a sister gone off the deep end

[kym]

I just received bad news today and i'm still trying to make heads or tails of it.

seems a friend and sister in heels went out and had srs. the problem is she did not bother to inform her wife, she just went to taiwan to "teach" and came back last christmas, sat his wife down to let her know. how could someone destroy a supportive wife like that? makes no sense to me at all.

[sissystephanie]

He certainly let her know who came first in his life! Divorce next?

[kym]

the divorce is already in the works,

[buffchick]

:eek: It just breaks my heart to read that. I'm speachless.

[gennee]

Doesn't make sense to me, either. That's nuts if you ask me.

Gennee

:straightface::eek:

[kym]

the really sad part is she would have supported him and been there through the surgery if he consulted her about it.

[jruiz]

Not cool at all... Pretty sad

[Robynts]

If I pulled that kinda stupid move on my wife I could have saved all the money on SRS......she would do it for free with a dull knife.........Just remember when you deal with your wife......you gotta sleep some time!

[kathrynjanos]

Wow, that's just all out messed up. I don't know what to say about that other than I feel terrible for his wife.

[sarahNZ]

sorry Kym but your friend f***** up... This woman was supporting and... WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT???:eek::Angry3:

[vivianann]

Some peaple are so self centered that they dont even consider their wife's feelings before they act. this person deserves to be taken to the cleaners for what he did to his poor wife.

[jazmine]

Nice going Einstein!

[JoAnne Wheeler]

WHAT A STUPID SISTER ! What else can you say ? Uncaring ? This is a prime example of how not to inform your spouse

JoAnne Wheeler

[MJ]

and you wonder why new gg who come her to learn more about us will not be amused by this...
that was so very wrong ...

[Senban]

Well as much as I'm puzzled and dismayed about what is being presented here, I'm unwilling to pass judgement just yet. We're being given one perspective of one side of the whole situation. Is it possible somehow that there's more to this than we're privy to? I can only hope so! Like I say, if these are the full and complete facts then I'm shocked and dismayed that things went the way they did but I guess I'm hoping there's something to this story that I just don't know that might at least explain it a little more in some way :sad:

[battybattybats]

logically if someone was just self centred theyd announce they were doing it regardless of anyone elses thoughts. A self centred person does not consider other peoples opinions at all. To do so in secret means that fear HAD to be involved. Because humans lie to avoid judgement punishment interferance or consequences. There are no other reasons to lie other than to avoid. If she was self centred shed not care about others opinions and therefore not be concerned about the wives possible dissaproval.

So then no matter how much she was in error she believed that she had to be deceptive about this.

So then, the question is, before we can judge fairly, why she had that belief erroneous or not?

[Sheila]

and you wonder why new gg who come her to learn more about us will not be amused by this...
that was so very wrong ...

thanks MJ

how is her wife coping Kym?

[Kate Simmons]

Unfortunate to say the least.:straightface:

[Niya W]

Selfish is not the word I would use , more like self destructive . I've met few TS like that. Then end result was suicide . Rushed in thinking every thing would be perfect after wards and when their world collapses they decide to check out .

[Sasha Anne Meadows]

This kind of story scares the hell out of tg wives. I would never even repeat it to my wife.

[SuzyZahn]

Sister was most wrong in her decision without including wife,,,,cannot give any support there!! Doesn`t help `us` in looking any better to other SO`s

[Nicole Erin]

And we think it is a task to come out as CD...

Imagine the fun of trying to explain getting SRS if someone didn't know before.

If the wife was supportive of things, why didn't they just talk about this first? She may or may not have been cool with it but at least they could have looked into their options, even if one of them was divorce.

Some TS truely think that getting SRS is the answer to all their gender issues.

[Shelly Preston]

Absolutely Unbelieveable

:OMG: How can anyone do such a thing

If there is a worse way do do this I have yet to hear it :eek:

I hope this persons wife gets all the help and support she needs

[Kelsy]

Extremely wrong. your freind will reap of bad karma :sad::Angry3:

Kelsy

[Deborah Jane]

W.T.F.
I'm lost for words!!!!

[Nigella]

Based upon the OP, I mirror the shock of others, however, as someone else has pointed out, with a few sentences we are judging a person to be in the wrong for doing something.

I will not condem the person who has done what appears to be a selfish act because I have 0.001% of the facts.

We all ask for tolerence and acceptance, but are quick to condem on the basis of what is in effect for us third hand information.

Ever played the game of chinese whispers? The story changes from one person to the next. Whilst I do not in any way wish to presume anything from this post, I will reserve judgement.

[trisha59]

It really defies all logical reasoning, therefore could there be a mental health thing going on? I hope that this person seeks out a complete physical with a doctor trained in mental disorders

[kym]

thanks MJ

how is her wife coping Kym?

shes still in shock and denial, but she is getting counseling to help her deal with this. now her "husband" is having a real rough time of it and no one is willing to be supportive of the person. I know that stories get twisted as they get passed around and such, however this is first hand info from the wife and i spoke to the sister about it and she/he confirmed the details. the statement that was made that struck me the most was" i did this for me, to feel like i was finally the correct gender." when i inquired about the wifes feelings i was told that since they were apart at the time it wasn't her choice and her feelings played NO PART in the decision. I am ending the friendship because of the circumstances and a few other things that have happened along those lines. I'm just dumbfounded at how someone can make such a drastic decision with out consulting their partner or considering anyone elses feelings on the matter. I for one have no problem with any person having srs if its right for them and its done in the right way(meaning thoughtful of others feelings that may be involved and thoughtful of what kind of image it sends to the world about us)but this was done in the wrong way in so many ways. for those who don't understand the proces: in the US it can literally take years of living as the opposite gender and hormone therapy before the doctors even consider you as a possible canidate for srs. In taiwan and other places overseas all it takes is the right amount of cash to get it done and it doesn't take much at that, the procedure supposedly cost him/her around $2500 US dollars. very sad and scary indeed.

[carolinoakland]

Well the selfishness goes way beyond the need to be selfish about one's needs to be female. I have discussed my options with the only person that matters to me.... my daughter. And i can't imagine ever being in a place where I would just go and have the surgery with out at least telling her. Not that she could change my mind, which she wouldn't she's my biggest cheering section, but to make that big a change without preparing her eeeeee. I agree with others that there must have been a reason that will only be known to the only two people it matters too. The sister and her so. The rest of us can speculate until the cow's jump over the blue moon...... but only they will live with the consequence's. carol.

[Karen564]

Obviously she felt strongly about getting SRS, and there's nothing wrong with that, But not including the supportive wive in that decision process was Totally Wrong and Deceitful, so I feel so bad for the wife, she deserved much better than that.

Karen

[Tamara Croft]

now her "husband" is having a real rough time of it and no one is willing to be supportive of the person. Why not?


when i inquired about the wifes feelings i was told that since they were apart at the time it wasn't her choice and her feelings played NO PART in the decision.Are you saying they were split up and living apart or just that he was away?


I am ending the friendship because of the circumstances and a few other things that have happened along those lines.Why? you've already said he has no one to support him/her, it doesn't matter whether you believe what he/she did was right or wrong, everyone needs support. I think you're wrong ending the friendship, a good friend supports friends through thick and thin and it sounds like he/she needs a friend right now. How would you feel if it was you?


I'm just dumbfounded at how someone can make such a drastic decision with out consulting their partner or considering anyone else's feelings on the matter.People make mistakes all the time, they don't think, but you've said they were apart, so what reason did he/she have for consulting anyone? Isn't it his/her life?


I for one have no problem with any person having srs if its right for them and its done in the right way(meaning thoughtful of others feelings that may be involved and thoughtful of what kind of image it sends to the world about us)but this was done in the wrong way in so many ways.You obviously do have a problem with it, there is no right and wrong way to do something, he/she obviously felt this was the right thing to do, and often it hurts others in the process, but you of all people should know that often a TS cannot live their life in the wrong body and will go to hell and back to make it right.

I really cannot understand how people on this forum can judge a person without knowing ALL the facts, we don't even know this person, yet you've already judged her for doing something she felt she needed to do. I thought this was a support forum, where's the support? I just hope when any of you :censor: up, you will think twice about what you've said here, about this TS who obviously needs support, who is probably scared shitless right now and is going to lose everything, all because she wanted to live the life she feels is right for her. Don't condemn a person without knowing all the facts, it's not cool at all :thumbsdn:

[kym]

ok, let me clarify a few things here(or at least try) when i say they were apart it was merely geographical according to the sister and the wife, they were still married and did not consider themselves seperated in any way except by the miles in between them. i know a few that have gone through with srs, however the ones that had partners included their partners in the decision beyond just taking hormones and livng as a preop 24/7, this person did not include the so at any level or at any time, it was literally like leaving the country a man and coming back a woman with out any one knowing that it was going to happen, it was even admitted to me that the sister went overseas for the sole reason to have the surgery but used teaching as a cover story so no one would be the wiser until there was no turning back. no consideration was given of anyone except for the one having the surgery, and fittingly enough when they started on hormones several years ago, the wife was not consulted at all. Now having said all of that, I do realize it was a personal decision that one can only make for ones self, but the least someone could do is let their partner in life(especially a wife of many years) know of the decision whether their feelings were taken into account. To give you all a real life example: me and my so are in a continuing discussion over whether i should start hormones, the current concensus is not to start but the door is always left open for discussion in the future and revisited often. i want to start hormones and start the path to transitioning but she has said that even though its my decision she would prefer me not to until a later date so we can have children of our own. and she has also made it well known to me and the world that she is with me for life no matter what i decide and she is very supportive of me and my choices and will always be that way. Now the sister i posted about had that kind of support from the wife, even to the point or srs but choose to turn her back on it and go off on her own and get the procedure done in secret. Being from a rural part of the state i can understand the need for very few, if any, outside of the family knowing about the srs, but at the very least the wife should have been included on this very private decision from the start if for nothing more than moral support and she was not. Am I offended that i was not included in the decision? not in the least, but i am embarrassed that a friend would take on a drastic and important decision on their own when there almost has to be some kind of outside input into it whether its the input of the wife, or a gender therapist, there was no outside input at all. then to find out that the wife had no idea until after the surgery is done makes a tragic story that much more so in many different ways. I was a support system when the hormones were started because i was one of the few friends that understood the feelings involved , and i do understand the feelings involved in wanting the srs, however i can not even start to understand why someone would want to cut out the best support system they have by not telling the supposedly most important person in your life. when i inquired as to why it happened that way i was told that it was a personal decision and to butt out in no uncertain terms,hence the ending of the friendship.

[Tamara Croft]

I was a support system when the hormones were started because i was one of the few friends that understood the feelings involved , and i do understand the feelings involved in wanting the srs, however i can not even start to understand why someone would want to cut out the best support system they have by not telling the supposedly most important person in your life.So let me get this straight, when she went on hormones without consulting the wife, you were supportive of that, but now she's had SRS, you're embarrassed? you won't support her? I can understand why she cut out her support system, because she probably didn't want to be talked out of it, she wanted to do this so badly, she had to lie, which is a sad thing to do, but a hell of a lot of TS's do the same thing. It's a sad fact, but cutting out someone because you're embarrassed, because you don't agree with what they did etc, is lousy, I'm sorry, but what kind of friend does that to a person? Do you have any idea what it feels like to be alone? lose everything? She probably told you to butt out because you're taking sides, is that fair?

[kym]

i became a support system after the wife found out about the hormones, both of them thought enough of me to include me as a support system and i was honored. I can understand lying about the hormones and the srs to a certain extent if the wife was not supportive or on the fence(been there with with my ex-wife to a certain degree) however the wife was very supportive. and still would be if there was honesty in the relationship, which there clearly is not. There are other factors that play into ending the friendship which i will not get into on the forum due to the fact that they are non-tg related. Tamera let me ask you this: if you were married(not trying to imply that you may or may not be) and decided to adopt would you not include your partner in the decision? To me its along the same lines. SRS is a life altering procedure, i feel its only right to include a life partner in that type of decision.

[Di]

Two sides of every story and usually the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
She was a friend of yours and you bash her to strangers:Angry3:
We do not know the facts just this malicious gossip.
And even if a part of this is true......she needs support not back stabbing.

[CD Susan]

I think there is more to this story than what we are being told. One does not just get SRS (actually GRS is a more accurate term) on such a short notice as this seems. It is a long and defined process and a wife would certainly be aware that this process had been initiated. I doubt the validity of this post and wish I had never been duped into reading it.

[sharynPA]

Just horrible! Cruel actually,very cruel.

[Wendy me]

before i can say any thing all party's involved need to voice what happened .... i am sorry with out the outer two party's no one can say for sure what went on ..... might i even stretch this a bit with out the out two party's we don't even know this took place.... hell it makes a good read and a thread that will get opions..........

[MarcieM]

I think there is more to this story than what we are being told. One does not just get SRS (actually GRS is a more accurate term) on such a short notice as this seems. It is a long and defined process and a wife would certainly be aware that this process had been initiated. I doubt the validity of this post and wish I had never been duped into reading it.
I agree. This story is fishy.

[battybattybats]

Firstly people, remember that GID can be extremely severe! That if this person was having an extreme GID crisis then SRS ASAP may have been the only way to prevent a mental breakdown or suicide.

When it comes to consulting family...

The decision is not and cannot be anyones but the TSs! The Family hane no say in it ever! For them to be expected to have a say in that choice goes against the human rights of the TS and the legal principles of personal autonomy.

But it would be very reasonable for the SO to be expected to be informed that it was going to take place, so as to be prepared for it, so as to have the opportunity to deal with it. Even to have the opportunity to help support them through the process.

But an SO has no veto or a right to interfere in the decision just as a husband cannot do so in the wives medical decisions. That is only legal and ethical if the partner has no capacity to choose at the time (is in a coma etc) and has not made other legal arrangements. Otherwise each person legally and ethically is the only person with any say in what they do with their own body.

[Tamara Croft]

This is going to be an absolute first, but I completely agree with Batty.

[Lora Olivia]

I have to believe we are hearing less than the whole story here. Regardless of that I have to say that if that was my friend I would try to work through it with both of them. "Judge not, lest ye be judged" This thread also has to be terribly frightening to the newer GG SO's here, I hope that they take it all with a grain of salt. Not saying it hasn't or can't happen, just that it isn't the norm. :2c:

[~Kelly~]

One does not just get SRS (actually GRS is a more accurate term)

I don't mean to hijack this thread but SRS is the more accurate term. GRS is implying that your gender is changing which is impossible. Gender is 100% rooted in your brain. No amount of surgery or hormones can EVER change it. However, outward physical sex CAN be changed. I realize both terms have been used interchangeably, but on an accuracy scale, SRS wins.

Now on to the thread itself. I am leaning towards the "something sounds fishy" side myself. However, I am also disinclined to pass any kind of judgment without hearing both sides of the story. I am VERY hesitant to believe everything is quite as "simplistic" as it is coming across as. I could be 100% absolutely wrong on this though. Without hearing both sides I guess I will never know.

[Sandra]

Without hearing from the two people involved in this how can anyone judge?

[victoriamwilliams1]

sorry Kym but your friend f***** up... This woman was supporting and... WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT???:eek::Angry3:

Now thats what I was thinking.

It was like hi honey I'm home, she ask what gift did you get me? Let see I got you this wonderful teddy bear and I got me SRS.

That is not cool at all.

[Senban]

BattyBattyBats said - "The decision is not and cannot be anyones but the TSs! The Family hane no say in it ever! For them to be expected to have a say in that choice goes against the human rights of the TS and the legal principles of personal autonomy."

Ultimately I agree that it's only one person's decision. But I'd also say that if that person is in a relationship with someone and they want that relationship to continue then they need to involve and inform the other person. As time goes on, it's possible that a fork in the road will appear and the SO may feel they're unable to continue further down the same path. Because they've been fully involved and informed, then everything will more likely remain amicable. But to arbitrarily take a decision and then thrust the result in the SO's face is not really likely to allow the SO to gradually accept the situation and decide if they want to continue to be part of it.

Regardless of how this story may or may not appear to us, it certainly got me thinking and made me realise just how vitally important it is to keep our SO's in the loop regarding such things. They're not just people we know - they're our partners and that means that they're part of the process, even if ultimately the decision rests with us. But while the decisions rest with us, so too do the outcomes and consequences of those decisions.

I'd also agree with whoever it was above that said that it's possible that this person acted out of sheer desperation. But sheer desperation to me is a fairly spur of the moment decision. It's not sheer desperation if someone plans a trip to teach abroad as a cover for their actual plans.

[Sheila]

Firstly people, remember that GID can be extremely severe! That if this person was having an extreme GID crisis then SRS ASAP may have been the only way to prevent a mental breakdown or suicide.

When it comes to consulting family...

The decision is not and cannot be anyones but the TSs! The Family hane no say in it ever! For them to be expected to have a say in that choice goes against the human rights of the TS and the legal principles of personal autonomy.

But it would be very reasonable for the SO to be expected to be informed that it was going to take place, so as to be prepared for it, so as to have the opportunity to deal with it. Even to have the opportunity to help support them through the process.

But an SO has no veto or a right to interfere in the decision just as a husband cannot do so in the wives medical decisions. That is only legal and ethical if the partner has no capacity to choose at the time (is in a coma etc) and has not made other legal arrangements. Otherwise each person legally and ethically is the only person with any say in what they do with their own body.


This is going to be an absolute first, but I completely agree with Batty.

eth·ics [ éthiks ]

Definition:

study of morality's effect on conduct: the study of moral standards and how they affect conduct



eth·i·cal [ éthik'l ]
Definition:

1. conforming to accepted standards: consistent with agreed principles of correct moral conduct
While such activities are not strictly illegal, they are certainly not ethical.

2. of ethics: relating to or involving ethics

mor·al [ máwrəl ]
definition

1. involving right and wrong: relating to issues of right and wrong and to how individual people should behave

2. derived from personal conscience: based on what somebody's conscience suggests is right or wrong, rather than on what rules or the law says should be done

3. according to common standard of justice: regarded in terms of what is known to be right or just, as opposed to what is officially or outwardly declared to be right or just

had batty added morality to his statement then yup iI may well have agreed Tamara ................. there is a difference between ethics and morality

[MarcieM]

The decision is not and cannot be anyones but the TSs! The Family hane no say in it ever! For them to be expected to have a say in that choice goes against the human rights of the TS and the legal principles of personal autonomy.

I have to disagree. A person doesn't just go away somewhere and claim to be working and come back and say..."Oh, by the way, I now have a vagina..."
sorry, that's just not the way it works.

[battybattybats]

This is a big (and important) reply to multiple posts so apologies for it's neccessary length.


I don't mean to hijack this thread but SRS is the more accurate term. GRS is implying that your gender is changing which is impossible.

Many use the G in GRS not to stand for Gender which some doctors once called it but instead as Genital. So that 'top surgery' is still considered SRS and not only 'bottom surgery'. Because the emphasis only on genitals defining ones legal sex catagory is discriminatory towards FtM blokes who less often than MtF choose the current surgical options for a variety of reasons.



Ultimately I agree that it's only one person's decision. But I'd also say that if that person is in a relationship with someone and they want that relationship to continue then they need to involve and inform the other person.

Reasonable to Inform of the choice and maybe even the contemplation of the choice yes, I already said as much myself but Need to Involve in the making of the choice? No. Discuss with? Sure thats an option. Even ask the opinions of. But allow the other to have a say in the decison? To have a veto? To require negotiation about? No. Not with cancer treatment nor with dental work nor with a haircut. The principle is clear and unchanged from the minutia to the ultimate life and death decisions. This is a legal point, its a human rights point, its a philosophical point.


had batty added morality to his statement then yup iI may well have agreed Tamara ................. there is a difference between ethics and morality

Absolutely! It's a common missunderstanding that the two words mean the same thing. Trouble is many dictionaries and many public commentators are rather behind the field of philosophy from where the terms come. Many philosophers for a significant amount of time (lets see... I attended my first lecture on Philosophy between the ages of 3 and 4 and I just turned 33 so it's at least 30 years) do not use the terms moral and ethical as interchangeable.

They make a distinction between morality as subjective, based on personal precepts reliant on a specific feelling, faith, belief or groups rules and ethics as more objective and thus true across different moral fields. Not every philosopher uses that definition of course and there are a few different schools of thought on what precepts define Ethics but I use the term in what is generslly the main usage which is relating to the simple philosophical principles from the Enlightenment of Equality and Liberty from which all Human Rights Philosophy (and modern western civilisation and modern democracy) descends.

Example:
For some Christians working on a Sunday is immoral, in that it goes against proscribed religious rules apllicable to those who hold that faith. But for a Wiccan to work on a Sunday the Christian morals do not and can not apply to them as they do not hold that faith. Instead they have a seperate subjective morality based on the rules of their seperate faith!

However were either to comit murder even when that murder is religiously moral (for example if the Christian murders the wican because of the religious moral rule 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live') they have acted Unethically because they have imposed their subjective rule over the Wiccan and the Wiccans rights!

Now as the Christian would themselves object if the Wiccan imposed their religious rules over them or if a worshipper of the Vampire Bat God Camasotz were to tear the Christians heart out on a stone altar as a blessed sacrifice then this forms a neat understanding of how an objective system based on equality can arise. One which relegates personal morality only to the self and which requires an unbiased set of principles when dealing with others.

As every single persons morality may vary then even between two Christians one cannot assert their morality over the other.

Example: One may say that the Old Testament rules about food must be obeyed while another may say they do not but that people should go to confession. Neither can apply their personal morality to the other.

I've used religious morality for my examples because they are generaly easier for most people to recognise the differences involved, but even when it comes down to 'conscience' each person has a unique conscience not a single standard universal one so then how can anyone judge others by the standards of their own conscience when those others may well have been following their consciences too?

This is true at every level. So it's even true in a relationship! Even a marriage!

Morality is always under every conceivable circumstance inferior lesser and overridden by Ethical principles.

Morality applies only to the self, Ethics applies to all actions between any two or more sentient beings. Only Ethical judgements are valid over others choices relating to others, peoples choices relating only to themselves are intrinsicly ethical and cannot be judged by others at all!. All decisions relating to others that are Moral but Unethical are Wrong! All actions relating to others that are Ethical but Immoral to one of the parties involved are Right!

Hence the example: A Wiccan working on Sundays no matter how Immoral to some Christians is Ethical and therfore Right and Acceptable but Christians Murdering Witches despite it being Moral is Unethical and therefore Wrong and Inexcusable!

Now Kelly, if you wish I can list a host of Moral arguments to back up the point that the decision always belongs solely to the person whose body it is. But being dependant on precepts that are founded on particular faiths or cultures they will be subjective and therefore useless outside of the self. Whereas the Ethical arguments supercede all Moral ones because thay apply to all people especially when those people may come from varying faiths or cultures with different moral precepts.



Originally Posted by battybattybats
The decision is not and cannot be anyones but the TSs! The Family hane no say in it ever! For them to be expected to have a say in that choice goes against the human rights of the TS and the legal principles of personal autonomy. I have to disagree. A person doesn't just go away somewhere and claim to be working and come back and say..."Oh, by the way, I now have a vagina..."
sorry, that's just not the way it works.

I sure didn't say the person was wise doing it the way they did without informing their wife. But when it comes to all decisions about ones own body and medical are a good eample the only person with a say in the choice is the person whose body it is. This is an established Legal and Ethical (and yes folks moral too depending on moral system) principle!

The only exceptions are where the person is considered mentally incapable of making the choice for themselves! Such as if they are in a coma or are very young children or are insane!

And even under that exception the choices made on their behalf are limited by very strict rules!

Example: A sane awake sober adult can consent to anything, from surgery to sex. While a small child cannot consent to many things including surgery and no child can consent to sex. This does not mean that their parents can make any choice they feel like just because they make the choice on the childs behalf! Life-saving surgery is valid for example but cosmetic surgery to give them pointed elf ears is not. Hence an adult cant choose for the child of any age that the child have sex!

A husband for example has no say over a wifes consent to sex. Nor the wife over the husband. And if they are passed out from alcohol the other cannot choose on the behalf of the unconcious spouse to have sex. It's still rape Ethically and Legally and by much morality.

So i'm afraid that utter personal autonomy under every possible circumstance where a person is capable of making choices is the case no matter what. And when they are incapable of making choices there are strict principles on the kind of choices others can make on their behalf!

[PatyR]

But an SO has no veto or a right to interfere in the decision just as a husband cannot do so in the wives medical decisions.

Although I agree totally with this idea and also I agree that he/she had the right to make her own decision, I still think that s/he should have told the wife beforehand. Not because s/he was looking for approval, but for the simple fact that a relationship should be built on communication and trust. If none of these exist then the relation is meant no to exist, as well.

Proof of this is that they are getting divorced not because of the surgery, but because the wife was not even told until after the fact.

I'm not who to approve or disapprove the action, s/he had his/her reasons and I respect that, but I think s/he should have let the wife know at least to know whether the relation was meant to exist or not.:2c:

[flatlander_48]

There is an upside here as I don't think the lady will be reproducing...

[trisha59]

I say with all honesty I am in awe of the intelligence of the people on this forum and the comments they make. I know I am out of my league when discussions such as these come up. All I have to work with is my C average schooling to work with. With that in mind I'm confused here. This forum is filled with posts about being honest and telling your SO. To lie and keep things secret is wrong. Advice I take very seriously.

So please explain why a scenario such as this does not violate the prime directive of not lying to your SO.
I purposely put in the word scenario because I am not necessarily talking about this one incident.

[Senban]

BattyBattyBats said - "Reasonable to Inform of the choice and maybe even the contemplation of the choice yes, I already said as much myself but Need to Involve in the making of the choice? No. Discuss with? Sure thats an option. Even ask the opinions of. But allow the other to have a say in the decison? To have a veto? To require negotiation about? No. Not with cancer treatment nor with dental work nor with a haircut. The principle is clear and unchanged from the minutia to the ultimate life and death decisions. This is a legal point, its a human rights point, its a philosophical point."

Well yes and no. I agree with many of your points but some aren't quite as clear cut so I'll take them one at a time.

"Need to involve in the making of the choice". No, absolutely not and yet if we don't then we have no reason to cry about it when our SO is unhappy about being cut out of the decision-making process. While the choice is ultimately that of the individual, to say it doesn't affect anyone and their opinions and needs can be ignored seems.....odd.

"Discuss with". Again, this really seems to be the same point as the one above .

"Ask the opinions of" is again sort of the same point so let's group it with the above two points.

"Allow the other to have a say in the decison To have a veto". I'll say again that I think that ultimately it's the choice of the individual to make but if they have an SO e.g. a wife, then they have a moral obligation to discuss such a fundamentally life/relationship changing event. The SO may not be able to exercise some form of veto but they can make an informed decision as to whether they choose to remain in the relationship. Apart from anything, consider what has apparently happened here. There is now a divorce in the offing. Under these circumstances, the TG will be eaten alive by the SO's lawyers on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour and everything will end up in the SO's hands. If there had been discussion and honesty, the whole separation might have been far more amicable and less destructive and possibly even avoided entirely.

"To require negotiation about". Actually what if the SO had said she would support the transition but asked if it could wait for six months until little Johnny was past his exams and so wouldn't have the extra strain of dealing with the events. Would that not be a justifiable type of negotiation? That's one example, I can think of several.

So let me repeat. While it is the right of the individual to make any final decision, if the making of such a decision will affect the lives of others to such an extent (comparing it to a haircut is ludicrous, sorry) then there is a moral obligation to keep all affected parties in the loop at all times.

I try to look at situations and imagine myself in them. I imagine myself taking action like this and then imagine how my GF would feel and act. As much as I try to see both sides of an event no matter what it is, in this case I know that she'd be absolutely gutted that I'd kept her out of the loop, she'd realise that the relationship existed in name only and she'd quite rightly decide to cut me out of her life as is her right and frankly I wouldn't blame her.

The person in question, IMHO and admittedly only based on the few facts we have, has shown nothing but utter disdain for the SO and their marriage and deserves the coming repercussions. They obviously weighed up the pros and cons of their decision and made their choice accordingly. I respect their individual freedoms to do so but I think they forgot that any decision they make has an outcome; in this case the outcome was the loss of their marriage. We can only assume they realised that possibility beforehand and decided to go ahead anyway and that speaks volumes. If anything, my suspicion is that this was done to force the situation into a position where it had to be dealt with one way or another rather than linger as a possibility :2c:

[MarcieM]

So please explain why a scenario such as this does not violate the prime directive of not lying to your SO.
I purposely put in the word scenario because I am not necessarily talking about this one incident.
This particular case, if it's true (and the jury is still out on that) it violates EVERY rule of trust in the universe.
I'm sorry...but I have zero empathy for the person who went to Taiwan.

[battybattybats]

With that in mind I'm confused here. This forum is filled with posts about being honest and telling your SO. To lie and keep things secret is wrong. Advice I take very seriously.

So please explain why a scenario such as this does not violate the prime directive of not lying to your SO.
I purposely put in the word scenario because I am not necessarily talking about this one incident.

If honesty with ones spouse is as important as many here claim it is (and I'm saying this as an idealist who is a lot more honest than most people according to psychologists I know) then I'd like the 1 in 3 SO's here who cheat on their partners to fess up. Cause about 1 in 3 of men and women cheat on their spouse and I've heard of no reason why the wives of CDs would be dissproportinate in that. Same with the CDs. And I'm pretty sure the stat is way higher for those who have concealed much of their past sexual activity though I don't recal it offhand.


BattyBattyBats said - "Reasonable to Inform of the choice and maybe even the contemplation of the choice yes, I already said as much myself but Need to Involve in the making of the choice? No. Discuss with? Sure thats an option. Even ask the opinions of. But allow the other to have a say in the decison? To have a veto? To require negotiation about? No. Not with cancer treatment nor with dental work nor with a haircut. The principle is clear and unchanged from the minutia to the ultimate life and death decisions. This is a legal point, its a human rights point, its a philosophical point."

Well yes and no. I agree with many of your points but some aren't quite as clear cut so I'll take them one at a time.

Cool.


"Need to involve in the making of the choice". No, absolutely not and yet if we don't then we have no reason to cry about it when our SO is unhappy about being cut out of the decision-making process. While the choice is ultimately that of the individual, to say it doesn't affect anyone and their opinions and needs can be ignored seems.....odd.

And yet it is so utterly important that everyone respect this boundary. When it comes to shared resources, shared possessions then each must have a say. Over a persons own body? We should be outraged that anyone ever think they have a say in that decision! Make suggestions, say 'if it were me' etc is fine but to be upset not to be part of the final decision is to disrespect the partner at the most fundamental level possible!

Sure others are effected by a persons choice for themselves, but it is not a fair nor valid thing for us to extend ourselves over anothers boundaries. It'd be like being upset with the colour a neighbour painted their bedroom interior walls in.

Its natural for us to have emotional reactions to others choices and preferances for others decisions for themselves but it can never be valid for us to have a say over them!


"Discuss with". Again, this really seems to be the same point as the one above .

"Ask the opinions of" is again sort of the same point so let's group it with the above two points.

Each though is seperate in it's field. Discussions involve exploring an issue often broadly and asking for opinions means to literally seek to consider their personal view and both may be considered but both may also be rejected. A say in the actual decision however is different.


"Allow the other to have a say in the decison To have a veto". I'll say again that I think that ultimately it's the choice of the individual to make but if they have an SO e.g. a wife, then they have a moral obligation to discuss such a fundamentally life/relationship changing event.

I've already said it is the wisest course of action under most circumstances, but that is different from a moral obligation. Explain the principle of the WHY you think it is a moral obligation please.


The SO may not be able to exercise some form of veto but they can make an informed decision as to whether they choose to remain in the relationship.

Oh very much absolutely! That is definately the case!


Apart from anything, consider what has apparently happened here. There is now a divorce in the offing. Under these circumstances, the TG will be eaten alive by the SO's lawyers on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour and everything will end up in the SO's hands.

Unreasonable behaviour? I had no idea your divorce laws were still full of such injustice and archaic nonsense! Either partner should be free to leave at a moments notice from a marriage for any reason whatsoever. Personal assets should remain such, shared assets split equally. Custody based on purely the best interests of the child. Only if one side has been economically or otherwise abusive of the other should such things become involved. The kind of punatative system you describe is itself a great injustice.


If there had been discussion and honesty, the whole separation might have been far more amicable and less destructive and possibly even avoided entirely.

Indeed. that makes it wise. But wise is seperate from ethical or moral. We can judge someone as bad for being unethical, but being unwise is merely worthy of pity not scorn.


"To require negotiation about". Actually what if the SO had said she would support the transition but asked if it could wait for six months until little Johnny was past his exams and so wouldn't have the extra strain of dealing with the events. Would that not be a justifiable type of negotiation? That's one example, I can think of several.

Require again is different from it being wise to take up an option. If the wife suggests that is a better way to do it and the husband agrees that is good. If the husband can only transition with the wives pernission following negotiation that is abuse. The difference is important. And a TS may not be able to wait if the GID crisis is severer and current.


So let me repeat. While it is the right of the individual to make any final decision, if the making of such a decision will affect the lives of others to such an extent (comparing it to a haircut is ludicrous, sorry) then there is a moral obligation to keep all affected parties in the loop at all times.

You are making an error by suggesting that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the severity of its impact. Its still right or wrong just more impactfully right or wrong. Stealing a single bisuit is still stealling. It's stealling less than a billion dollers and so has less impact but it is still stealing and both can be compared as different degrees of the same crime.

All decisions effect others. But we are only bound to respect the effects on others rights, not neccessarily their emotions. Otherwise we should never have let women be the equals of men under law because that upset the emotions of some men! Justice, fairness and Right itself requires that this be so! Sometimes it is right to act within ones rights no matter how much emotional upset it causes but would be wrong to restrict ones actions within ones rights because of those emotions. As every civil rights cause has proven as every one has upset people.


I try to look at situations and imagine myself in them. I imagine myself taking action like this and then imagine how my GF would feel and act. As much as I try to see both sides of an event no matter what it is, in this case I know that she'd be absolutely gutted that I'd kept her out of the loop, she'd realise that the relationship existed in name only and she'd quite rightly decide to cut me out of her life as is her right and frankly I wouldn't blame her.

Puting yourself in the shoes of others can only work so far as not everyone has the same size and shape feet.


The person in question, IMHO and admittedly only based on the few facts we have, has shown nothing but utter disdain for the SO and their marriage and deserves the coming repercussions.

You are making presumptions of intent. Thats very dangerous when evaluating anothers thoughts and actions. It's simplistic and ignores psychological issues which effect decision making and thinking.


They obviously weighed up the pros and cons of their decision and made their choice accordingly.

Do you have any idea how few decisions humans make like that? Not only are you assuming they considered pros and cons rather than acting on instinct or inner drive but your also assuming they had the capacity to rationally evaluate them clearly free of any other influnces (like a gender identity disorder crisis! GID being after all the reason people usually get SRS is it not?)


I respect their individual freedoms to do so but I think they forgot that any decision they make has an outcome;

Forgot? Maybe.
Made bad assumptions possibly, perhaps based on prior paterns of behaviour, such as the SO might leave or prevent her from getting the surgery if she revealed it in advance but might accept it if it had already been done which while we are assured the opposite would be the case may be an understable fear... I'm reminded of a friend who was afraid to go anywhere at all alone even in broad daylight, she'd been raped on no less than 7 different occassions in her teens so her fear is quite understandable. The pattern of her life thus far has given her unconcious an unrealistic view of the odds of being assaulted.
There are many possible motivations for the TSs actions. If my friend is scared to be with a single male friend in the mall in case he has to go to the toilet leaving her alone where she may be raped waiting for him in public we may easilly say that it is an irational fear as the chances she will be raped in a busy shopping mall in daylight is extraordinarily low, but given her past experiences surely anyone can understand why she may have this irrational fear and therfore act based on that fear regarding the circumstances she goes into town in?


in this case the outcome was the loss of their marriage.

And if a spouse insists on overiding the bodily autonomy of their partner with an insistance of having a say over the final decision should we not expect that the ending of such a marriage may be possible?


We can only assume they realised that possibility beforehand and decided to go ahead anyway and that speaks volumes.

No, we cannot make that assumption! Nor can we assume that it was wrong for them to take such a risk by going ahead anyway!

Example: confessing to being a CD may also risk the loss of a marriage. Should then a closeted Cd only just becoming able to admit to themselves that they are a CD then hide it perpetually from their wife because of te possible loss of the marriage??? Your argument says YES!

I'm reminded of the philosophy/psychology thought-experiment on intent where if a CEO says that they will go ahead with a project because they dont care about the environment and are only there to make profit even though it may harm the environment most people say that he intentionally hurt the environment whereas if its a project which will help the environment but he says hes doing it only to make money etc they day he is unintentionally helping the environment. Both are exactly the same! But most people hold a double-standard based on perceptions of the consequences!


If anything, my suspicion is that this was done to force the situation into a position where it had to be dealt with one way or another rather than linger as a possibility :2c:

That is indeed possible.

[MarcieM]

You are making an error by suggesting that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the severity of its impact.


Oh my...another unnecessarily long and rambling post by battybattybattybatty.
First let me ask - Do you believe everything you read on this forum?
I sure don't, and I'd be willing to bet most people here don't.
So, with that being said - is this story even legit?
IF it is (and that's a big IF)...there should be no debating this issue. It's an open and shut case.

A married man goes to Taiwan under the pretense of a teaching job, but the real motive, unbeknownst to his wife, is to have SRS.

And a TS may not be able to wait if the GID crisis is severe and current.

A gender identity crisis you might say? Sorry, I don't buy it. A heart attack, a severed limb, getting hit by a train...these are all crisis situations that require immediate medical attention. Gender identity is not a condition that requires immediate medical attention.

Any individual who makes a choice like this, has zero concern for his wife or others, and is fully endorsing 100% selfishness. IMHO, this person deserves no support from anyone. This person does deserve other things I probably shouldn't list here.

[Sheila]

I'm sorry...but I have zero empathy for the person who went to Taiwan.

Apparently you have Zero empathy for any members of this forum .... but there again I may be wrong u never know :straightface:

[MarcieM]

Apparently you have Zero empathy for any members of this forum .... but there again I may be wrong u never know :straightface:
This is true...you "may" be wrong. :doh:

[Jess_cd32]

the really sad part is she would have supported him and been there through the surgery if he consulted her about it.

This post is as far as I've read so far, she wanted out of the relationship if you ask me, very easy to see. As you said, divorce is in the works, how much you wanna bet she's someone's wife down the road. I think thats what she really wanted from the git go.
What she did to her wife is inexcusable IMHO, I really feel for her:sad:

[nvlady]

If I had been this sisters friend, I would now be this sisters ex-friend.
This sister did more than destroy the trust in her relationship, she ripped it to shreds. I feel that anyone who would do that to her so would find it even easier to do something similar to someone else. For just one example if you were still in the closet would you trust this person with your secret?

[kym]

Marcie M sees my point in posting this, and for once i completely agree with her.

NV lady your right on target as well. thanks ladies for supporting my position in this post.:love::thumbsup:

[rickie121x]

There is an upside here as I don't think the lady will be reproducing... :eek: ...either one of them, actually!

[Tamara Croft]

Anymore bickering in this thread and I will close it, if you want to bitch, take it to PM.

[battybattybats]

A married man goes to Taiwan under the pretense of a teaching job, but the real motive, unbeknownst to his wife, is to have SRS.
A gender identity crisis you might say? Sorry, I don't buy it.

Such crises do occur. They often result in self-harm as well as suicide attempts, mental breakdowns and the like. Try this for starters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money#David_Reimer


A heart attack, a severed limb, getting hit by a train...these are all crisis situations that require immediate medical attention. Gender identity is not a condition that requires immediate medical attention.

Often it is not and yet often it very much precisely is. I suggest you start here http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2008/06/bigender-and-brain.html and you'll find much more on the blog.

Mental health also has it's crises, not just physical health.

For those wishing to understand more on the nature of intention and judgement of others intention and philosophy and psychology I suggest this:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2009/2493436.htm if you can't download the podacst the transcript will be up at that link in a matter of days.

[RachelDenise]

I believe this is the secret (or not so secret) fear of many SO's and GG's. A major cluster F@*#.

[Angie G]

That was just cold She must be one of the ME ME ME types with no regard to others. I'd say a creep. and some other off color names.:hugs::hugs:
Angie

[MarcieM]

That was just cold She must be one of the ME ME ME types with no regard to others. I'd say a creep. and some other off color names.:hugs::hugs:
Angie
I'd say you're absolutely correct with your evaluation of this individual. zero regard for others is not the way to go about doing this type of thing.

[Tamara Croft]

:thumbsdn: :thumbsdn:
That was just cold She must be one of the ME ME ME types with no regard to others. I'd say a creep. and some other off color names.:hugs::hugs:
AngieWow that's tollerant of you isn't it? You don't even know this person, yet you're already calling her names and then some. What gives any of you the right to judge this person when you don't even know her? For all we know, this could all be :BS:

You know, I'm really sick of this thread, I've never know such a bunch of intollerant people in all my life and I'm disgusted that you, MTF's of all people, sit there and judge a person, when the majority of you have lied for years to your own wife/partner etc about your CDing... pot.. kettle.. black... :thumbsdn: :thumbsdn: :thumbsdn:

[Niya W]

Ok I might me out there , but this is not a person I would condem but a person I'd reach out . The alternative could of been death . Would girls prefer that ? Its seems that people here can't make the coloration. Have ever met some that would rather die then live as man ? Judging by the response I'd say no. That’s just how I feel . I've seen Trans women at their worst. When a person feels like they have to do so me thing or the alternative is death , that is a powerful motivation.
That's what got me out dressing , and eventually the need to transition. Having .357 with the chamber open and a box of ammo out , thinking what should I do. When you girls reach that point come talk to me , then you can condemn that person. My depression and thoughts of suicide is not some thing I talk about often because it takes me back a dark place I don't want to be . I thought might post this since the majority seems that they can't won't understand what's like to be at the edge .


Now I need to address the tone of this thread. I'm going to say few things that is going to piss a lot of people off in this thread but it needs to be said .

You girls are some the cold hearted uncaring unsympathetic
Group I've ever met . When Babby Batts attempts to explain her position she gets personally attract. I don't agree with a lot of stuff she says but I'm adult enough to ignore it or debate it like an adult . Seems like you girls have a narrow view of life and can't except any thing out side that view. I'm not just talking about trans issues. When one o f the girls was having a hard time with her l and lord and paying the rent. You girls were like pay the rent you dead beat. This thread i s no different. You take a point a of view and then berate the person that not doing some thing you feel is right. God help you if you girls fall on hard time . I've seen more compassion from a macho dumb jock then what I see here .

[Holly]

Poke this thread with a fork... it is done. This is probably the best example of bad behavior I have seen around here in a long, long time :sad:... personal attacks, gross assumptions, all the things we detest in our own RL and out they come here. If you can't post your own thoughts without personally attacking another poster then DON'T POST. From the forum rules, "All members of the forum have the right to post and reply to posts and generally take advantage of the features of the forum without abuse from other members. If the board Administrators and/or moderators believe that any abuse is taking place, the offender will be warned and their posts may be moderated. If the abuse continues, the offending member will be removed from the forum for 7 days. If on return, the abuse still continues, the offending member will be removed from the forum permanently." If you have something to personally say to another member, take it to PM.