" and a person having to know everything about a person before they have sex with them to it's conclusion then I'm sorry but we would all literally have to have a walking biography to hand over for "informed consent".

But we don't have to extrapolate out anything at all, and we don't have to literally be a walking biography either. We're simply talking about informing a person whom we see as a potential sexual partner that we are transgender. It's no different to informing a person that we are married or whatever. If we knowingly hide these facts from another person, it has the potential to come back to bite us in the ass. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Deceiving another person by not mentioning the fact that they are transgender. We could talk about all the other ways in which people are deceived, in other threads, and all those waya in which people deceive other people still doesn't excuse someone IMO from telling a potential sexual partner or partners that they are transgender if they know that the disclosure of that information is likely to cause that person to reject their advances.

You mention that we're talking about sex here as though it's insignificant by comparison with marriage. Why compare them at all? Sexual encounters are a potential legal minefield of their own making without needing to make any comparisons to other legal and social contracts.

Have you given a minutes thought to the person who is the victim of deception?

Why should a person who is transgender be afforded an excuse or an exemption to protect their own emotional and mental health, while they are free to potentially damage someone else's emotional and mental health?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But we don't have to extrapolate out anything at all, and we don't have to literally be a walking biography either. We're simply talking about informing a person whom we see as a potential sexual partner that we are transgender. It's no different to informing a person that we are married or whatever. If we knowingly hide these facts from another person, it has the potential to come back to bite us in the ass. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Ultimately I think honesty beforehand is the best policy. I can understand why many would be scared of discloure. I just can't see why this should be legally enforced though and why does gender identity have to be singled out as the only thing you must disclose beforehand? Also there are huge safety issues around disclosure for trans people as well. Many trans people face extreme violence and death when they do come out. What about the mental health of trans people - this is all adding extra stress on them where they are afraid to come out and now you want them afraid not to come out.

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ultimately I think honesty beforehand is the best policy. I just can't see why this should be legally enforced though and why does gender identity have to be singled out as the only thing you must disclose beforehand?

Because it's a significant factor for many people in choosing whether or not to have sex with a person who is transgender, which is why some people who are transgender will try and hide it from their potential sexual partners. Gender identity doesn't have to be singled out as the only thing a person should disclose, but it's all we're talking about in this thread.

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because it's a significant factor for many people in choosing whether or not to have sex with a person who is transgender

But why does that make it a legal issue? do you think all trans people who don't disclose before sex should goto prison?

why some people who are transgender will try and hide it from their potential sexual partners.

But this is just making things worse for many trans people. Many of them are afraid to come out and effectively you want to legally force them out at which point they are then more at risk of violence and death.

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Also there are huge safety issues around disclosure for trans people as well. Many trans people face extreme violence and death when they do come out. What about the mental health of trans people - this is all adding extra stress on them where they are afraid to come out and now you want them afraid not to come out.

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?

Tasden

Excuse my ignorance, but if a person has been through the physical transition and had surgery to become male (previously female) then now they are male, no? Or is it transgender male? I always thought that once the "transition" is complete then they are just classed whatever gender they have transitioned to, or am I completely wrong? From reading this thread it would seem I have it all wrong! I assumed transgender only applied to those who were pre or mid transition, or did not intend to change physically but self identified as another gender.
Basically, i thought once your physical/biological sex matched your gender identity then the "trans" doesn't apply- is this not the case?

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But why does that make it a legal issue? do you think all trans people who don't disclose before sex should goto prison?

It's made a legal issue by virtue of the fact that the person who is transgender has knowingly deceived another person. I don't think all transgender people who don't disclose should automatically go to prison, which is why I said the person in the OP who received a suspended sentence was fair enough.

I would leave it up to the victim of the deception themselves whether to pursue a case or not, because it would depend entirely upon the circumstances in each case.

But this is just making things worse for many trans people. Many of them are afraid to come out and effectively you want to legally force them out at which point they are then more at risk of violence and death.

I don't want to force anyone out at all. I'm suggesting that if they decide they want to have sex with someone, then they should disclose the fact that they are transgender. Their rights for themselves are balanced by their responsibility towards the person whom they choose to have sex with. If they are to be allowed the right to make that decision for themselves, then surely they have a responsibility to allow the other person the same right to make an informed decision for themselves, or does one person's right to self-preservation over-ride another person's right to self-preservation?

Annasopra

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.

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't want to force anyone out at all. I'm suggesting that if they decide they want to have sex with someone, then they should disclose the fact that they are transgender.

Thats the same thing. It's legally forcing someone to out themselves.

One eyed Jack

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.

Annasopra

Tasden wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance, but if a person has been through the physical transition and had surgery to become male (previously female) then now they are male, no? Or is it transgender male? I always thought that once the "transition" is complete then they are just classed whatever gender they have transitioned to, or am I completely wrong? From reading this thread it would seem I have it all wrong! I assumed transgender only applied to those who were pre or mid transition, or did not intend to change physically but self identified as another gender.
Basically, i thought once your physical/biological sex matched your gender identity then the "trans" doesn't apply- is this not the case?

People can use different terms. Some people want to really continue to identify with the trans label. Others don't.

You might have a person who has medically transitioned from female to male and he could call himself several things.

A trans male
A male
A male with trans history

So no "transgender" or "trans" is not specifically a term only for those who have gone through transition.

Theres a detailed glossary of terms here
http://www.teni.ie/page.aspx?contentid=139

Annasopra

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.

Tasden

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

People can use different terms. Some people want to really continue to identify with the trans label. Others don't.

You might have a person who has medically transitioned from female to male and he could call himself several things.

A trans male
A male
A male with trans history

So no "transgender" or "trans" is not specifically a term only for those who have gone through transition.

Theres a detailed glossary of terms here
http://www.teni.ie/page.aspx?contentid=139

I thought it was for those that hadn't gone through transition, but that clarifies, thanks.

Are people in this thread discussing those who have not transitioned?
Its just that if a guy has been born physically female and his sex is now male biologically, then he's just male, no? Like there is nothing to declare unless he wishes to discuss his history. If someone has not gone through the transition then surely they are going to have to declare/out eventually, unless they go so far as to decieve by using an object or whatever. In which case then its obviously wrong.

One eyed Jack

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.