In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

But Your Honor, He Was Gay!

(This post is about hate murders, and therefore could be triggering.)

From Pandagon, the Governator signs legislation prohibiting the Gay Panic defense, in the name of a woman whose murderers defended themselves via the Trans Panic defense:

The Gwen Araujo Justice for Victims Act directs the Office of Emergency Services to create training materials for district attorneys on best practices to address the use of bias-motivated defense strategies in criminal trials. The bill also requires the Judicial Council to adopt a jury instruction that tells jurors not to consider bias against people because of sexual orientation, gender identity or other characteristics in rendering a verdict.

The gay panic defense has a long, infamous history, but didn’t really gain national prominence until the Matthew Shepard trial:

Several observers had predicted the defense team might resort to a “gay panic” defense later in the trial, if it could not convince the jury that drugs and alcohol diminished McKinney’s ability to understand the severity of the crimes he committed. But no one in the stunned courtroom seemed prepared for the risky defense outlined in Tangeman’s opening statement. Nor were they prepared for the follow-up development: Tangeman argued that McKinney erupted “savagely” not because he was some sort of country hick who’d never crossed paths with a gay guy, but because of his own homosexual experiences.

At the age of 7, McKinney was forced to suck another boy’s penis, Tangeman announced. “Aaron will tell you this humiliated him. He did carry it with him.” At 15, McKinney willingly engaged in a homosexual act one time with a cousin, according to the lawyer. And not long before the murder, he inadvertently entered a gay church with his girlfriend and fled sobbing from the sight of men kissing.

Reaction from the gay community was swift and severe. Jeffrey Montgomery, spokesman for the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, staggered out of the courtroom, collapsed in a chair and gasped, “I’m almost speechless. I never thought they’d be so blatant.” He said he’d observed more than a dozen “gay panic” defenses, including the “Jenny Jones” trial — a highly publicized murder case using the controversial defense strategy, which suggests that a defendant is thrown into a panic by a sexual advance from a person of the same gender — but had never seen any so extreme. “Everyone thought it was going to be subtle,” he said. “He’s put [Shepard] on trial. It’s a scoundrel’s defense, it’s a bankrupt defense, but it’s all they have left.”

Unfortunately, not everything passed:

But it was a mixed bag for LGBT rights, as the Governator signed some bills and vetoed others:

* AB 2800, Civil Rights Housing Act of 2006 (signed). California housing laws are amended to include all of these categories in its anti-discrimination policy: race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, sex (and gender identity), marital status, sexual orientation, familial status and source of income.

* AB 606, The Safe Place to Learn Act (vetoed). This would have required the withholding of state funds from school districts that did not adopt an anti-discrimination policy that included sexual orientation and gender identity.

* AB 1056, Tolerance Education Pilot Program (vetoed). The anti-bullying measure would have required funding this program to strengthen existing state law prohibiting LGBT harassment.

And then the discussion in comments turns to the question of whether or not it’s wrong to deceive your partners about your trans status, and…I just can’t. I’m too tired.


61 thoughts on But Your Honor, He Was Gay!

  1. Funny–“homosexual panic” used to be (still is?) a psychiatric term denoting anxiety over unwelcome feelings of attraction to the same sex. Now “gay panic” means a legal excuse to abuse gay people. Words can sure change over time.

  2. It’s funny isn’t it, how some of the very same people who want to scold at gay folks for acting out on their dirty dirty feelings are perfectly okay with people acting out their “gay panic” feelings. Hey, just because you feel something doesn’t mean you have to act on it!

    anyway, i guess even a bit of gladdish tidings are welcome.

  3. With regards to gonzo-fuck above, I am thoroughly tired of people making the claim that not telling people about your “transgendered” status means you deserve what you got. Transgendered people were always transgendered, and acting like they themselves chose to change degrades them and makes them less human. Gonzo is one SICK FUCK.

  4. “And then the discussion in comments turns to the question of whether or not it’s wrong to deceive your partners about your trans status, and”

    Oy. This sort of discussion is going on in a forum I frequent right now. Needless to say, it’s not going well. I’ll post the link if anyone feels like they want some mental pain… especially reading the posts of one or two individuals who say violence is acceptable in such situations…

    http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=541543

  5. Gonz has clearly no idea what he’s talking about, and is trying to justify his own fear response (violence) by projecting the fault onto the victim.

    His own words suggest that he has no idea what it is that drives a transsexual to transition; nor does he have the intellectual honesty to admit the extent of his own ignorance. Instead, he merely supposes what he thinks is going on, and projects his own fears and insecurities.

    What an ass.

  6. The same discussion will keep happening, over and over and over and over again, until homophobic idiots realize that people are people.

    screw it, I’m tired of waiting, just round up all the psychopaths and shoot em.

    this post excused by the “haven’t had coffee today panic” defense

  7. Cool. When do I pick up my nifty little card that says heterosexual panic when some asshole like Gonz is a….sexist asshole? I never knew men were such sensitive lilies that they had to be so sheltered.

  8. Oops. It was my fault that the thread over at Pandagon got derailed. I didn’t realize it would set off such a shitstorm.

    I was not going to comment here for fear of derailing this one, but it seems to have already gone down that path.

    The same discussion will keep happening, over and over and over and over again, until homophobic idiots realize that people are people.

    Even if homophobia was eliminated tomorrow, I don’t think this discussion will go away. Since I caught so much flak for bringing it up, I discussed it with two of my gay friends last night. They (and I) are of the opinion that it is perfectly fine for people to pass as the other gender in general. But they also agreed with me that it is immoral to engage in a physical relationship with someone who does not know the truth about your trans status (although, after some more research, I’m not sure that’s what happened in the Gwen Araujo case – the murderers didn’t seem too concerned with her trans status until everybody knew about it).

    I’m not a homophobe, and I’m pretty sure my gay friends aren’t either, so this isn’t a question of sexuality, but of morality. I’d feel the same way if a woman passing as a man got involved with a woman without revealing his trans status to the woman, so it’s not about “my fragile psyche being unable to handle a homosexual encounter” as I was told over on the other thread.

    I agree that the “gay panic” defense is bullshit, and I apologize for dragging Captain Mullet into this.

  9. Since I caught so much flak for bringing it up, I discussed it with two of my gay friends last night. They (and I) are of the opinion that it is perfectly fine for people to pass as the other gender in general.

    How very gracious of you three. Now perhaps you’d care to explain how the fuck your opinion on this subject is of anything more than pragmatic interest? Seriously, how could you write a statement that equates to patting trans people on the head and saying “It’s ok for you to live your life as you want to, except up to the point where it makes me uncomfortable” and not realise what a dick you’re being.

    But they also agreed with me that it is immoral to engage in a physical relationship with someone who does not know the truth about your trans status.

    Why exactly? Because you have bullshit issues and prejudices around trans bodies? Why isn’t it your responsibility to ask if you have an issue?

    If you want to be taken even vaguely seriously perhaps you’d like to explain why it’s immoral. What is intrinsic in trans identity that requires that trans people disclose? What reasons to disclose that aren’t ultimately reliant on some kind of homophobia or disgust towards trans bodies are there? (except the good sex reason, which I really don’t think you’re advocating)

  10. Frankly, that’s exactly right: hetero panic. If every woman who had an unwanted -advance- from a man were to treat him the way mullet-brain is advocating treating the dirty tricksssssy transperson, we wouldn’t be able to walk for the bodies.

    Which, you know, I am thinking: maybe a few kneecappings might be a good thing, after all, in that regard.

    Seriously. Where the fuck is Hothead Paisan when you need her? Where are my GRENADES?

  11. MORALITY. You know what’s immoral? Putting all your sexual issues–whatever they are–on the other person instead of owning them, and rationalizating that it’s okay to then beat the crap out of hir. That’s fucking immoral. The rest is gravy.

  12. …yeah, okay, you feel betrayed. You either a) process it with your you-thought beloved or b) if it’s too damn much to work past, break up. Bitch about it to your friends or to the shrink. Get on with it. Same as anyone damn else who dates someone who turns out not to be quite as advertised. Did sie take something vital from you? Abuse you? Sap your credit or your soul? No? Then suck it up and get on with it. What else is there to say?

  13. I’m wondering if the whole thing about “oooh, the transperson didn’t disclose what he/she used to be to me” thing doesn’t have a lot to do with the whole “Oh! There’s another dick in the room!” thing.

    Or, “There once was another dick in the room, but it’s not there anymore, and gosh, I just can’t deal with that” thing.

  14. The “moral” question gets me, too — where does “morality” come in when it comes to telling your partner about your reproductive organs, if there’s no harm issue at hand (i.e., no STI issue, etc). Does it only matter if a person is trans? What if they were born intersexed? What if it’s a woman who has had her clitoris removed because of cultural practices where she’s from? What if a guy only has one testicle? What if a woman has her clit pierced?

    All of these things are either modifications to the “natural” state of one’s genitals, and/or they’re things which one may not expect when their partner gets naked. Is it immoral to not tell your partner ahead of time about these things? What makes it different than trans status?

    Further, what if we’re talking about modifications that your partner wouldn’t be able to notice? If I have had plastic surgery on my vulva to shorten my labia, do I have to tell my partner before he goes down on me? If I’ve had a hysterectomy, or removed an ovary, do I have to tell my partner? If I was born intersexed but had surgery as a baby to make me appear female, do I have to tell my partner?

    Or is there something special about being transgender that gives one an extra burden to shoulder?

  15. 1. The lawyer who employed the gay panic defense in the Gwen Araujo murder trial was Tony Serra a well-known bay area radical leftist attorney.

    2. Serra’s strategy didn’t work. The jury didn’t go for the gay panic defense. There was a hung jury for other reasons such as not being able to to determine the varying levels of responsibility. A juror explains what hapenned here:
    http://www.eastbayexpress.com/Issues/2005-05-11/news/feature.html

    3. Gwen Araujo’s killers in the second trial were convicted and given long sentences as I best remember.

  16. I’m a little bit confused as to why people are so against transpeople making their past known to potential sexual partners. I’d want to know something like that. Just as I’d like to know if the man I was getting close to maybe used to identify as gay, or if he’s bisexual, or any other case in which he’s not a heterosexual person born male, in good health. And if I were going to get intimate with a woman, I would feel obligated to tell her that, hey, never done this before: because otherwise, she might assume things about my sexual identity that aren’t necessarily true.

    It just seems like people should be honest…

  17. Kim, each of us wants to know certain things about potential sex partners, and usually more about relationship partners. Probably, most of us think that the things we want to know are just common sense, even if what other people want to know is wierd.

    But it’s actually tough to predict what other people need to know. Some people absolutely need to know their partners’ position on how to handle an unwanted pregnancy, others don’t. Some people have political litmus tests, others don’t. Some people would never have sex with someone who had been in prison, others would. Some women would never have a partner who used porn, and for others that’s not an issue.

    I, for one, don’t especially care about trans status. For reasons I can’t fully explain, though, I do care a lot how they identify — and since I’m attracted to gender-play, that’s not always entirely obvious.

    I’m willing to concede that disease status, for public health reasons, comes with a disclosure obligation. As to everything else, if you care about your partner’s answer, you’re in a much better position to ask the question than your partner is to guess which questions you want answered.

  18. Kim, as an addendum, I agree with you that people should be honest. I just think that it’s hard to know what has to be brought up right away. If I am in a long relationship with someone, I will probably come to see the embarassing teenage photos and the boring stories their parents tell, along with details of sexual past. And I think that, for even casual partners, one ought to get an honest answer to what one asks. But I think that it would be awfully difficult to compile a canonical list of “must disclose on first date/hookup” information that would not be fatally overinclusive or underinclusive.

  19. Thomas,

    I get that revealing that sort of info could doom the relationship from the start, but I feel like it’s something that NEEDS to be disclosed from jump. Because it’s not generally something that people will think to ask. I mean, the usual questions would be abut sexual health, maybe past partners… most people don’t expect that someone has had GRS.

    The only analagous thing I personally have is that when I am with non-black men, I make sure to toss in the fact that I wear a hair weave. It could potentially be a deal-breaker, because it’s a practice that some non-blacks find totally weird and foreign, but I think it’s only fair to put it out there and let them decide how they feel. If that repulses them, I’d rather we establish that at the start, before it gets complicated.

    I don’t know… if I’m about to get intimate with someone, the fact that he used to be a woman would kinda be something I’d want to be made aware of. I’d say it was pretty pertinent to the matter at hand.

    Of course, I’m not saying (at all) that it’s OK to beat the crap out of someone if they fail to disclose this info. Just that it’s totally relevant if you’re about to have sex.

  20. I agree with Kim that it’s something I would want to know. But does that mean that a transperson has a moral requirement to disclose it? I don’t think so.

    There are lots of things that I would like to know. I would like to know how many partners my partner has had. I would like to know if my partner has ever been sexually assaulted, or had questionable sexual experiences which may impact our sex life. I would like to know if my partner has a particular kink, or if they look at porn, or if they’re tasteless enough to like Coldplay. But I don’t think I have a right to know any of these things. And I’m not sure that I have a right to know if my partner was born female, even if I would really really like to, and even if I might feel betrayed afterward. That betrayal, I think, would be fair, but it would also be my issue — while I can argue that, given my worldview, he should have told me because I would have wanted to know, I’m not sure I can argue that he had a moral duty to tell me.

  21. But I don’t think I have a right to know any of these things.

    Jill, I think we agree but I think the terminology you’re using conflates the right to ask with the obligation to disclose — in my view, very different things.

    I can refuse to be sexual with anyone at any time for any reason or no reason. Certainly, any feminists is going to agree that any woman can refuse to be sexual with any person at any time for any reason or no reason. So, a woman does indeed have a right to know if I was assigned male at birth. Or whether I eat meat. Or whether I like Coldplay. If I’m asked those things, I think I have an obligation not to lie. If I refuse to answer, I know I may have blown my chance. If a potential sex partner asks me something, I can’t bullshit her about it. That’s not consent. Lying to someone to get them in bed is a species of rape. People don’t like to call it that, but that’s what it is.

    The sticking point, on my account, is how to identify those things that require affirmative disclosure, where someone should not wait to be asked. Probably a majority would want to know about GRS, but there are a lot of things that fall in the “a lot of people would want to know” category. Lots of sex partners is one. Some people seem convinced that a person who has had more than X number of sex partners is obliged to bring it up: well, who would think to ask that? Another is bisexuality. Virginity is another. Then there’s sex work, don’t-like-giving-head, loud orgasms, once had a threesome, female ejaculation, occasional crossdressing, porn use, premature ejaculation … and that’s only the stuff directly related to sexual conduct. That excludes the relationship-breakers that might come up later but are not obvious. If we all agreed that transition required disclosure, don’t we have to agree that everything else that most people would want to know but that would not be obvious is in the same category? I just think there’s too much to list. Whatever I need to know, I’ll ask.

  22. Agreed, Thomas. I think there is an obligation not to lie when asked, and I think there is always a right to ask. But there isn’t a requirement to disclose, so long as non-disclosure doesn’t present harm to the person/people involved.

  23. Kim,

    It just seems like people should be honest…

    You’ve just, perhaps unwittingly, stumbled on the crux of the dilemma for a TS.

    In one sense, it is quite reasonable for the TS to disclose their past to a potential long term partner {and I suspect that most do}. On the other hand, most TSes are much less enthused about broadcasting their past in “more casual” relationships.

    Part of the subtlety here is the desire of the TS to be seen as their chosen gender – period. This is not “role play”, but rather a desire to move beyond past social identities. So, the rather metaphysical question becomes “what is the lie?”

    For a non-TS, this might seem incredibly simple – it is far from being necessarily as trivial. {especially as trivial as that dipstick “gonzo” seems to think it is}

  24. Just as I’d like to know if the man I was getting close to maybe used to identify as gay, or if he’s bisexual, or any other case in which he’s not a heterosexual person born male, in good health.

    I’m not sure it would occur to me to disclose bisexuality–but then, I date in pretty biphobia-free circles. Why would it be important? What does it have to do with anything?

  25. Piny, I’ve heard that a lot. I know women who will not date bisexual women, and women who will not date bisexual men, and men who will not date bisexual men — the latter write in to Dan Savage occasionally. I know no men who will not date bisexual women — no surprise there.

    On my account, “what does it have to do with anything,” while an interesting question, does not change her right to have her own criteria for partners — and I say that means any criteria she wants.

    Piny, certainly you did not say that refusing to date bisexuals is biphobic (some could read “biphobia-free circles” to imply that, but that’s not what I took you to mean). I would not apply the concept of biphobia, or fat-phobia, or transphobia, of kink-phobia, to one’s choice of sex partner. To me, one’s choice of who to be sexually intimate with is so important that I don’t think it is fair to attach the concept of prejudice to a sexual or romantic preference. I don’t think anyone has a right to equal access to be someone else’s sex partner, which is in fact the ultimate private club.

  26. I agree with Kim that it’s something I would want to know. But does that mean that a transperson has a moral requirement to disclose it? I don’t think so.

    How about if you get involved in a physical relationship with a man, and later find out he’s married? Did he have a moral requirement to disclose it? I think so. Or how about if he said he was a photographer, but didn’t tell you he was actually a pornographer? Again, I think this type of dishonesty (by omission) is immoral.

    Agreed, Thomas. I think there is an obligation not to lie when asked, and I think there is always a right to ask. But there isn’t a requirement to disclose, so long as non-disclosure doesn’t present harm to the person/people involved.

    That’s the heart of the issue; does it harm the other person? Why is it considered a big deal to cheat on one’s spouse? I think it’s because of the harm it can do to the person being cheated on. One could argue that because the harm isn’t physical, it’s unimportant. I would disagree with that, too.

    Call me old-fashioned, but I believe that if a person feels used after a sexual encounter, they’ve been harmed.

    “It’s ok for you to live your life as you want to, except up to the point where it makes me uncomfortable”

    Actually, my opinion is “It’s ok for you to live your life as you want to, except up to the point where it harms others”. I don’t think it’s a radical or bigotted opinion.

  27. Okay RM. Give us your list of items that require disclosure. If I fit any category on it, I’ll disclose to my next sex partner.

    Then, we’ll all put together our list. If you fit anything on it, you’ll have to disclose it.

    I’m guessing that the list will be very long. And I’m guessing that it will include very little that is embarassing — just a bunch of crap that matters to some people and does not matter to others. And disclosing everything that all of us care about will be so tedious that your next sex partner may be a long was away.

    This is one of those “common sense” problems, where a bunch of people assume that their particular proclivities are the norm.

  28. Actually, my opinion is “It’s ok for you to live your life as you want to, except up to the point where it harms others”. I don’t think it’s a radical or bigotted opinion.

    Except that for harm you’re substituting something that’s essentially a moral judgement predicated on the societal disgust \ dissaproval of trans bodies.

    Can you explain in what sense I harm someone by sleeping with them without disclosing trans status?

    Clearly there’s no widespread belief that there’s a moral obligation to disclose in all sorts of other cases where someone could feel used after a sexual encounter. So what your argument comes down to is either (1) an argument in favour of massive disclosure lists pre-sex around anything that might conceivably generate bad feeling post-sex or (2) a belief that trans bodies \ identities are so inherently weird that trans people should be held to a higher standard than pretty much everyone else.

    My point is that (2) is not sustainable without either relying on some pretty bigoted conceptions of trans identity and embodiment or on a belief that trans people should somehow be responsible for the social prejudices held against us.

  29. To me, one’s choice of who to be sexually intimate with is so important that I don’t think it is fair to attach the concept of prejudice to a sexual or romantic preference. I don’t think anyone has a right to equal access to be someone else’s sex partner, which is in fact the ultimate private club.

    Except that nobody is proposing that we force bigots to fuck the objects of their hatred. I’m sorry, but if someone won’t have sex with black men because they think they’re ‘animalistic’ in bed, they are, in fact, racist. If someone won’t have sex with bisexuals because they think bisexuals are icky, they are, in fact, bigots. You are allowed to notice that obvious fact without implying that anybody has a “right of access” to the bodies of bigots and racists .
    Confusing bigotry with simple sexual preferences is dishonest, too. Not having sex with someone because of what they look like or what they want to do with you in bed is one thing; not having sex with somebody because of what you mistakenly and bigotedly believe their appearance indicates about their character is entirely different.

    And once again, nobody is claiming that calling a bigot a bigot means we have the right to make them have sex with us.

  30. Seems to me that this whole thing is about two different issues. One, the murder, which everyone, including Gonzo believes is immoral. Murder is wrong, plain and simple.

    The other is this idea that someone who dislikes being the sex they were born can not only arbitrarily pretend to be the opposite sex, but can they go about life misleading others about their sex.

    This man Araujo was wrong to do that to those men. Yes, they reacted entirely inappropriately AND criminally, and they deserve to be punished for that murder. Hoewever that does not mean what Araujo did was right either. He lied, all the way through sexual encounters. Did he deserve to die? No, no one deserves to die like that. This does not mean he was right either. It does not mean he did not have some responsibility in the situation. Things are not always black and white, and in this case as in many others, both parties contributed to the situation.

    If someone is a man (but acts as a woman) or vice versa, they need to make that clear to their sexual partners, just as much as if they were married, or underaged. People have a responsibility to be forthcoming about their gender, their real, born gender. If you want to add that you feel like you are the opposite, that is your choice, but you have a responsibility to be honest about what you physically are.

    As I said in the beginning, you can be against the murder AND against the deciet. They are not incompatable.

  31. Wow, just when I thought MRAs and their little collaborators couldn’t get more offensive, they step up to the plate and lower the bar down to the basement.

    Here’s a tip, BQ; nobody is fooled by that, “Oh, of course I’m not saying HE deserved to get murdered…*simper*”—-‘but of course he did.’

  32. This man Araujo was wrong to do that to those men. Yes, they reacted entirely inappropriately AND criminally, and they deserve to be punished for that murder. Hoewever that does not mean what Araujo did was right either. He lied, all the way through sexual encounters.

    Biscuit Queen, I’m going to take you to task here a bit. Take a look at those pictures of Araujo, and convince me that is a man. At the very least, Araujo was well past “early transition”, and deserves to be addressed by the appropriate pronouns for her chosen gender. {Yes, I’m being a nitpick here, but I think it’s disrespectful in the extreme to refer to her as ‘he’}

    You have, in effect, instantiated precisely the reason that a transperson may not choose to disclose their status – the immediate supposition that chromosomal gender equals gender identity and social role.

    As I argued above, a transsexual may well feel “caught between” in such a situation. Their internal dialogue may well include a sense that they have already lived through many, many lies and paid a terrible price for it. If they are living “authentically” in their chosen gender, they similarly would be somewhat justified in not saying anything – especially for what might be considered a “fling”. Third, a transsexual living in their chosen gender is not being “deceitful” – I’m sorry, but I just cannot accept that claim, not when so many transsexuals are so clearly very intensely self-aware.

    Please note that her murderers were all too happy to avail themselves of her – up to the point where they “found out” her past. Now then, she did what harm to them?

  33. I know no men who will not date bisexual women — no surprise there.

    It surprised me, though, when I was single. I was assuming that my bisexuality was something I was obliged to disclose early, to both men and women, anyone I had any interest in having a relationship with, to screen out quickly anyone who was going to reject me. And I thought I’d just hit it unusually lucky with the men that none of them rejected me for that.

  34. I know no men who will not date bisexual women — no surprise there.

    It surprised me, though, when I was single. I was assuming that my bisexuality was something I was obliged to disclose early, to both men and women, anyone I had any interest in having a relationship with, to screen out quickly anyone who was going to reject me. And I thought I’d just hit it unusually lucky with the men that none of them rejected me for that.

  35. Question for Tam, Piny, and anyone else for whom it is applicable:

    Would you (or have you) had a physical relationship with somone without disclosing your trans status? Why or why not?

  36. > nobody is claiming that calling a bigot a bigot means we have the right to make them have sex with us.

    Nor, let us be perfectly clear, does it imply that we WANT them to have sex with us.

    which brings us back to mullet-boy: Lemon drop, how often does this mm problem actually come up for you?

  37. which brings us back to mullet-boy: Lemon drop, how often does this mm problem actually come up for you?

    Given the painfully obvious ignorance of his columns, I’d wager never. That might involve getting to know somebody outside of his happy little bubble of ‘good ol’ boy’ buddies.

  38. For most people there is a line drawn between male and female. That line to them is drawn by how one is born, male or female. To them it is as important as it is for you to change your sex based on your internal feelings.

    To you what gender you are is based on how you feel. To me what gender you are is what you are born. I feel you have a moral obligation to respect others enough to be honest about what gender you were born before being intimate, and that means before any touch at all. Just as you feel it is the right thing for me to honor what gender you feel you are.

    You have no right to dismiss my need to know because you don’t feel it is important, then claim I am the bigot. How is that any different than someone dismissing your feelings about your gender? If you want respect, you need to give it, and the same goes for me. This to me is more of a general respect issue.

    I do not think Araujo deserved to die or be assaulted. I did not say that anywhere, I did not even think it. Ginmar, you can think whatever you like about what my motives are, that does not mean it is true. What was done to Araujo was horrendous, and should not have been done to anyone. That does not mean Araujo was right to lie. You can be wrong yet not deserve to be treated badly.

    Life is not always black and white, good against evil, the wicked and the saintly. Most people are generally good, most of us occasionally do bad things, and sometimes people do really bad things. Having a really bad thing done to you does not make you suddenly right however.

  39. Would you (or have you) had a physical relationship with somone without disclosing your trans status? Why or why not?

    No, for the same reason I would not have a physical relationship with someone without disclosing the fact that I have really tight hamstrings. It comes up in any situation where I’m intimate the way I prefer to be. I would, and have, dated without disclosing, but that’s a different question. I know guys who have physical relationships–if Saturday evening at Blow Buddies qualifies, and I think it does–without disclosing, and I see no reason they should feel compelled to.

    Have you ever disclosed your trans status?

  40. No, for the same reason I would not have a physical relationship with someone without disclosing the fact that I have really tight hamstrings.

    What’s the reason?

    Have you ever disclosed your trans status?

    I’m a straight male.

  41. Trans status…as in trans fat?…
    Yes, I have high cholesterol, that is my trans status 😉

  42. What’s the reason?

    Is this a joke?

    I’m a straight male.

    What does that have to do with anything?

  43. You have no right to dismiss my need to know because you don’t feel it is important, then claim I am the bigot.

    If the reason behind your needing to know is a bigoted one, then yes, a person has every right to call you a bigot.

  44. Having a really bad thing done to you does not make you suddenly right however.

    Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh…but THE FUCKING POINT is that you don’t deserve that bad thing happening to you because you weren’t truthful about some bullshit aspect of your past, i.e., that you were physically born a certain gender. By making your argument, you prove you know nothing about transgendered people, so PLEASE stop arguing immediately, before you make more bigotted statements.

  45. Is this a joke?

    No. You said:

    No, for the same reason I would not have a physical relationship with someone without disclosing the fact that I have really tight hamstrings.

    but you didn’t identify what that reason was (or I just didn’t get it).

    Why wouldn’t you have a physical relationship without disclosing?

  46. Would you (or have you) had a physical relationship with somone without disclosing your trans status? Why or why not?

    Yes; I’ve got physical with several men who were under the impression that I am a heterosexual woman rather than a trannyfag. This is arguably a worse deception than passing for a cisgendered guy would be, but I don’t really consider I was under obligation to tell them anything. Had they cared enough to ask, I would have owed them an honest answer, I think, but since I was never more than a couple of orifices to them, I don’t think they would have cared even if I’d told them.

    I’ve also disclosed as honestly as I could to a friend who later became a lover, only to have him turn round and tell me I was “really” a woman because he had detected my inner femininity. Does it count as disclosure if you say what you are and get laughed off?

  47. but I don’t really consider I was under obligation to tell them anything. Had they cared enough to ask, I would have owed them an honest answer, I think

    Why do you think you would you have owed them an honest answer?

    Does it count as disclosure if you say what you are and get laughed off?

    Of course. Why wouldn’t it?

  48. but you didn’t identify what that reason was (or I just didn’t get it).

    Why wouldn’t you have a physical relationship without disclosing?

    I’m sorry, but I’m not going to spell that out for you. Just read that sentence and the one following it a few more times, and see if it shakes out.

  49. why does this bother you so much?

    It doesn’t bother me. I just think it’s an interesting topic for discussion. But that’s just my nature. I always bring up issues that I read about here at our Saturday night dinner parties.

    I can’t figure out why someone would want to engage in a physical relationship with someone who might not be willing if they knew the truth about you (just like I can’t understand why somone would not tell a partner they were married).

    My only guess is to engage in sex that they wouldn’t be able to if they were forthcoming. I’m probably wrong, so that’s why I asked why they would (or wouldn’t) do it.

    Piny said he wouldn’t, but didn’t give the reason. I’m assuming (again probably incorrectly) it’s because the reason would be similar to my own beliefs; that’s it’s just not a nice thing to do to someone. I hope he will elaborate further.

  50. Piny said he wouldn’t, but didn’t give the reason. I’m assuming (again probably incorrectly) it’s because the reason would be similar to my own beliefs; that’s it’s just not a nice thing to do to someone. I hope he will elaborate further.

    I will elaborate far enough to tell you that, no, that’s incorrect.

  51. Piny, I appreciate your patience with me, but I still don’t get it.

    Now I’m confused about two things;

    Why you wouldn’t engage in a physical realtionship without disclosing, and

    Why you won’t explain why you wouldn’t.

    Of course you’re under no obligation to spell it out for me, but why go half way?

    In case I’m just thick and the answers are apparent, can anyone else here explain what Piny meant in comment #44?

    Thanx.

  52. Why do you think you would you have owed them an honest answer?
    Because lying in response to a direct question is a pretty clear breach of the social contract. I’m not convinced failure to disclose information that may or may not be relevant is a similar breach.

    Does it count as disclosure if you say what you are and get laughed off?
    Of course. Why wouldn’t it?

    It depends whether the purpose of disclosing is to make sure your partner knows or to give yourself the moral high ground of having disclosed.

    I can’t figure out why someone would want to engage in a physical relationship with someone who might not be willing if they knew the truth about you
    You don’t need to figure it out because it’s been explained to you more than once: there are any number of things that might put someone off sex, and disclosing them all just in case would be somewhat unfeasible.

  53. In case I’m just thick and the answers are apparent, can anyone else here explain what Piny meant in comment #44?

    Not while I’m at work. But in general, the reason you’d tell anyone you have tight hamstrings is to avoid hurting said tight hamstrings.

Comments are currently closed.