Others say I'm gay, but...

Post Reply New Topic

to lie to oneself is not good, but neither is it good to lie [omitting important information] to another person. there is little difference between this kind of factual omission and that of the crooked used car saleman who conceals information about a car's various faults. lots of hurt could be avoided if only transpersons would be upfront about their anatomy with potential partners, not all of whom are evolved sufficient to not blow a gasket upon their "crying game" moment. it is in the transperson's best self interest to be honest and not present themselves as something they physically are not, to potential partners who place a high value on physical authenticity, for better or worse. many men are not sophisticated enough to tolerate being fooled into spending a lot of time with a latent transperson [whatever the transperson's salient qualities] only to be rudely informed at the last minute, after much time spent anticipating/looking forward to penile/vaginal intercourse, that such is not forthcoming. harshly judging these "bad" men [of limited sexual repertoire] does nothing to help the transperson. honesty is the best policy here.

I fully agree with you, Rorberyllium. I'll admit that finding out in the heat of the moment is not a good time to find out for either party, but sometimes things just turn out like that. And you're allowed to back out of a sexual or romantic situation at any point for any reason without feeling guilty.

I disagree. Kissing does not promise or imply sex. Also, sex does not promise or imply her taking off her underwear.

Not everyone is totally put off or confused or upset at finding out that their **potential** sexual partner has genitals that don't match their idea of the partner's gender, at any stage of the proceedings. As a result of this event she might well change the point at which she discloses, but maybe her former partners weren't upset to find out so she had no reason to think early disclosure was necessary.

Also, for people not used to this situation, even if she'd given him her number and said "by the way I have a penis," he could've had some time to go away and get used to the idea and he could back out if he wanted to. Finding out this way, he still has these options.

My friend who's next to me says, "it's the irrational homophobia thing. 'Oh my God, I've been gay!'" I add: There is nothing bad about having sex with someone with a penis, right? A whole bunch of straight women do it all the time without negative consequence. Penises are not that scary. Thus, if she is attractive before she seems to have a penis, she can be attractive after, too.

It's not always a homophobia thing. I don't do penetration and if I was expecting to find a vagina but instead found a penis that this person might want to stick in me I'd be upset about that. I'd feel deceived and that they lied to me instead of letting me know what was going on in their pants so I could decide if I was interested in that.

Hm yes, fair enough. But even though you would feel deceived, I still don't think the penis-owner would have any obligation to inform you of their genitals before the crucial moment.

You're talking about intercourse. I'm talking about a sexual act. And kissing is most definitely a sexual act. (Let's be clear, we're not talking about a peck on the cheek here). If I go up to a random stranger and start tongue kissing him without his consent, that's a sexual assault. No clothes need to be removed, no genitals need to be touched--the act of initiating a kiss is sufficient to give the assault a sexual character. And If I obtain somebody's consent to kissing by a false pretence, then that voids their consent, and I am still committing a sexual assault. She got CvicLOC to kiss her on the basis of a false pretence, and that is nothing less than sexual assault.

You can dress the circumstances up all you like--but the fact remains that all indications are clear that he would not have agreed to kiss her had he known the full circumstances, and so she got him to do something sexual that he would not ordinarily have done. That's nothing less than sexual assault.



True--not everyone is totally put off. But neither is everyone turned on. And she ought properly to know that. She was in possession of more information--and crucial information--than he was, and thus it was her obligation to make sure that his consent was genuine. It doesn't matter what her previous experiences were, or what CvicLOC's previous experiences were. What matters is what he knew in the moment; what she should reasonably have expected him to know in the moment; and whether she confirmed that his consent was genuine.

She failed to do this, and that is nothing less than sexual assault.



Whic is exactly what she should have done--before she kissed him. Had she done this, she would have been blameless.



Does it matter that he is irrational about it? He is entitled to make decisions about his own sex life. He is entitled to refuse to participate in a sexual act on any rational or irrational basis that suits him. And that's his decision, not hers--and she took that decision away from him. We would never tolerate a man behaving in this fashion towards a woman, but we excuse a transwoman? Absolutely not.

No amount of weasel words will excuse her behaviour.

Those of you who are standing up to defend her actions should think clearly about the message that you are sending in that defence--namely that her privacy is more imporant than CvicLOC's consent. That is a shameful attitude. Her privacy is important, to be sure. And she is entitled to maintain her privacy against everyone in the world--except a person that she is engaged in a sex act with. There her privacy must give way to the obligation to obtain consent. Even for kissing.

So the bit we don't know is whether he kissed her with the understanding that she had a vagina, and whether or not she knew this or could have expected this.

It is false advertising. They are presenting themselves dishonestly with respect to their physical condition. It's like using someone else's picture on an online dating site, or lying about your age, and then feigning offense when the person you're dating learns of this and calls the date off.

I say this as someone who would totally date a pre-op MtF, unconditionally. If I found out a month into the relationship that she was transitioning, I would be completely okay with it. If I started dating someone and they came out as trans during the course of our relationship, I'd stick with them and be totally supportive.

But it is unreasonable to expect a fully heterosexual person to feel the same way, or to try to guilt or shame them into a relationship that they're uncomfortable with due to the physical limitations of their orientation. I know it is very difficult for transfolk out there, and I can understand why some would choose to conceal what stage of their transition they're in. I don't think it is ethical to accuse a fully straight or gay person of prejudice for not wanting to date pre-op transsexuals, any more than it is fair to accuse a diabetic of being prejudiced against sugar.

Did you not read the original post? It seems abundantly clear that when she removed her pants, he was not prepared for what he saw. That suggests to me that he understood her physiology to match with her gender identity.

And given that she knows that she is a transwoman, I think the onus would be on her to demonstrate why she would not reasonably expect to know that his understanding was so. If she hasn't said, "I'm a transwoman," or if she isn't wearing something that indicates that she's a transwoman, then who's to know?