Legal onus to disclose transgender?

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.

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.

Maguined

suicide_circus wrote: »

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Meesared

the_pen_turner wrote: »

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"

Maguined

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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?

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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?

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

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.

Maguined

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

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.

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.

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

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.

seamus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

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.

eviltwin

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

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.

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.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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?

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.

Maguined

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

seamus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

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.

seamus

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, 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.

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

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?

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.