The Honesty Conundrum

[battybattybats]

I think few would dispute that in an ideal circumstance a CD should be honest about their CDing early on.

Of course theres a lot of things that make a circumstance not ideal that many discuss here a lot already.. self-acceptance, the trust involved in coming out early, the risk of being outted publicly, fear of burdening the family etc.

But I think it's worth considering the broader issue.

If we say a CD should come out to their partner early, despite the dangers to the relationship, family, job, career etc...

Then shouldn't the CD also be honest to everyone? Shouldn't they be honest to Parents, children, siblings, cousins, workmates and on to cover everyone? Certainly some of these relationships are more important than others but shouldn't CDs be honest in all of them?

Shouldn't SO's? Shouldn't they risk their families, their friendships, their jobs even by being open about being in a rlationship with a CD (as well as any skeletons in their own closets)? Essentially if a SO thinks a CD should confess they are a CD despite the risk of others judgement should not the SO be willing to eqaullly share that burden?

But this drives me to a far stronger conclusion than simply avoiding hypocracy.

If an SO thinks that CDs should come out early, do they not have a responsibility to make it easier for all CDs to do so?

So if an SO thinks CDs should be out to them from the outset don't they have a responsibility for working towards transgender civil rights and social acceptance? The very things that would protect their partners job but also make it easier for future CDs to come out to their partners and at least make things easier on the next generation?

And then I consider the evidence that there is a genetic aspect to being transsexual and that the scientists behind many of these discoveries think this will be true for all forms of transgender. Which means that the children of CDs will have a greater chance of being CD/TS...

So then don't SOs have a responsibility to strive for TG rights and acceptance for their childrens or grandchildrens sakes?

This seems to me the consequences of concluding that CDs should be honest with their partners. What do you think?

[ReineD]

Why do I have the feeling I'm entering a mine field? :nailbiting: :)


You mentioned valid reasons for a CD's reluctance to tell a potential partner: degree of self-acceptance, trust, fear of being outed or of burdening the family. But you did not mention the biggest fear of all, which is the fear of rejection and losing the partner.

We all know that the culture in which we live is homo/transphobic. Even though this is changing and people are becoming more open-minded today accepting gender and sexual variance, there are still many people who will not be able to embrace the lifestyle, including potential long-term partners. The point of telling her early on in the relationship would be to give her a chance to bow out if she feels this is something she cannot live with, rather than wait until they've fallen in love, or their lives are enmeshed financially and by becoming parents together. And if she has her own skeletons such as a history of physical and sexual abuse, addictions, compulsions, AIDS, etc, she needs to disclose this as well. If her potential CD partner feels he cannot live with her issues, he can bow out too.

I disagree that everyone can and should disclose everything to family, employers, friends, etc, unless the CD wants to live full time as a woman, in which case it becomes a necessity. If the person is a CD and not TS, and wants publicly to have the ability to switch back and forth, or to present always a non gender-binary appearance, and having disclosed this to his wife prior to marriage and having her support, and they both want to disclose to everyone all of her issues too, then by all means they should both share risking their jobs, family, friends, opportunities, etc. as well as taking risks that their children will have a difficult time with it while growing up. Chances are they will find their niche eventually and their lives will be happy, but they will have to prepare themselves for a tortuous road ahead. Some people will make the compromise by going out dressed not in their own backyards, by joining TG groups, by outing themselves to selected people, and contributing to the advancement of the cause that way.

On a different note, there IS a difference between being honest with a life-long partner and honesty with everyone else. We all know that an intimate, connected relationship cannot flourish without trust and honesty about the major issues or conditions. But it is also important ideally for the partners to share long-term goals and similar values, including spirituality or religious beliefs if they play an important part in their lives. If one partner plans to eventually become a missionary in a third world country and this does not fit in with the other partner's long range goals, their relationship will not last. Discussing these issues beforehand would certainly help towards preventing future irreconcilable differences once the flush or initial love has worn off.

As to telling others, maybe I am being idealistic, but there is a bond, a degree of connectedness between two people who choose to share their intimate lives that separates or elevates their relationship above other, more transient, arms-length relationships such as co-workers or friends. Bonds with parents, siblings, or children are deep, but the living arrangements are transient as well. After some 20 years, we do not share our intimate and daily lives with these loved ones. In many cases, people see parents, siblings, and grown children a few times per year. But, if a CD's relationships with family members are close and loving, I do agree it would be best to tell.

And last, considering the possibility of having a TG child, if both partners enter the relationship aware of the possibility I am sure they will be prepared to cross the bridge when they get there and help their child adjust by doing what they can to make the world a more comfortable place in which he or she may live. I would.

[battybattybats]

Isn't trust and the need for honesty and acceptance also in family relationships and friend relationships? While less intimate isn't the same principles in effect just in different degrees?

And for the next generation of CDs to be able to tell their partners don't GGs have a responsibility to risk their family and friend relationships too?

As for kids, is it good enough for CDs and GGs to just wait and see if their child shows signs of being TG? They could grow up totally closeted and never show those signs.

What if they are not aware of the possibility when entering the relationship and only learn of it reading this thread? Don't they have a responsibility to it starting now?

And what if it's not the direct child but a grandchild or a niece or nephew that ends up TG?

And what about the parents responsibility for the world the child grows up in? We each play a part in shaping the world however small, if we keep things quiet and private are we not betraying those children by negligently failing to act to make the world a little bit more pro-TG?

And what about the responsibility to the whole community? The odds of having a TG child seem greater for a CD but there will definately be TG kids at your kids school either way. So isn't their a responsibility to the other TG kids in the community? What about friends whose kids have maybe up to a 1 in 10 chance of being TG?

By being out to friends and family if those friends and family have a TG kid (whether 1 in 10 or 1 in 100 chances are at least one will!) that kid will likely grow up in a more accepting family, suffer far less and be able to be open to whoever they fall in love with from the start.

And in a related point on responsibility to the family shouldn't all the USA GGs be getting involved in this http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1742318&posted=1#post1742318 whether pro or anti CDing simply to protect their own family so that if their husband gets outted he won't get fired throwing the whole family into economic turmoil especially in this time of economic crisis?

No, while I can see that a romantic relationship is special and particularly intimate I don't see that the honesty responsibility ends only there, it's just less but it's still there.

And doesn't the responsibility to the family mean that CDs and GGs too have a responsibility to take these risks and to work on societies acceptance as well as their own?

[Intertwined]

WOW !

As Captain Barbossa said "There are a lot of long words in there, Miss; we're naught but humble pirates."

Its going to take time to digest both of your posts, but here is my first impression.

Batty: I agree with everthing you said, that would be the perfect way to go, but, we don't live in the perfect world.

Reine: I only dissagree with one thing in your post, "there IS a difference between being honest with a life-long partner and honesty with everyone else", Honesty is the same for ALL.

Here is what I am trying to say, When someone asks if I am a crossdresser, I do not hesitate saying Yes! There are people that know me well, that do not know I am a crossdresser, and I do not feel I am being dishonest with them, they just have not seen, or asked me.

To quote another movie "The Matrix"
Morpheus: There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path.
Mouse: to deny our own impulses is to deny the very thing that makes us human.
Oracle: Do you know what that means? It means know thy self.

The MOST important person you need to be honest with, Your Self !

[battybattybats]

Batty: I agree with everthing you said, that would be the perfect way to go, but, we don't live in the perfect world.


Yes but I'm suggesting that every CD and their GG SO's too really are obliged to do this.

For the sake of their children grandchildren and other peoples children.

Now that may need to be done gradually and carefully to be most effective, but I cannot find any other conclusion. That a CD and GG owe their family, their children and future descendants and all of society to be involved in making CDing accepted.

That morally and ethically every CD and GG is obligated to push for an Inclusive ENDA ad to make their own community more TG-friendly or they are being negligent and failing their family.

That not doing so is being selfish. Putting ones own comfort ahead of the needs of chidren and grandchildren and the rest of the community.

Certainly everyone can't just come out now without risking their job... hence why inclusive ENDA is a matter of protecting the family! So that accidental or intentional outting doesn't harm the family.

I see no other rational or emotional conclusion.

[Sharon]

How many people have you been honest with, Batty? Aren't you in the closet?

[Tamara Croft]

Want to know what I really think? I think that's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read, and I'm sick of reading your goddamn preaching bullshit. What exactly have you done? You don't have kids, you do NOT know the impact it could have telling them. And as for your crap about telling people, well you were literally FORCED to tell your mother, because of the girlfriend you had/have? So don't preach to us about what we should be bloody doing!!! :Angry3: when the only thing you've done is because you had NO CHOICE!!!

http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68929

[Lorileah]

Batty isn't out? I am pretty sure she has said she has been out and about in previous posts. But I am getting old so maybe I don't remember.

And why is bringing a concept to the boards BS? I would venture that a majority don't read what Batty posts mostly because it does not fit into their closeted lifestyle. I refer back to the poem from WWII about there was no one left to stand up for me.

All that said, about the question at hand. This world would never function under total honesty. Our society has set up boundaries that discourage total honesty. We all know it. The used car guy lies about stuff, we know it. The mechanic fudges on what is needed to fix something, we know it. Politicians promise the moon, we know they are lying.

It would be ideal if we could disclose everything to everyone close to us but we have to analyze how that news will be taken and the repercussions it will cause. People my parents age "know" that any male who wears a dress is homosexual. Truth says just the opposite. What is it 95%+ here are straight or bi (sort of a weasel there tho because bi could be considered homosexual in a way). I kind of like having my parents talk to me but I am certain that my father would not speak to me very often and would limit his visits severely if he knew. He would get over it mostly as long as I didn't shove it in his face every time I saw him but at 78 years old, time is precious. So he doesn't know and probably won't. Ok I am a liar, never said I wasn't (I play poker frequently).

But total honesty to the whole world is difficult if not impossible. All the circumstances have to be weighed. I agree that most CD's over analyze these circumstances and 90% of what we worry about never occurs. But that the way it is. We all have our own reality. Not everything in that reality is real. But the suggestion or thought of losing loved ones over this is a strong motivator to keep quiet. You can always find a new lover (human nature takes care of that) but you will never find new birth parents or brothers and sisters.

So Batty, yes, in a perfect world honesty extending beyond our cloister would be ideal. It would also cause a collapse in the society.

Quoting Garth Brooks ( the great American philosopher that he is)

"Our lives are better left to chance, I could have missed the pain but I would have to miss the dance." So without much detail I will say that my wife kept a huge secret through our life together. Did I need to know, no our marriage functioned fine. Would it have changed things? yes, but I would have still loved her. But the dynamics of the relationship would have been vastly different.

Telling your lover, wife, SO is the ideal. But know things can and probably will change and not always for the better

[Samantha Kelsey]

Oooh Tamara! You really call a spade a spade. I wish I had b***s as big. I bet you're really soft and sweet inside though but whatever you'll get my vote for president

[battybattybats]

How many people have you been honest with, Batty? Aren't you in the closet?

I'm utterly out (as in i've said 'I'm a crossdresser') as a crossdresser to:

Parents, not-lost siblings (we're still searching for one), other relatives I have reasonable contact with except my aunt but she's worked it out already, all good friends (except for 1 who thought i was joking.. he's very transphobic and has big issues.. but I'm working on him slowly), the parents and families of most of my friends, the local member of parliament and several other politicians, the human rights and equal opportunity comission, the local human rights comittee including two professors at the local university, the entire cast of the Womens Comedy Fesitival, all the people who recognised me in the audience of the womens comedy festival or saw me there and have since recognised me or the same walking to a friends place and back full femme, my neighbours, many many shopkeepers.

I am recognisable Transgender/gender-non-conformist to:

Everyone else.

Including I expect everyone reading my posts at the Human Rights Consultation forum http://www.openforum.com.au/NHROC where I'm using my birth name and discussing TG rights issues including my own (hmm though did i explicitly say i was transgender there? I think I did but I could be mistaken. I might just make a point of saying so explicitly tomorrow perhaps) and I was quoted with my birth-name in an online media article about that forum http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=93632730162&h=rlOW4&u=_W0DA&ref=mf and also my (false and true) rumuor spreading aunt who has stopped telling people i'm a drug dealer/user (i'm not for the record) as she considers gender variance more juicy gossip. So lots of people have heard by now from millionaires (rich cousins she keeps in contact with), QCs (more cousins she keeps in contact with), judges (more cousins) to the people at the local fish and chip shop. She might even have told an international media magnate if she's still in contact with him... despite her lying she's often believed. Oh and then there's anyone in earshot (she's loud) when she talks to me in town.

Also all the people who attended the local art competition where a combined self-portrait photography/poetry piece of mine about transphobic and other difference-phobic violence where I'm wearing makeup, bleeding and with pink writing all over it mentioning my femininity in the words.

My daily 'male' presentation is now strongly 'genderqueer' and progressively moreso every week. Such as doing my shopping in this http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108334 and often carry the larger of the bags in this thread on my shoulder http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94702

Believe me, people notice. Shopkeepers suggest womens things to me and sometimes discuss CDing. I've tried things on in several shops, one only sells womens clothes. One lesbian friend of a friend who I hadn't yet overtly come out to asked me if I'd like something she'd bought for her partner which didn't fit, while she was serving me at the supermarket i might ad. People I pass by occassionally ask one another 'was that a guy or a girl'.

And steadily I'm increasing the people i'm utterly and clearly statedly out to. I'm going slowly partly from my own self-confidance and partly because i live in a rural town with some existing homophobic violence problems and I have no car, it's feet taxi's and buses as my only transport. And being disabled that makes me more vulnerable than average.

Oh and Tamara, while i came out to my parents through fear that my ex was going to tell them out of spite since then i have been continuing because the conclusions i've been reaching have driven me to recognise it's what i should do. And I've been working on my own internalised transphobia in order to do so. I never said the right thing to do was easy.

I'm gradually moving out of the closet. I have lots of old connections still to cover of course. Especially old haunts online i haven't visited much since splitting with my ex that i really should get back to. Hmmm Charles Keller the 3rd of the H.G. Wells Society of the Americas who published my open letter in their journal and used some of my art for it's cover and who I used to debate with all the time. I should get around to getting back in contact with and coming out to him for example.

[Sharon]

Thanks, Batty, I stand corrected. I must have missed some of your posts.

[Tamara Croft]

You still didn't answer me about telling children? you don't have children do you, you can't tell people to tell theirs, when you have none and have no clue what the impact could be. You can't tell people that they should be telling everyone, because they expect their SO to tell them... it's ridiculous and you know it! So, because Tam told me, I should now go and tell all my family? and if so I could lose them all? are you serious? You're saying I should tell my mum and hope to God I don't lose her? yeah... ok... and then we all went off to lala land and did a happy dance.... do you have any clue what you write? you're seriously so far in cuckoo land with this thread, it's unbelievable!

[Samantha Kelsey]

Hi, I think if we lived in a perfect world then you may have a point Batty but we don't thank god (or whoever). Most people are still afraid of TG/CD because they don't understand it. Even the TG/CD's themselves don't understand whats going on with them. It's a taboo subject in most households and will probably stay that way until people understand it won't harm them.

It's easy for us to critisize, we know about it. If we want it to change then it's up to US to change it not some SO who had it forced upon her. S/he don't understand so will want to keep it secret. I mean, even most TG/CDs wan't to keep it secret from their SO because they're afraid of how they will react. If you really want to change attitudes then this is the wrong place to try and do it, everyone here is biased. Try facebook, my space and that ilk or even a soap box in the local park. Preach to those who don't know about it, educate them, show them there's nothing to fear.

As for me, to be honest I just can't be bothered by it all. I'm accepted where I want to be. Why should I fight for people who don't want helping? people who are 'Just fine thanks in my closet'. If that's their choice then who am I or you to argue.
Stick at it girl (or whatever) you may indeed change the world after all Hitler did.

[Tamara Croft]

Stick at it girl (or whatever) you may indeed change the world after all Hitler did.LOL.. I'm sorry, but, (and this is offtopic, so I apologise in advance batty)... but Hitler did not change anything, he tried to take over the world and got his ass kicked... and this is off topic, so no more hitler talk... :doh:

[GaleWarning]

What happens in a marriage/relationship, stays in said marriage/relationship.

I see no need to broadcast one's CDing to the world.

[Joanne f]

What happens in a marriage/relationship, stays in said marriage/relationship.

I see no need to broadcast one's CDing to the world.

Well this would be a happy middle of the road thing , being honest to your SO and if possible your family but forgetting about the rest , i could live with that

[battybattybats]

You still didn't answer me about telling children? you don't have children do you,

Nope. The strangulated Hernia of the Testes that almost killed me as a child may have left me infertile. I never have got that tested.


you can't tell people to tell theirs, when you have none and have no clue what the impact could be.

Ah but I have lots of friends who do have children and lots of friends have parents. I have one transsexual offline friend who'se been in and out of mental institutions over the last few years solely because after her mother died she realised she never ever would get the acceptance from her mother. Her father raped her and threw her out of the house when she came out. another friend is a psychologist and social worker who deals with children and has also dealth with TG people. The cousin whose a judge?.. family law court, though my conversations with her were on other issues. Another friend is a psychologist who has been involved in several studies on sexuality and the legal sex-work industry in this state as well as the effects of emotionally distant parents on childhood development and they invited me to a party en femme with their entire family and their childrens friends too where issues like coming outas TG or Gay or Goth were discussed. I've also seen the impact of parents hiding their bisexuality from their kids (the sense of betrayel led to an eating disorder), affairs, hiding that the love had gone from the relationship and more.

So I've seen the impact of a lot of things on kids. And perhaps an external viewpoint is useful on such things.

But I was discussing the Moral and Ethical Obligations to TG kids and to the whole community. Your worried about the Psychological Impact on the kids if they are Cis? Maybe the social one too? Those are really good questions!

We know what the impact is on the kids who are TG of Not Telling... Internalised Transphobia, high risk of suicide etc. Just as Gay parents hiding being Gay from their Gay kids has been in the past.

For Cis kids while I doubt any specific TG parenting studies have been done we could look to the effects of gay parents coming out on their straight kids, on gay parent raising kids openly from the outset (of the latter the results are about equal with straight couples but lesbians actually do better) and the age of coming out may well have a big impact as well as degress of local acceptance.

You could of course ask the kids from the Kids Of Trans program from Colage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxBP5Y0vwZQ
http://www.colage.org/

I'd say they'd know better than either of us!


You can't tell people that they should be telling everyone, because they expect their SO to tell them... it's ridiculous and you know it!

Why? I said the moral and ethical obligation is the same, though lesser in degree. In essence the expectation of the SO is that no matter how hard it is to overcome the ITP in order to do so the SO deserves to know before becoming too comitted in order to make an informed decision about the relationship. Why is that not the case for all other relationships? CDing isn't entirely sexual or romantic in nature so why should disclosure be exclusive to sexual/romantic relationships?


So, because Tam told me, I should now go and tell all my family? and if so I could lose them all? are you serious? You're saying I should tell my mum and hope to God I don't lose her?

One of the most basic principles of ethics and morals is you cannot judge others for not doing what you would not be willing to do yourself (it's part of the ethics of reciprocity). If your not willing to risk your relationships with honesty then you cannot judge others for not having done so with you.

On top of that as the internalised transphobia that causes the closeting in the first place is social in origin those not actuvely involved in undoing it who know of it's existence and therfore have an opportunity to choose to or not become responsible in part for it. If you look for example at the Trolley Dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem which is a central thought-excercise for examining moral/ethical reasoning you'll see that a choice of inaction is still a choice with consequences.

And crucially while no-one disputes both parents have obligations to their family I'm pointing out their family heritage may be trans. It could be said then to be just like hiding that you carry a gene that causes deafness, blindness, epilepsy or schizophrenia from your children even though they or their grandchildren will have a higher chance than normal of having that condition.

And beyond that I'm suggesting we all have an additional obligation to the whole community. The same obligation a soldier has who risks widowing their partner and orphaning their children because the obligation to protect them and their whole country is greater. Same with a police oficer or firefighter. Same as was faced by black men who faced lynching for speaking out for equality. Same that was faced by the Suffragettes (and some of them wrote about this dilemma) who had to chose between risking being imprisoned and denying their daughters a mother or failing to try to have the world those daughters grew up in be better for them.

So in those crucial points it can be argued that protecting the family is the motive.


yeah... ok... and then we all went off to lala land and did a happy dance.... do you have any clue what you write?

Yes i do. Moral and Ethical reasoning was my favourite topic since early childhood. My main specialty.


you're seriously so far in cuckoo land with this thread, it's unbelievable!

It's entirely possible that I'm wrong. Or only partially correct. But crucially important is where and why i am wrong if I am. Like most ideas in higher-thinking and science etc a person needs to state an idea and then everyone tries and shows how and why it is wrong. If it cannot be shown to be wrong then you have to consider it is not wrong untill someone can find how and why it is wrong.

so I'm entirely willing to accept i could well be wrong. But it's important to know the why and how so as to progress onto discovering what is actually right.

As for Hitler... well H.G. Wells work on Human Rights which led to Roosevelts four-freedoms speech and the worlds reaction to the horror of the holocaust that resulted in the reasonably stable and stabalising UN and all the modern human rights causes which I'm involved in (and better get some sleep for if I'm going to read all these papers before tomorrows meeting) was all a reaction in oposition.. he changed the world by not just failing but by rallying much of the world against his irrational and harmful ideas (remember his Eugenics policy of forced sterilisation was modelled on the American one! and much of the world including Australia and Germany only recognise a TS as their affirmed sex once sterile so that relates it back to TG issues! Especially a parents concerns for the fate of descendants carrying a TG gene!). Though what I am saying has much more in common with Wells than Hitler.

Now Wells.. that's a person whose ides really have changed the world, far more than most people have any clue about.

Edit: I forgot one other important point. I also know what it's like to consider the responsibilities of having genetic conditions that can be passed on as there are two in my family that have been discussed whenever anyone in the family has kids.

The first is a condition where people in my family can fall into a death-like state and be diagnosed by doctors as dead. My aunt woke up twice on the way to the morgue and a cousin had an attack of this in the playground in the last 12 months.

The second is a degenerative eysight condition that my mother has that could effect any daughters I might have if I got the gene where they could have poor degenerating eyesight or, if the mother carries the gene also, be born blind.

My family also lost Gypsy relatives in the holocaust to the Genocide policies of the Nazis.

So you see through my whole life the arguments and ideas about responsibility of genetic heritage both good and bad have been part of active debate and discussion.

[Lorileah]

Clayfish, isn't that just suppressing things? The more I read things in this forum the more I see that many people "want" to be heard and be respected but they "don't want" to put anything out there for it. Life is risk and reward. If you want to be taken seriously as someone who believes that "we" are an integral part of society then you need to be out there. So many complain on here that no one understands us, but they hide away from the world. I would not understand us either if I wasn't part of this community. But I am, so I want people to know I am a good person. I try and do the right things, I try and add to my community and make the world a little better where I can. If broadcasting this is part of it, so be it.

I don't have children either Tamara, but seems like having your children be exposed to different things and being more open minded can't be bad. Hiding things from them on the other hand reinforces that something is evil or wrong. Young minds tend to see things in a more open manner. They want to know and they want to learn.


But then again, I didn't see any good reason to bring children into a world of hate and repression. That's me

[Di]

Heard and be respected ...YES BUT CONSTANTLY being preached at :Angry3::Angry3::Angry3::Angry3::Angry3::Angry3:

I tried my best to not post in this thread but their are a few things I want to say.

I'm suggesting that every CD and their GG SO's too really are obliged to do this.
That morally and ethically every CD and GG is obligated to push for an Inclusive ENDA ad to make their own community more TG-friendly or they are being negligent and failing their family.
That not doing so is being selfish. Putting ones own comfort ahead of the needs of chidren and grandchildren and the rest of the community.

Batty how do you not know that we do not work in the community/ plus with our familys for acceptance and some gg's have to work hard for their cd partner to even accept themselves........WE DO
Maybe you should look within and preach to yourself I find this revolting, displeasing, upsetting or simply uncalled for!!
MAYBE LOOK TO YOURSELF WHAT YOU CAN DO AND STOP
'Dictating' your rhetoric ......YOU HAVE not a clue what we do in real life. I am sure we are much further out than you are
( family friends ect plus work in the community) BUT your life is your life.....in the closet ..thats your choice........BUT stop with the preaching.........we all do what we need to do....:doh:

And do not even answer me as I will not be looking back to
feed your ego even more.
GET OFF the pulpit !!:Angry3::Angry3:

[Tamara Croft]

I don't care if you know people with children, you don't have children of your own, it's COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!!!! what part of that are you simply not understanding? You cannot preach to us to tell our kids, when you have NONE of your own. It's all very well you saying this, it's easy... but until you have children you created, you cannot. And I for one do not like being lectured on what I should or should not do, because you've seen what not telling kids can do... whatever... I'm done with this thread, you're right, everyone else is wrong... keep telling yourself that :brolleyes:

[ReineD]

So then don't SOs have a responsibility to strive for TG rights and acceptance for their childrens or grandchildrens sakes?

This seems to me the consequences of concluding that CDs should be honest with their partners. What do you think?

No. the consequence of CDs being honest with their partners is they risk losing her if she cannot embrace the lifestyle. Which is a good thing IMO, since the CD and the prospective SO will free themselves up to find more compatible relationships with others. Then and only then, can the CD and her new partner decide on their degree of comfort with regards to public education, of course depending their inclination to do so, where the CD sits along the gender spectrum and their current life circumstances.



Isn't trust and the need for honesty and acceptance also in family relationships and friend relationships? While less intimate isn't the same principles in effect just in different degrees?

No. I can't imagine any reason to disclose medical conditions, sexual practices, a history of physical or sexual abuse or incest to anyone other than a partner, unless someone wants to disclose this. It is not an obligation.



And for the next generation of CDs to be able to tell their partners don't GGs have a responsibility to risk their family and friend relationships too?

Why? First they must be true to themselves and their own comfort levels. When an airplane is forced to land, the oxygen mask is always put on the adult first, so s/he can better help the child.



As for kids, is it good enough for CDs and GGs to just wait and see if their child shows signs of being TG? They could grow up totally closeted and never show those signs.

And what about the parents responsibility for the world the child grows up in? We each play a part in shaping the world however small, if we keep things quiet and private are we not betraying those children by negligently failing to act to make the world a little bit more pro-TG?

This is pure conjecture. How do you know that parents are not doing all they can, even if it doesn't involve political activity?




And in a related point on responsibility to the family shouldn't all the USA GGs be getting involved in this http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1742318&posted=1#post1742318

Might it be preferable if they feel so inclined? Yes. Must they? No. Everyone does what they can and they SHOULD NOT be made to feel remiss if they do not live up to the ideal.



And doesn't the responsibility to the family mean that CDs and GGs too have a responsibility to take these risks and to work on societies acceptance as well as their own?

First, let's work on helping SOs to accept and support their partners' transness. THEN we can work on ways they can become active, according to their comfort zones. Not everyone is ready to be public about this. One baby step at a time. Nor is everyone inclined to make this a priority in their busy lives. What if their spare time is taken up with fighting world hunger? Or campaigning for cancer research? Or the couple has a Down's Syndrome child?




Now that may need to be done gradually and carefully to be most effective, but I cannot find any other conclusion.

You do agree that coming out may be done gradually then, even it it means going out publicly in the next town over? Or regularly attending a TG support group? Or telling selected people and not everyone at once? And it may take years to come out to all and sundry, perhaps after the children are grown or the CD is retired? What about a CD's choice to not come out at all since she may not have a great need to do so? What if she is content living a large part of her life as a guy and her decision to live this way has nothing to do with ITP? It all boils down to personal choice.



That not doing so is being selfish. Putting ones own comfort ahead of the needs of chidren and grandchildren and the rest of the community.

You said in the subsequent post to this one that "One of the most basic principles of ethics and morals is you cannot judge others for not doing what you would not be willing to do yourself (it's part of the ethics of reciprocity)". What about not judging others for not sharing your conviction, or having vastly different life circumstances as you?



Certainly everyone can't just come out now without risking their job... hence why inclusive ENDA is a matter of protecting the family! So that accidental or intentional outting doesn't harm the family.

I see no other rational or emotional conclusion.

Good point. See below the line at the bottom of this post.



But I was discussing the Moral and Ethical Obligations to TG kids and to the whole community.

This is a concern for all of us. But it is idealistic to believe that everyone is in the same measure to be proactive to the same degree.



In essence the expectation of the SO is that no matter how hard it is to overcome the ITP in order to do so the SO deserves to know before becoming too comitted in order to make an informed decision about the relationship. Why is that not the case for all other relationships? CDing isn't entirely sexual or romantic in nature so why should disclosure be exclusive to sexual/romantic relationships?

Because not everyone is prepared to risk losing their livelihood or potentially losing family members, friendships, etc. But again, put it in context. If it is a matter of emotional or spiritual death to stay closeted, then by all means a CD and certainly a TS must live as their true gender and the rest of society will have to adjust. And I am sure those who are so inclined already do what they can to further the cause. But, I wonder how many TSs never transition because their life circumstances would guarantee a loss of livelihood if they did? So how many feel forced to stay silent? I do not wish to begin a discussion on whether the chicken or the egg came first.



================================================== =======





It's entirely possible that I'm wrong. Or only partially correct. But crucially important is where and why i am wrong if I am. Like most ideas in higher-thinking and science etc a person needs to state an idea and then everyone tries and shows how and why it is wrong. If it cannot be shown to be wrong then you have to consider it is not wrong untill someone can find how and why it is wrong.

so I'm entirely willing to accept i could well be wrong. But it's important to know the why and how so as to progress onto discovering what is actually right.


In principle, Batty, I do not think anyone would disagree that it is necessary to take proactive actions in order to increase public awareness and education.

I cannot speak for others, but I have an issue when I am told that I MUST behave a certain way and if I do not, then I am failing the TG community, the community as a whole, and all future generations of TGs. Although I may not be willing to march, or take it upon myself to educate our local schools, I do feel I do my part by supporting my SO and going out frequently with her, as well as encouraging other TGs to express themselves more openly, to name a few. I am involved in prolonged divorce proceedings right now and it would be disastrous at this point if my ex were to find out about my SO's CDing, both legally (even though Courts should not consider gender or sexuality when making decisions, Judges are not always impartial and personal bias can negatively affect their decisions) and in my ex's ability to manipulate my sons' attitudes towards their future relationship with my SO.

It would be best if rather than try to convince us of our moral and ethical obligations to stand up and speak out (and I do not believe anyone disagrees with you), you would simply keep it simple and post simple, concrete ways people may involve themselves, IF THEY WISH to do so. And let people decide for themselves.

The ENDA suggestion was good, but it was buried under so many lengthy posts, many links, and quotations, it was hard to isolate a very simple thing anyone can do to help. And I quote from: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=187035380507



***Here is what we are asking you to do***

Please contact your US Representative by calling the U.S. Capitol at 202-224-3121. Give the operator your zip code and ask for your Representative. Ask your Rep's office whether he or she has a position on an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and explain that means both sexual orientation and gender identity. Ask whether the position is definitely yes, probably yes, undecided, probably no or definitely no. Then, post it on the Wall and it will be placed on the spreadsheets listed below in the links section.

Next, do the same for your Senators by calling the same telephone number.

Our next steps after this will be to contact those in the undecided columns and help to educate them about the importance of an inclusive ENDA (The Employment Non-Discrimination Act).

[Lorileah]

Di

as with most threads in this forum which are designed to stimulate thought and debate (not fluff and smoke), sometimes things come off as being referred to as "all" or "none" I don't think that was the intent here. Batty tries to get people to look around and see that they should be part of the solution and not hide. We all realize that this community is a vast spectrum. I appreciate the people here who do push to forward our being out and about. If that comes off as preaching, I think in your case it is preaching to the choir. Thanks for doing what you can to get our community seen and heard.

Now on the honesty part...I seem to remember not too long ago someone called the people on this forum liars. So telling one's children, if I had some, would be more honest than the average poster here. Just a thought

[Tamara Croft]

Now on the honesty part...I seem to remember not too long ago someone called the people on this forum liars. So telling one's children, if I had some, would be more honest than the average poster here. Just a thoughtIf you're referring to me, then maybe you should ask whether my children actually know? My eldest does know, she's actually a member here. My youngest is well aware of transgendered people, there is a 17 yr old MTF TS in her dance school and she is fully supportive of her, will not hear a bad word against her and really supported her in their dance show. She has seen her dad dressed as Tam, thought it was funny, and it didn't phase her in the slightest. She also is well aware I have many TG friends and has seen me on this board many times and never questioned it... and might I say, she is only 14! I raised my children not to judge, they are open minded and very supportive of everyone... so I really do hope you were not referring to me!

[Kimberly Marie Kelly]

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the older people and the kids?...It’s just not right. It’s not right. It’s not, it’s not going to change anything. We’ll, we’ll get our justice....Please, we can get along here. We all can get along. I mean, we’re all stuck here for a while. Let’s try to work it out. Let’s try to beat it. Let’s try to beat it. Let’s try to work it out"

For you Brit's, Rodney King was a black man beaten up by the LAPD in Los Angelos CA years ago.. This was his plea after the event when riots broke out afterwards, his plea to help restore the peace..

[Deedee Dupree]

Although Batty can easily take care of this, I can't let it go...

Batty's several recent threads, including this one, indicate (to me) her motivations for posting interesting questions is done with the best intentions... for the common good.

IMO, among them are her desire to clarify and solidify her own thinking on complex issues and to present various ideas/"ideals" others can consider to evaluate/re-evaluate one's personal stance on a topic.

In general, what may be ideal and what is possible, practical or desirable for anyone in the real world is of course an individual call, but I believe if one has not thought through an issue completely, and only has a vague idea of what a clearly defined ideal/goal may be, an ethical "big picture" how can one honesty determine if one's personal level of activism/involvement/participation in it/anything, is all it could or should be? What's wrong with food for thought?

To restate: Batty often suggests "frames of reference" one can use in considering one's options and whether or not more can be done without detriment to one's immediate circumstances.

Unlike some of the "preachers" elsewhere on the forum with other favorite agendas that I find particularly tiresome, she has the ability to alter her POV if someone makes a good/logical/ethical case contrary to a conclusion she has made. When that occurs, she incorporates the new data into the equation quickly. She has never said that dealing with complex issues would be easy, comfortable or convenient...

I think she is too often misunderstood and wrongly accused with considerable unjustified animosity directed toward her. Who will deny that she is a good person, has considerable intellectual gifts and her motivations are honorable? Nobody is ever forced to agree with her. OTOH, if one disagrees, she asks for a clarification. That is a fair and reasonable request... negative emotional commentary is counterproductive.

I consider her presence here, her knowledge and advocacy to be a tremendous asset to the forum and the TG community at large, despite my having to wade through the mountain of data she has made available.

dd

[Lorileah]

II raised my children not to judge, they are open minded and very supportive of everyone... so I really do hope you were not referring to me!

It wasn't that long ago you made the claim that we as CD's were liars. Nothing to do with the children but more in reference to the OP that we should disclose all and be honest. When Batty said we should be totally open and honest you tell her to lie. It can't be both ways. You have explained before how you have raised your children to be open and tolerant. Exactly what age does this kick in? Batty would do it immediately you have a different time table.

If we could only make decisions on if we have done something, i.e. having children, diminishes the discussion by limiting input. You give your input on "dressing" yet I doubt you have ever been a M-F CD. The idea of this forum is to educate and support.

[curse within]

I think it's very important to come out to your wife g/f very early and just as important be honest in the CDing level as well with your intentions( how far you desire to take it).

If most CDers act in real life as they do here , you must have very understanding wives and or G/Fs.. A lot here talk the talk hey listen are you Gay? That is one of the first questions asked after they find out from most. Define Gay, is it someone who perfers a sexual relationships with the same gender? So in saying that for those who wish to be female how do you think that must make your S.O. feel after hideing such a secret?

Do you demand acceptance or do you perfer to earn it? Thats the question , a great start would be honesty right out of the gate in a relationship. So many come here and complain about how they get rejected in their everyday life and blame their CDing as the cause. So many hold such a chip on their shoulder from years of defending their actions and why? No it's not because of CDing its from the character that you built in your inner ego , how you have felt all these years of shame because you have done something considered unacceptable by most.

As we CDers get older our biggest regret was not accepting our lifestyle more openly , we have lived a life of lies and hurt the ones who loved us as we loved them. No it wasn't because of crossdressing it was because we were not honest. I am happy to say I was honest from the start with my wife and only she knew .

[Lorileah]

If most CDers act in real life as they do here , you must have very understanding wives and or G/Fs..

I think many SOs are a lot more understanding and caring than they get credit for here. Thousands of members and maybe a hundred complainers. Silent majority are either in a very loving (I didn't say totally accepting or even open) or so deep in hiding their SO's don't know.



As we CDers get older our biggest regret was not accepting our lifestyle more openly , we have lived a life of lies and hurt the ones who loved us as we loved them. No it wasn't because of crossdressing it was because we were not honest. I am happy to say I was honest from the start with my wife and only she knew .

Agree and part of younger CD's not coming out is the children. It would difficult for most to be "out" to the wife and not somehow be caught by the kids sometime. So we hide from everyone until that golden moment. Often it is empty nest syndrome. Who can blame a woman for freaking out when she thought that this would be the time for both of them and the husband says "guess what?".

My ancestors say "we grow too sonn old and too late smart." As it was for me, there was always tomorrow

[battybattybats]

I've not been saying some people aren't doing some things.

I'm discussing the right and the wrong of the situation. The oldest subject of all human study is philosophy especially moral and ethical reasoning which is what I'm using in this topic. One needn't be a murderer or victim of murder in order to state whether murder is wrong or not. One only needs to know what makes it wrong or not.

Besides, i'm not just discussing the right and wrong of a persons interactions with just their own children where subjective experience can both inform and deceive but the tight and wrong for the grandchildren, great grandchildren and everyone else carrying those genes.

However if there is to be subjective experience that can provide signs of error in my Ethical Reasoning please then provide it rather than just saying I'm wrong without being able to say why.

So why is what I said the wrong thing to do and not the right thing to do?

Why am i wrong about their being a Moral and Ethical obligation? (and yes some people do fullfill the obligation, I'm not saying no-one is! I'm simply saying that it seems to be there and if so needs to be considered and discussed!)

And I'm not preaching or dictatitng, I'm asking a question, considering it and forming an initial conclusion. By all means lets together examine this and see if other conclusions are possible and can stand up to scrutiny and remain valid at the end, and equally test my initial conclusion.

That's how Ethical Reasoning, the study of Right and Wrong, works.


No. the consequence of CDs being honest with their partners is they risk losing her if she cannot embrace the lifestyle.

If a partner should have a reason to expect that they should be free to stay with or dump a CD because they are a CD then why shouldn't a friend? Why should a parent, child, sibling or anyone else not have that same opportunity?

If there is a Causal Operative difference we need to identify it to make valid the two different courses of action.


Then and only then, can the CD and her new partner decide on their degree of comfort with regards to public education, of course depending their inclination to do so, where the CD sits along the gender spectrum and their current life circumstances.

Right and wrong don't depend on peoples inclinations. Only their choice amongst various options of varying degress of right and wrong do. That's important to consider. For example a CD does not have to take the risks a TS is forced to by their circumstances. But just because a CD has more power of choice it doesn't mean they have less of an obligation morally and ethically in the choice but more of one.

The choice of inaction, of not being out, has consequences every bit as real as the choice of action which the chooser is equally responsible for.

Hypotheticals are important to consider these issues seperately from their emotional baggage. So here's one.

A person sees an elderly man within arms reach of them stepping onto the road and distracted by their hat being blown off to their feet, as the man bends to pick it up a fast moving car is headed straight for them. The person has the time to reach forward and pull them back, at most risking their arm in the process but no more. If they choose not to act are they not responsible for the mans death?


No. I can't imagine any reason to disclose medical conditions, sexual practices, a history of physical or sexual abuse or incest to anyone other than a partner, unless someone wants to disclose this. It is not an obligation.

Where a mental illness effects behaviour for example? Autism and Aspergers and other medical conditions that effect behaviour? Stigmatised illnesses where only when people understand it will they stop discriminating aginst those who have it (I speak from personal experience with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome as one example of that one)...

Doesn't silence contribute to Transphobia and therfore contribute to Deaths by Suicide and Murder?


Why?

Because they have an obligation to their children and childrens children.


First they must be true to themselves and their own comfort levels. When an airplane is forced to land, the oxygen mask is always put on the adult first, so s/he can better help the child.

Good and valid point. Yes, they do. But the obligation to the child doesn't go away. a Parent needn't wait till they are breathing comfortably in that mask before starting to get the mask on their child.


This is pure conjecture. How do you know that parents are not doing all they can, even if it doesn't involve political activity?

I'm not discussing what they are or are not doing I'm discussing what is right and wrong to do, what the ethical obligations are. If a parent does not strive to change the world outside when they can contribute to it, if they only do what is comfortable for themselves then are they not being neglingent and harming their descendants? Note I said IF and I said small-way: "We each play a part in shaping the world however small, if we keep things quiet and private are we not betraying those children by negligently failing to act to make the world a little bit more pro-TG?"


Might it be preferable if they feel so inclined? Yes. Must they? No.

Thats not how right and wrong work. Every choice has consequences, and we do have obligations to the predictable consequences. If they do not and the result is their family loses a substantial amount of income, or other families do then they do bear some of the responsibility for that.


Everyone does what they can

No. Everyone does what they choose to. Some choose to do nothing, some a little, some a lot, some do only what's comfortable or on the odd occassion, some sacrifice a great deal of themselves for the sake of others and some choose to impede and hurt others, this is true in all things, all issues.


and they SHOULD NOT be made to feel remiss if they do not live up to the ideal.

Why? If the person chooses not to pull the man away from the cars deadly path should they not feel remiss? I'm not suggesting everyone should be a saint but choices, even of inaction, have consequences.


First, let's work on helping SOs to accept and support their partners' transness. THEN we can work on ways they can become active, according to their comfort zones. Not everyone is ready to be public about this. One baby step at a time.

Actually like step 4 in the overcoming internalised oppression becoming active helps develop acceptance. So while definately not the first step it may make many of the steps easier rather than waiting for total acceptance first.


Nor is everyone inclined to make this a priority in their busy lives. What if their spare time is taken up with fighting world hunger? Or campaigning for cancer research? Or the couple has a Down's Syndrome child?

Measuring priority is always difficult true. But people connected to TG have a responsibility because of their unique opportunity that those who don't knowingly know one do not. Just as parents of Down Syndrome children do. Mind you that Down's Syndrome child also may be carrying a TG gene...


You do agree that coming out may be done gradually then, even it it means going out publicly in the next town over? Or regularly attending a TG support group? Or telling selected people and not everyone at once?

Of course.


And it may take years to come out to all and sundry, perhaps after the children are grown or the CD is retired?

Yes. Especially depending on when the process truly starts. But the obligation to the children who may be carrying a genetic legacy of increased likelihood of being TG remains.


What about a CD's choice to not come out at all since she may not have a great need to do so?

They are the ones with the greater burden of choice on them. Those who need to come out have not made a choice but had it made for them by circumstance. The person free to choose has the most responsibility for their choice.


What if she is content living a large part of her life as a guy and her decision to live this way has nothing to do with ITP? It all boils down to personal choice.

Yes, and that choice has consequences and the more choice a person has the greater their responsibility for the consequences of their actions and inactions. A paranoid schizophrenic having a psychotic attack is less responsible for violence they committ than someone who chooses to comitt murder for insurance money.


You said in the subsequent post to this one that "One of the most basic principles of ethics and morals is you cannot judge others for not doing what you would not be willing to do yourself (it's part of the ethics of reciprocity)". What about not judging others for not sharing your conviction, or having vastly different life circumstances as you?

I'm not judging others. I'm exploring the nature of right and wrong in this matter. And not by a moral code, that's subjective, but by objective ethical principles.


This is a concern for all of us. But it is idealistic to believe that everyone is in the same measure to be proactive to the same degree.

I never said they were. But everyone carries an obligation, some far more than others in fact based upon the extent of the effects of their choice not the ease of it.


Because not everyone is prepared to risk losing their livelihood or potentially losing family members, friendships, etc.

Then, and this is crucial here, then that justifies CDs not telling their wives as they risk being outted by their wives and so risk losing all those things too as well as risking losing their wife, children etc.


But again, put it in context. If it is a matter of emotional or spiritual death to stay closeted, then by all means a CD and certainly a TS must live as their true gender and the rest of society will have to adjust.

Also the increased risk of suicide, domestic violence, emotional distance, drug abuse, risky sexual and non-sexual deferrance behaviours, depression and other mental illnesses all has effects on the family. Even if a person can stay closeted that choice has consequences on their family and relationship. The harm of these risks should be measured against the harm of adjusting to TG reality in each case.


And I am sure those who are so inclined already do what they can to further the cause. But, I wonder how many TSs never transition because their life circumstances would guarantee a loss of livelihood if they did? So how many feel forced to stay silent?

And we must consider that those who choose not to come out or who choose not to work for employment protections are making choices that have consequences to others including the TSs who have no choice.


I do not wish to begin a discussion on whether the chicken or the egg came first.

Thats easy to answer as many cultures were tg-accepting and transphobia imposed over them by force and coersion or scapegoating. But what is important right now is who has a choice that can undo what.


In principle, Batty, I do not think anyone would disagree that it is necessary to take proactive actions in order to increase public awareness and education.

But how many consider they should do it rather than 'others'?


I cannot speak for others, but I have an issue when I am told that I MUST behave a certain way and if I do not, then I am failing the TG community, the community as a whole, and all future generations of TGs.

I am simply stating logical conclusions, ones that challenge comfortable complacency and peoples current and past choices. If my conclusions are in error then lets assess them. If they are not then no matter how shocking and uncomfortable and clinical they remain true and coaxing a few on the borderline to do a little more might make people happier but it does an injustice to those in their comfortable complacency. Sometimes you have to be direct. A little pain now can prevent a lot more later.


Although I may not be willing to march, or take it upon myself to educate our local schools, I do feel I do my part by supporting my SO and going out frequently with her, as well as encouraging other TGs to express themselves more openly, to name a few.

And that's good and more should do it. Whether it's enough for your responsibilities or merely better than nothing is a long complex discussion requiring examining many circumstances.


I am involved in prolonged divorce proceedings right now and it would be disastrous at this point if my ex were to find out about my SO's CDing, both legally (even though Courts should not consider gender or sexuality when making decisions, Judges are not always impartial and personal bias can negatively affect their decisions) and in my ex's ability to manipulate my sons' attitudes towards their future relationship with my SO.

A valid reason of complications of the moment for being very careful about decisions in that regard. Of course individul circumstances complicate these issues. They don't change the responsibilities, just require weighing others with them. If you and your CD SO have biological children the gene issue comes into play. And there's still the chance your first child could be TG anyway.

Your present circumstances complicate matters, as many do, but don't remove your responsibilities, merely means you have to consider other issues with them and what is the most effective way to resolve them all or those with highest priority. None of my points exist in a vacuum. But we tend to pretend the TG issues have less weight and dismiss them compared to others. Only by considering their full implications and consequences can we genuinely compare obligations and priorities.


It would be best if rather than try to convince us of our moral and ethical obligations to stand up and speak out (and I do not believe anyone disagrees with you), you would simply keep it simple and post simple, concrete ways people may involve themselves, IF THEY WISH to do so. And let people decide for themselves.

By explaining the ethical obligations, the often ignored consequences, I am letting people decide for themselves from an informed position. Merely saying 'it'd be nice if you did the right thing please' does little with an entrenched complacency filled with deep unconcious biases and fears. People will glance up and say 'if only I could' and put their heads back under the comfortable blanket continuing to ignore the blood on their hands. Myself included. Directness and boldness and clarity are required to 'face the facts' when they are uncomfortable or involve hard decisions.

I have a particular understanding of the subject of ethical reasoning, so it's what I'm going to be able to bring to the discussion. I started studying the subject at age 3 (yes 3!) when I first attended publicly open university lectures on that subject and Metaphysics also and joined the discussion afterwards. I do also post the simple concrete ways people may involve themselves, but few will until they contemplate the parts of the subject they are ignoring or unaware of or haven't groked the full implications of.


The ENDA suggestion was good, but it was buried under so many lengthy posts, many links, and quotations, it was hard to isolate a very simple thing anyone can do to help. And I quote from: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=187035380507

It deserves a post of it's own. There is the one in the media section http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108486
And perhaps the GG forum might find a discussion in there on ways GGs can help protect their families in small simple and powerful ways if they don't have one already?

Actually. You've got a really good point. There could be more discussion on ways loved ones can help on many matters that deserves it's own thread seperate from this one. I at least can start one in this section where everyone can contribute.

And Deedee Dupree, you have my intentions and attempted actions exactly right! That's indeed what I'm trying to do and Thanks for the compliments :hugs:

[Huntress]

Very well said Deedee. Good onya, Batty. Intelligent discourse will prepare us for the rigors ahead. And, if someone does not like dis-course, they can wait till the salad course is served.
De Oppresso Liber,
Huntress


Although Batty can easily take care of this, I can't let it go...

Batty's several recent threads, including this one, indicate (to me) her motivations for posting interesting questions is done with the best intentions... for the common good.

IMO, among them are her desire to clarify and solidify her own thinking on complex issues and to present various ideas/"ideals" others can consider to evaluate/re-evaluate one's personal stance on a topic.

In general, what may be ideal and what is possible, practical or desirable for anyone in the real world is of course an individual call, but I believe if one has not thought through an issue completely, and only has a vague idea of what a clearly defined ideal/goal may be, an ethical "big picture" how can one honesty determine if one's personal level of activism/involvement/participation in it/anything, is all it could or should be? What's wrong with food for thought?

To restate: Batty often suggests "frames of reference" one can use in considering one's options and whether or not more can be done without detriment to one's immediate circumstances.

Unlike some of the "preachers" elsewhere on the forum with other favorite agendas that I find particularly tiresome, she has the ability to alter her POV if someone makes a good/logical/ethical case contrary to a conclusion she has made. When that occurs, she incorporates the new data into the equation quickly. She has never said that dealing with complex issues would be easy, comfortable or convenient...

I think she is too often misunderstood and wrongly accused with considerable unjustified animosity directed toward her. Who will deny that she is a good person, has considerable intellectual gifts and her motivations are honorable? Nobody is ever forced to agree with her. OTOH, if one disagrees, she asks for a clarification. That is a fair and reasonable request... negative emotional commentary is counterproductive.

I consider her presence here, her knowledge and advocacy to be a tremendous asset to the forum and the TG community at large, despite my having to wade through the mountain of data she has made available.

dd

[battybattybats]

I think it's very important to come out to your wife g/f very early and just as important be honest in the CDing level as well with your intentions( how far you desire to take it).

If most CDers act in real life as they do here , you must have very understanding wives and or G/Fs.. A lot here talk the talk hey listen are you Gay? That is one of the first questions asked after they find out from most. Define Gay, is it someone who perfers a sexual relationships with the same gender? So in saying that for those who wish to be female how do you think that must make your S.O. feel after hideing such a secret?

Do you demand acceptance or do you perfer to earn it? Thats the question , a great start would be honesty right out of the gate in a relationship. So many come here and complain about how they get rejected in their everyday life and blame their CDing as the cause. So many hold such a chip on their shoulder from years of defending their actions and why? No it's not because of CDing its from the character that you built in your inner ego , how you have felt all these years of shame because you have done something considered unacceptable by most.

As we CDers get older our biggest regret was not accepting our lifestyle more openly , we have lived a life of lies and hurt the ones who loved us as we loved them. No it wasn't because of crossdressing it was because we were not honest. I am happy to say I was honest from the start with my wife and only she knew .

You make good points. But the reality of both the CD and SO being raised in transphobia needs to be considered. That while the virtuous thing to do is for the CD to be honest and the SO totally accepting instantly neither of these things is always possible because we are human and subject to human frailties, including the unconcious influence of social pressures.

However not only do we have the power to change that now we know more, though it's hard for everyone and none of us should ignore that fact, but we have a responsibility not just to ourselves and our families and our TG descendants to do so but also a responsibility to those who will be raised in the same amount of transphobia we were unless we lessen it.

We who can know better and can act are responsible for the transphobia future CDs experience and we must weigh the personal cost, CDs and GGs too, with the cost of being responsible for what other CDs and their Partners will go through. Of course there is risk and cost tou ourselves, but we choose what harm will come to others by our inaction.

[Carin]

Batty's several recent threads, including this one, indicate (to me) her motivations for posting interesting questions is done with the best intentions... for the common good.
..........
I consider her presence here, her knowledge and advocacy to be a tremendous asset to the forum and the TG community at large, despite my having to wade through the mountain of data she has made available.


:yt:
Thank you DeeDee. I totally agree with everything you said. There is a difference between intellectual discussion and preaching. I can read Batty's posts and respond if I care to, but for the most part, these posts are intelligent food for thought that I truly appreciate, as are the thoughtful and respectful responses, whether in agreement or disagreement.

[Tamara Croft]

It wasn't that long ago you made the claim that we as CD's were liars. Nothing to do with the children but more in reference to the OP that we should disclose all and be honest.Exactly! so why are you even bringing this up? My thread was about lying to your SO, not your children, I never even mentioned children. I never told them they had to be honest either, I just wanted to know why they hid it. I would NEVER tell a person to come out to anyone unless that's what they wanted to do. And many people do not want to come out in their towns, they are quite happy to stay in the closet, without all their neighbours etc knowing... Just because people aren't shouting it from the roof tops, doesn't mean they aren't supportive.


When Batty said we should be totally open and honest you tell her to lie. It can't be both ways.This is irrelevant, I never told anyone to be honest... I asked why they lie...


You have explained before how you have raised your children to be open and tolerant. Exactly what age does this kick in? Batty would do it immediately you have a different time table.It kicks in when my partner says it kicks in, it's up to him when I tell them, not me, it's not my place. As for the rest, I raised them from birth to be tollerant of all, to be open minded, not to judge etc... like you're doing to me right now, judging the way I choose to tell my children, when it's NOT up to me to tell them about Tam is it! He already had his sister out him to her partner and it's caused them to become extremely distant, you think going via battys way is right then?


If we could only make decisions on if we have done something, i.e. having children, diminishes the discussion by limiting input. You give your input on "dressing" yet I doubt you have ever been a M-F CD. The idea of this forum is to educate and support.Well duh, what a stupid thing to say, of course I'll never be a MTF CD, I'm a woman :rolleyes: But I live with a CD, I can give as much input as I possibly can, I ask him questions about it, maybe I should show him this thread, tell him that unless we're all shouting from the rooftops about living with TG's, we're not doing our bit... w/e...

I do not and never will support Battys idea of telling all, it's not my place and that means I'm not supportive, so be it :brolleyes:

[battybattybats]

This is irrelevant, I never told anyone to be honest... I asked why they lie...

But isn't lying to a child still lying? Not that I agreed that maintaining something as private even from an SO is lying. I think Lorileah is just suggesting that your comments seemed to go in one direction when about SOs and another children and that seems inconsistent without understanding why your view on each is different.


As for the rest, I raised them from birth to be tollerant of all, to be open minded, not to judge etc... like you're doing to me right now, judging the way I choose to tell my children, when it's NOT up to me to tell them about Tam is it!

I didn't think anyone was judging you, simply pointing out what looks like (but may not be) an inconsistency.

And much of my posts has been about the kind of inconsistency we can all suffer from without realising it. And that future generations of TGs are the ones who suffer the consequences good or bad of our choices making us all responsible for them.

Edit: Further on the subject of TG kids, which the evidence of genetic aspects suggests should be more common for CD parents than not, are the following two links this one http://www.bilerico.com/2009/06/my_two_moms_3_their_trans_daughter.php comes from the transwoman whose picture in the mixed-race exhibition shown at a school caused a recent controversy and this http://www.bilerico.com/2009/06/listen_to_the_trans_kids_eqaz_interviews.php involves an interview with the executive director of transyouth family allies

[Sheila]

:eek: Batty .................... You rerally need to get a life :D

[battybattybats]

:eek: Batty .................... You rerally need to get a life :D

What makes you think I don't have one?

[letsdance GG]

Why am i wrong about their being a Moral and Ethical obligation? (and yes some people do fullfill the obligation, I'm not saying no-one is! I'm simply saying that it seems to be there and if so needs to be considered and discussed.



.....I'm not judging others. I'm exploring the nature of right and wrong in this matter. And not by a moral code, that's subjective, but by objective ethical principles......



OK, first off you are wrong about there being moral and ethical principles by the simple fact YOU ARE judging others against what YOU believe to be true. What I believe to be true may not apply to someone else. Both of my children do indeed know about my ex husband being TG. How I treated that situation is not open to debate amongst anyone that feels they have the pulse on what it right and wrong. It is MY family and I don't feel the need to justify my actions to anyone.


How I interact with CD's, TG's and others isn't open for debate either. And I do have many I consider my family by the very nature of where we are as friends. All relationships require an open mind. Not one closed by the supposed failure of others to meet your expectations. NO ONE has the right to sit in judgment over others perceived actions. By doing so you are saying that you are right and they are wrong! How 'passe to be so judgmental:Angry3:

[LA CINDY LOVE]

Crossdressing can be very hard on a relationship when you come out to your SO, but to say that you need to honest and come out to all parents, children, siblings, cousins workmates and your job, can be very very risky.......and for what, what can you possible gain by all......but look what can you possible lose by all.

But to suggest that your SO should risk their families, their friendships and their jobs about being open that they are in a relationship with a CD.....is asking for to much.

We Cd's are very selfish it is alway about me me me and the need to express myself and self acceptance.............do we really think about anyone else needs.

As a parent it is so funny how those with out kids always seam to know what is best for or kids.


LA CINDY LOVE

[Lorileah]

.and for what, what can you possible gain by all......but look what can you possible lose by all.

But to suggest that your SO should risk their families, their friendships and their jobs about being open that they are in a relationship with a CD.....is asking for to much.

We Cd's are very selfish it is alway about me me me and the need to express myself and self acceptance.............do we really think about anyone else needs.

As a parent it is so funny how those with out kids always seam to know what is best for or kids.


LA CINDY LOVE

What can you gain? How about if everyone did it we would not have to whine about how bad life sucks in this forum? How about we could be treated like normal humans who are productive parts of society? The one thing that we would gain would be that the next paragraph of your post would be unneeded. Your spouse would not have to worry about any risk.

Here we go with the selfish thing again. Don't lump us all in that category. Many of us are very giving and benevolent. We contribute to society in many ways. And just for fun a lot of money is raised for charity by the drag shows and the Tri-ess groups. Why shouldn't we want acceptance? Are you saying we are "bad or ill" people? So that is now off the table, we are not anymore selfish than anyone else. :Angry3:

So every teacher who does not have children cannot possibly teach? Every Priest cannot council you. That argument is pretty leaky too. I know plenty of "parents" who have no clue how to raise a child. Giving birth is not a magic cure all.

[Tamara Croft]

So what exactly have you done Lorileah? Are you out to all your family, friends, work colleagues, neighbours etc etc?? Have you told everyone?

[letsdance GG]

So what I am reading here as that my being active in the GBLT community isn't enough for some?

I have to be sure I stand outside with a bullhorn and yell " Hey, look at me! I am the mother of a gay child and all my friends are Gays, Lesbians, Bi-Sexual and Transgendered ! I know more than any of you about what is right and wrong!!! Sit right down and let me preach to you from my spiritual hilltop" Are you kidding me?:Angry3:

[Sarah...]

Why is this stuff always so polarised? None of it is black and white. It never will be. There is room for those who wish to shout from the rooftops - they provide something important to any community. There is room for stealth transitioners - they also provide something important. There is room for academic argument. There is room for emotion-based discussion. All of this stuff provides the variety we need to get closer to the truth. So why does it seem to make so many of us so angry?

As for me, well, I don't shout it from the rooftops. I speak it fairly quietly from ground level. I have told my whole family and all my real friends and have done so with one message only - tell anyone else you think you need or want to tell. Or tell no-one if that's what you want to do. I don't mind. So that's about doubled those who know. I'll answer to any questions from any of those people. I'll stand up for my TG friends and all TG people. But I still won't shout it from the rooftops. Because it's not my style.

I do enjoy Batty's academic postings though.

Sarah...

[Jenny Brown]

Want to know what I really think? I think that's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read, and I'm sick of reading your goddamn preaching bullshit.

http://blog.shapingyouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/applause.gif

[curse within]

You make good points. But the reality of both the CD and SO being raised in transphobia needs to be considered. That while the virtuous thing to do is for the CD to be honest and the SO totally accepting instantly neither of these things is always possible because we are human and subject to human frailties, including the unconcious influence of social pressures.

However not only do we have the power to change that now we know more, though it's hard for everyone and none of us should ignore that fact, but we have a responsibility not just to ourselves and our families and our TG descendants to do so but also a responsibility to those who will be raised in the same amount of transphobia we were unless we lessen it.

We who can know better and can act are responsible for the transphobia future CDs experience and we must weigh the personal cost, CDs and GGs too, with the cost of being responsible for what other CDs and their Partners will go through. Of course there is risk and cost tou ourselves, but we choose what harm will come to others by our inaction.

Good points to you also Batty, we must understand though. First we were all raised some what different,religous beliefs, moral beliefs are some examples. Taking Transphopia out of this for now and then combine these differances can sometimes be an uphill battle.

We all have our own goals and ophinions of how not only how we should live our lives but how others should ,look at the political agendas here lately . If you choose to live you life openly hats off to you that makes you a rare bred a leader not a follower . My self I tend to keep my life on the quiet side and let it go by less un noticed ,a leader in my own direction.

[ReineD]

Batty, we could go on with allegorical arguments for ever, but not one of the examples we use will perfectly illustrate or resolve the core issue. You will admit that each example either one of us and everyone else has used fits just one specific set of circumstances. We could all one-up each other with single purpose examples ad nauseam without resolving anything.

I propose we try to keep it simple and along fundamental lines so that we can move forward.

Your bottom line argument is, I believe, that if a CD has an obligation to tell his SO about the CDing, they both have a moral and ethical obligation to be honest with others, at least with their children, parents, siblings, and close friends, and preferably to the community at large including co-workers. And, they should do what they can in the TG community, the community at large, and politically to help fight for TG rights.

Further, if the CD and SO choose not to be honest with others and not to behave proactively, they fail themselves, their children, and future generations of TGs because they are contributing through their inaction, to the propagation of transphobia and internalized oppression, which we all recognize is a TG's death.

You are discussing the right thing to do. You would like to establish a "mission statement" if you will, in order to help guide future behavior among members of the TG community.

I for one agree with this. I also believe most others will agree as well. The right thing to do is to overcome our internalized transphobia so that we can help society rid itself of transphobia.

=================================

Since we all (for the most part I believe) agree on what is the right moral and ethical thing to do, we can stop focusing on this and move on to what each individual CAN do.

THIS is where there is disagreement. How much CAN a single individual or couple do? How much do their personal circumstances come into play in deciding what they can do, given all their different life circumstances and financial obligations to other family members? What is good enough, given that WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS with DIFFERENT LIFE CIRCUMSTANCES.

If we can focus on this part of the conversation, we will stop going around in circles.

Please, let's focus on specifics, as in, I can write to my State Rep. I can attend a TG support group tomorrow. I can come to this forum and try to help others overcome ITP. I can volunteer to go on a radio talk show in order to answer questions about myself and the TG world. I can begin to work on telling my daughter now. Or when she is old enough to understand. I can spend one evening per week with my husband dressed (since I have not done this before). I can ask the HR people at work whether there is a freedom of expression policy in the company. I can stop dictating to my husband whether he is allowed to CD or not, and if I cannot bear to see him in a dress, I will support his freedom to CD without me. Whatever.

But please, no more arguments about whether it is right or wrong to move forward. We all know it is right to support the CDing and to move forward. Now we must define how much moving forward is best for each one of us here and PLEASE STOP JUDGING each other for being on different points along the path, GIVEN ALL OUR INDIVIDUAL LIFE CIRCUMSTANCES!

[AmandaM]

Batty have you gone Batty? LOL! Seriously, this sort of debate belongs on a Metaphysical Forum. You can't ask people to sacrifice their lives for something they don't really understand themselves.

[Deedee Dupree]

I appreciate your most recent post on this thread... and I have deleted 90% of what I had intended to say, except for one thing.
__________________________________________


Wow, seems like there isn't enough tolerance and understanding to go around so everybody can have a say, without being abused.

>>"Want to know what I really think? I think that's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read, and I'm sick of reading your goddamn preaching bullshit."<<

It wasn't so long ago that Tamara accused me of being rude to a new OP by my saying, "You should have stated that at the beginning. I am done responding to your threads".

After being called on it and considering it for a moment, I concluded that her assessment may be correct and I apologized to the OP for making an impulsive remark.

Batty doesn't use vituperate language like Tamara's quote above, to anyone...

Yet Tamara thinks it is OK for her to make crude offensive comments and get away with it. Tamara doesn't agree with Batty, that's OK, but that is no excuse for her to express herself the way she did. I think she owes Batty an apology. Their differences on the topic are beside the point.

dd

[ReineD]

Amanda, I don't think Batty is asking people to risk their lives.

I think she is trying to establish what is the right thing to do as a guide for the TG community to move forward as a whole. I'm sure everyone (and Batty?) will agree that we are all at different points along our paths. When you think of it, it is as great a battle for a non-supportive SO to agree to stretch to the point where she will support her husband's right to dress, as it is for someone who has never gone out dressed before to begin to go out, as it is for someone whose friends all know to now tell their children, as it is for someone whose entire family knows to begin taking steps about talking to his employers about freedom of expression in his workplace (if he works in a progressive environment).

IMO it is difficult to ask someone to go from step 1 to step 5 without first going through steps 2, 3, and 4. It would be unrealistic to expect a CD who has not even told his wife yet to volunteer hosting a TG Awareness Focus Group at the local community center.

But, everyone can write letters to government officials or join a TG Rights online group (anonymously if they must) to see what, if anything, they CAN do.

Isn't this better than not doing anything at all? ;)

Edited to add:

I hope Tam won't mind me speaking on her behalf, but as she's likely sleeping right now (in the UK), I'll put in my :2c:

Deedee everyone has their own personalities and communication styles. And yes, people's buttons do get pushed. It has happened to me. The members who have participated in this thread know each other well and IMO each one can well take care of themselves. I did not see Batty shy away! :) In my own life, I say things to friends in a tone I would never say to a stranger, because I know it is safe to do. They know me.

This has been a particularly heated thread, but sometimes it takes an emotional thread like this to finally reach a meaningful middle ground. We are talking about a difficult topic that causes each one of us to look deep inside ourselves.

(And please forgive me again for speaking on your behalf) but Tam always supports the underdog. You need only search the forum to see this. The personalities in this particular thread are strong and when all is said and done, I do believe everyone will become friends again. At the least, they will respect each other's opinions.
:hugs:

[AmandaM]

My reference to risking lives was allegorical.

Batty's post has been viewed as an attack. Batty is saying she has the moral high-ground and we have all been found wanting unless we believe as she does. Therefore, Batty has laid the groundwork that her moral argument is superior just by her stating it. If this is true, it's the height of arrogance. I assume of course, that that is not what she meant. I'll leave it to her to clear the air.

[Pink Person]

I believe that most human behavior is nonmoral. It’s not right and it’s not wrong. The scope of morality isn’t (and shouldn’t be) as wide as some people want to make it. We should resist the temptation to moralize everything we do. No one conquers Satan in the bathroom or at the bowling alley. Moral crusaders generally want to rob everyone of their legitimate and essentially harmless freedoms under the false belief that nothing is exempt from the rule of their righteousness.

I like Batty. She has a big brain and makes good points. However, I don’t believe that gender expression is a moral activity and that it should be protected or promoted by moral obligations. It is a completely subjective type of behavior that is perfectly justified by self-sufficient personal authority. People who want to support the fair freedom of any type of gender expression should do so in the manner of their private choosing. It might be true that if everyone did more then more would get done, but no one is under any principal obligation to do more than they want to do to support gender freedom.

[Deedee Dupree]

OK Reine, I appreciate your reassuring comments. I'll let it go... I know Batty doesn't back down, and I have read nearly every new post on most of the forums for over a year. Mildly amusing thought...when you said words to the effect, "why do i feel like i'm walking into a mine field?", my first thought was, "not mine field, Bat trap!"

Be well, dd



Deedee everyone has their own personalities and communication styles. And yes, people's buttons do get pushed. It has happened to me. The members who have participated in this thread know each other well and IMO each one can well take care of themselves. I did not see Batty shy away! :) In my own life, I say things to friends in a tone I would never say to a stranger, because I know it is safe to do. They know me.

This has been a particularly heated thread, but sometimes it takes an emotional thread like this to finally reach a meaningful middle ground. We are talking about a difficult topic that causes each one of us to look deep inside ourselves.

(And please forgive me again for speaking on your behalf) but Tam always supports the underdog. You need only search the forum to see this. The personalities in this particular thread are strong and when all is said and done, I do believe everyone will become friends again. At the least, they will respect each other's opinions.
:hugs:

[battybattybats]

OK, first off you are wrong about there being moral and ethical principles by the simple fact YOU ARE judging others against what YOU believe to be true.

No, I'm not. Morality is subjective. Ethics are not. And I'm not judging others. And I suggest you show exactly what of my statements are beliefs and not conclusions based on evidence.


What I believe to be true may not apply to someone else.

Yes, subjective morality. But there is an objective reality and there are objective principles of right and wrong that apply no matter a persons individual morality determining right and wrong in interactions with others. Ethics. And I am simply making logical statements that IF someothing is considered right (honesty with spouse, protecting family) and it's opposites wrong Then something else is right (honesty with other non-romantic relationships, protecting TG descendants and TG kids in the community from transphobia) and it's opposite wrong.


Both of my children do indeed know about my ex husband being TG. How I treated that situation is not open to debate amongst anyone that feels they have the pulse on what it right and wrong. It is MY family and I don't feel the need to justify my actions to anyone.

I'm not questioning your actions, but if you feel there is no objective measure of right and wrong then you agree with their being no laws, no protection from or objection to murder or rape, no police, terrorists are A.O.K. even if it's you they kill etc. If you do not agree with all of that then there must be objective measures of right and wrong and I suggest over 5,000 years of Ethics Philosophy might be it and if not and you think you have an answer I suggest you could get the nobel prize for finding an alternative.


How I interact with CD's, TG's and others isn't open for debate either.

See above. Being a CD or TG doesn't take us out of access to principles of social justice on the community scale or the personal. You might be very good for all I know, but you and I and everyone are not free from such unless we believe in pure total anarchy. As an alternative I reccomend reciprocal ethics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_reciprocity


And I do have many I consider my family by the very nature of where we are as friends. All relationships require an open mind. Not one closed by the supposed failure of others to meet your expectations. NO ONE has the right to sit in judgment over others perceived actions. By doing so you are saying that you are right and they are wrong! How 'passe to be so judgmental:Angry3:

Once again, and I don't know where your missunderstanding, I'm discussing and analysing what is right and what is wrong because of what would make it right and what would make it wrong, not judging the actions of individuals.

Now unless your the kind of extreme fundamentalist anarchist (or unless you are a psychopath, I shouldn't discount that possibility either, psychopaths are people too and often so from birth or head trauma) whose ok with rape and murder then there must exist objective measures of right and wrong to some extent and if there are for some things (rape and murder) and not for others (what you do and do not disclose to a child about their inheritable characteristics) then I suggest you find a cogent explanation of why that is so. If you are though I don't mind discussing the issue of right and wrong within Anarchy, I may just have some Chomsky here to refresh my mind on that.

And if you cannot then logically it makes sense to look for something further in the Why what I have said might be wrong, not the fact that their exists any notion of right and wrong at all.


Crossdressing can be very hard on a relationship when you come out to your SO, but to say that you need to honest and come out to all parents, children, siblings, cousins workmates and your job, can be very very risky.......and for what, what can you possible gain by all......but look what can you possible lose by all.

The point was not what was safe, pragmatic, easy or risk-free but what was right. The right thing to do is often the most dangerous. There is risk to coming out to an SO whatever time it is done! Lets try some IF/THEN logic statements...

So IF it is right to come out to an SO, especially from the outset THEN is it not right to come out to every relationship for the same reasons?


But to suggest that your SO should risk their families, their friendships and their jobs about being open that they are in a relationship with a CD.....is asking for to much.

IF an SO thinks that a CD should risk everything coming otu to them, especially from the outset THEN should they not take the same risk themselves they demand of the CD AND should they not be obliged to act in order to remove the obstancle other CDs in the future will have to their coming out to future SO's?


We Cd's are very selfish it is alway about me me me and the need to express myself and self acceptance.............do we really think about anyone else needs.

Actually this whole thread is doing just that! Thinking about the needs of other relationships, other communities, the children of CDs and TG children especially.

It could be argued, though it's not my point, that an SO who never tells their possibly TG-gene carrying children and insists the CDing remain closeted in perpetuity is being selfish by holding a double-standard in insisting the CD be out to them is right but being unwilling themselves to risk the negative consequences they demand is right from the CD to them and by putting their comfort and safety ahead of that of their TG descendants.

However I am not saying that, as I argue selfishness requires a conscious choice to put ones own desires over others needs, so someone needs to be aware of that possibility before that choice could be considered selfish. Instead I'm talking about what ids right, what a persons obligations are which is different from saying what is wrong (especially as there can be plenty of lesser-evils as well as neutral choices in most things).


So what I am reading here as that my being active in the GBLT community isn't enough for some?

I have to be sure I stand outside with a bullhorn and yell " Hey, look at me! I am the mother of a gay child and all my friends are Gays, Lesbians, Bi-Sexual and Transgendered !

That's not remotely what I'm saying.

I'm saying that IF honesty about CDing is an obligation in one relationship THEN isn't it also one in other relationships?

And IF one has an obligation to protecting a child AND considering the growing evidence that child carries 1 or more genes likely to cause an increase in the chances of being a CD THEN for that childs sake and their childrens sake as well as for the sake of all other TG-gene carrying relatives and their descendants and all the TG kids of the future in the community SURELY both CD and GG parents have an obligation to do everything within their power against Transphobia in the community to protect the child AS WELL AS to inform the child of their possible genetic heritage (just as one should if carrying a svhizophrenia gene or a breast cancer gene or autism etc) especially to prepare them for the increased chance they may have TG kids or grandkids one day.

See how different that is? The WHY is important there. And if you think the conclusion is wrong, rather than just objecting to it why not work out what part of the reason for the conclusion is wrong to find another more accurate conclusion?

ReineD, your spot on about the statements I'm making, though it's not as such to make a mission-statement but just to explore the right and wrong of the situation, to test my conclusions against the reasoning of others to see if it's right and to increase peoples consciousness of it if it is right. But if it is right, and so far there's no reasons mentioned yet why it isn't, the a mission-statement is a good idea to take from it. And you raise very good points about ways to move on from that conclusion.


Batty have you gone Batty? LOL! Seriously, this sort of debate belongs on a Metaphysical Forum. You can't ask people to sacrifice their lives for something they don't really understand themselves.

No this is Ethical Reasoning. Metaphysics is about what exists and what does not. Ethics is about what is right and what is wrong. Different branches of philosophy (they cross over in Existentialism of course but I'm not bringing that into this, too cumbersome and it will come to the same conclusions at the end anyway).

As for sacrificing their lives for what they don't understand.. yes there is some risk being out, especially for non-white Transwomen... but if our generation doesn't take those risks or act directly to reduce those risks then we pass the buck to the next generation.. who can call that moral or ethical and what's so hard to understand about that? And what's hard about asking GGs to take the same risks they expected thier CD partner to have taken in telling them?



Batty doesn't use vituperate language

Oh WOW! New word! New word! New word! I'd never heard that word before! I just had to use my dictionary for something besides spelling for the first time in months! Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou! :hugs:


I'm sure everyone (and Batty?) will agree that we are all at different points along our paths.

Indeed. Very much so.


My reference to risking lives was allegorical.

Though the risk to livelihood and the risk of hate-crime can't be ignored either, though nor can TG-suicide rates and TG-youth-suicide rates.


Batty's post has been viewed as an attack.

But it was not one. Admittedly many are not versed in intellectual language because schools have tended to remove it. And same with philosophy and Ethical Reasoning because it's rarely taught. So it's easy for people to missunderstand or to react emotionally. Especially when their own choices are challenged by the ideas involved. But that doesn't make it an attack.


Batty is saying she has the moral high-ground

No. I'm not. Firstly I'm discussing both Moral and Ethical obligations. I'm not saying I've done better than others either. Until relatively recently I didn't even admit i was a CD to myself but for rare occassions.

I am discussing a chain of reasoning that leads to a conclusion. If there is an error or vital omission in the reasoning then the conclusion is invalid. If not then it is true no matter how disquieting, discomforting or even horrible that truth may be.


and we have all been found wanting unless we believe as she does.

This is philosophy not religion. It is thought not faith. Conclusion not belief. And as I said, it finds my past actions wanting too and dictates the right and wrong of my future choices.. if it is correct.


Therefore, Batty has laid the groundwork that her moral argument is superior just by her stating it.

I place it here to stand the test of others reasoning. And it should be tested and re-tested and there will never be a time when it is not apt to raise a challenge to it. It is true so long as it cannot be shown to be in error. When it can we refine it or discard it in favour of a new hypothesis. Just like in any science or higher-reasoning.


If this is true, it's the height of arrogance.

I'm far from the humblest of people that's true. But there is nothing arrogant inthese posts. These ideas and statements could carry in any philosophy paper, lecture, discussion forum or casual conversation, except for being written in fairly laymens terms and language and without a formal structure.


I assume of course, that that is not what she meant. I'll leave it to her to clear the air.

Yup.

[JulieK1980]

I appreciate your most recent post on this thread... and I have deleted 90% of what I had intended to say, except for one thing.
__________________________________________


Wow, seems like there isn't enough tolerance and understanding to go around so everybody can have a say, without being abused.

>>"Want to know what I really think? I think that's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever read, and I'm sick of reading your goddamn preaching bullshit."<<

It wasn't so long ago that Tamara accused me of being rude to a new OP by my saying, "You should have stated that at the beginning. I am done responding to your threads".

After being called on it and considering it for a moment, I concluded that her assessment may be correct and I apologized to the OP for making an impulsive remark.

Batty doesn't use vituperate language like Tamara's quote above, to anyone...

Yet Tamara thinks it is OK for her to make crude offensive comments and get away with it. Tamara doesn't agree with Batty, that's OK, but that is no excuse for her to express herself the way she did. I think she owes Batty an apology. Their differences on the topic are beside the point.

dd

I agree wholeheartedly. Irregardless of how Batty takes it, I find it offensive as the reader/passerby. To make a personal attack, with the use of the language she used, not to mention where it says Moderator *edit* (excuse me, I mean administrator) on her name is irresponsible and AGAINST THE FORUM RULES that she so implicitly enforces against others.

Batty,

Have you ever considered making a formal dissertation on this topic? There are so few free thinkers left in the world, and even fewer of them are transgendered. You should attempt to publish some of these hypotheses.

[battybattybats]

Batty,

Have you ever considered making a formal dissertation on this topic? There are so few free thinkers left in the world, and even fewer of them are transgendered. You should attempt to publish some of these hypotheses.

Interesting idea.

Though I haven't got around to getting a formal degree yet because of my disability, though several professors have pestered me to do so recently from Peace Studies to Philosophy to Law.

Hmm.. i might do a casual-language post on my blog for the time being and maybe if I can manage my symptoms well enough after the current human-rights measures I'm working on pass or fail I might try to work out which degree would maximise my effect...

Or just go for a book instead?

[shesadvl]

I am sure the last time I looked at Tamara's title said

Tamara Croft
^_^ Administrator ^_^

there is a difference is there not....lol:battingeyelashes:

As for not stepping into a "mine field," but a "bat trapp"...laffing...:devil:

guess something was sprung....was that the belfry.....laffing.....:devil:
sounds like theres a lot of stepping in "something"...
round......here.... that needs a couple buckets n shovels to muck it out... laffing...:devil:

I do think that those of us GG's have expressed their feelings quite clearly.,

Maybe its Time to move on peoples,...enjoy what the forum is about, the support advice that is given for those that dont have supporting SO's or those GG's just learning the CDing life of their partners...etc.,

We as human beings can make life difficult when it needs not to be,

But if those of us that can make a difference, we know we have the ability to do this, without being coerced., preeched to or some postings gone to boredum by the lengthy words that have been posted, when we go overboard in our quest to put forward our point,or for someone to pull it apart n tell us we are wrong.

How can you love/help someone if you Judge/judgemental of them.
:battingeyelashes:

Life is too short, we need to live life , laugh and laugh hard.,love & support, to move forward.
For Life is what you make it.:love::D without standing on the roof tops to tell the whole world how you live, at someone elses request. ;)

[Lisa Golightly]

I think what all these threads show is there is a need for an academic discussion section for the less emotive... I'm quite tired of seeing counter threads spawn in seeming retaliation for an inability to win a war of verbal attrition. It is only right and proper to intellectualize what we are and face, and a simple 'no, I think you are wrong is all it takes'.

Do you hear those of us with an interest in or who are partners of men bemoaning the fact of how they are not included or not appreciated by this community? I'm sorry but agree or disagree at least keep it civil.

Lisa x

[shesadvl]

I think what all these threads show is there is a need for an academic discussion section for the less emotive... I'm quite tired of seeing counter threads spawn in seeming retaliation for an inability to win a war of verbal attrition. It is only right and proper to intellectualize what we are and face, and a simple 'no, I think you are wrong is all it takes'.

Do you hear those of us with an interest in or who are partners of men bemoaning the fact of how they are not included or not appreciated by this community? I'm sorry but agree or disagree at least keep it civil.

Lisa x


well put & said lisa. :rose:

[ReineD]

I place it here to stand the test of others reasoning. And it should be tested and re-tested and there will never be a time when it is not apt to raise a challenge to it. It is true so long as it cannot be shown to be in error. When it can we refine it or discard it in favour of a new hypothesis. Just like in any science or higher-reasoning.

Publishing a formal argument is a good idea, and including it in your blog in layman's terms is an even better one! There is no need for any further testing! We all agree with your hypothesis. No one is arguing with you regarding the right and the wrong things we SHOULD aspire to do. Most people have responded emotionally because they believed you were telling them their best efforts or their next best efforts were not good enough. So again, to paraphrase the core issue, the right thing to do is to move forward (however each person CAN) in overcoming their internalized opression so that we can help society rid itself of transphobia.



ReineD, your spot on about the statements I'm making, though it's not as such to make a mission-statement but just to explore the right and wrong of the situation, to test my conclusions against the reasoning of others to see if it's right and to increase peoples consciousness of it if it is right. But if it is right, and so far there's no reasons mentioned yet why it isn't, the a mission-statement is a good idea to take from it. And you raise very good points about ways to move on from that conclusion.

So let's do that then. Who wants to begin? I challenge the next person in this thread to post what they feel they CAN do, or post ideas on what they feel they COULD do. Better yet, let those who have concrete ideas on how they feel they can themselves move forward begin a new thread and let others join in to relate what they already do.

Let's just move on, shall we?

If fact, I'll begin. I challenge myself to look at the next person who stares at my SO and I the next time we are out in public and (with my SO's permission), ask them politely, with a smile if they have any questions.

[Sharon]

All I will write is that people do not understand the reasoning behind the reactions that threads (and posters) such as this occasionally garner. Emotions are riled and expressed honestly and, occasionally, instinctively. And for those who feel this is inappropriate or inconsistent with policy, well, life sometimes throws a curve.

Now then, unless you have a reaction to the thread topic at hand (yeah, this means you actually have to read all the posts -- sorry), please save your comments about other members or staff for private communication.

[Sarah...]

I challenge the next person in this thread to post what they feel they CAN do, or post ideas on what they feel they COULD do.

Ok, I'll offer up my own current mini-action plan. Becky and I are currently reminding those who know about our situation that it's not just me transitioning. Our commitment to each other means that my transition causes Becky to make a transition too. This is important because it requires people to think a bit further out of the box than normal.

Sarah...

[JulieK1980]

Interesting idea.

Though I haven't got around to getting a formal degree yet because of my disability, though several professors have pestered me to do so recently from Peace Studies to Philosophy to Law.

Hmm.. i might do a casual-language post on my blog for the time being and maybe if I can manage my symptoms well enough after the current human-rights measures I'm working on pass or fail I might try to work out which degree would maximise my effect...

Or just go for a book instead?

You can publish a scholarly work without a formal degree, however it would probably carry a lot more weight if you did have the coveted Phd next to your name. But either way your words should be published and analyzed by people who can carry an intellectual discourse on the subject. Writing a book would probably be good to although your audience would be largely the same types of people on here.

As to the hypothesis you have made, while I don't necessarily agree, I do lack any evidence against it for now.

[battybattybats]

Publishing a formal argument is a good idea, and including it in your blog in layman's terms is an even better one!

Well it's a bit late tonight for blogging it, but when I have some time from human rights campaining I'll get a blogpost together.


There is no need for any further testing! We all agree with your hypothesis.

I'm not so sure everyone is agreeing actually. And that's fine. Hopefully they will look into it more and either find flaws or exceptions or difficulties with it or failing to then agree with it till some turn up.


No one is arguing with you regarding the right and the wrong things we SHOULD aspire to do. Most people have responded emotionally because they believed you were telling them their best efforts or their next best efforts were not good enough.

I expected there would be such a reaction. Sometimes we do make bad judgements me included, sometimes we think we did the right thing only to have someone challenge our way of looking at things that results in uncomfortable or even painful reassessment. So some outrage, disstress or outright anti-intellectualism is bound to occur whenever the reasoning of peoples choices are called into question, not the choices they made at the time though as they were based only on the evidence and ideas available to them at that time which makes a massive difference. Sometimes the best decision someone makes based on the available understanding is the wrong thing to do, specifically because their are parts of it they didn't know or understand. Surely everyone has done that before.

My whole point is not what was thought to be right or wrong for people to choose before.. that can only be judged based on what they knew then (so when a CD is judged for hiding it from a wife it's important to know whether they genuinly thought it would go away or if they had been informed already before then that it would not! Same with GG's and their past choices).. but rather it's about what is actually right and wrong based on what is known now.

The data from Australian scientists that at least one gene is more common in TS than Cis and their view that more will likely be found to be a part of it and to explain CDs too is quite new, but like the same finding with breast cancer and schizophrenia it has massive consequences for what is right and what is wrong for ALL our further decisions CD and GG alike.

Even those without kids! Because almost every CD without kids will have brothers or sisters or cousins who will likely be carriers of these genes and have kids!

So it can't even just apply to parents! Every CD with any sort of biological relative must be considered to have some burden of responsibility to the CD relatives they will have!


So again, to paraphrase the core issue, the right thing to do is to move forward (however each person CAN) in overcoming their internalized opression so that we can help society rid itself of transphobia.

Indeed. I keep finding further valid arguments for a personal responsibility to others and have found not one counter yet, and in the mean time if just one of those is valid then every day wasted is harm we do through inaction to others! Again not everyone can be out to everyone right away, but we can surely all find ways to improve?


So let's do that then. Who wants to begin? I challenge the next person in this thread to post what they feel they CAN do, or post ideas on what they feel they COULD do.

Hmm.. I'm already increasing my outness, added another person I explicitly said i was Transgender to yesterday. I'm putting TG issues, mentioning CDs into the national spotlight on the governments human rights concultation forum. I'm in fact spending hours each day on TG rights issues and increasing TG publicity and when these long nails aren't digging gauges in my keyboard for us their long painted appearance is raising visible gender non conformity in the community. I'll have some more time to ponder in a few weeks when the community consultation closes though, till then focusing on it is doing a lot.

But I'm sure there's more I can do.... I just need to work out what... suggestions are welcome.. certainly I'll have an open conversation with everyone I speak to tmorrow if it comes up, and I'll be picking up my anti-transphobia-artwork from the gallery as the exhibition finished so maybe that will be a good opportunity for some education...

Edit: Just in case it wasn't clear in other posts ther I just included specifically that I am transgender on a public human rights forum under my birth name http://www.openforum.com.au/NHROC/2ndKeyConsultationQuestion

Certainly some of the people at HREOC (now AHRC) did their level best when they put together the Sex and Gender Diversity issues study which I as a Transgender person contributed to but the results were exceedingly inadequate because resources were stretched so thin that a group with so many issues needing to be adressed had but one issue properly focused on in the report and which has seemingly been forgotten about in the corridors of power since then. And though Comissioner Greame Innes has made several statements since then on these issues they seem to fall on deaf ears.

[LA CINDY LOVE]

The point was not what was safe, pragmatic, easy or risk-free but what was right. The right thing to do is often the most dangerous. There is risk to coming out to an SO whatever time it is done! Lets try some IF/THEN logic statements...

So IF it is right to come out to an SO, especially from the outset THEN is it not right to come out to every relationship for the same reasons.

The ONLY person that a CD needs to come out to is their SO that is IT, their is no reason or need to tell ANYONE else and tell me Batty what if the CD want to come out to all but the SO dose not want that and just wants to keep this in the family ...............and what if the CD come out to all family, Friends, co-workers and job against the SO wishes.....was it right......was it the right thing to do.



IF an SO thinks that a CD should risk everything coming otu to them, especially from the outset THEN should they not take the same risk themselves they demand of the CD AND should they not be obliged to act in order to remove the obstancle other CDs in the future will have to their coming out to future SO's?

NO a SO should not HAVE to take the same risk just because the CD came out to them and are NOT obliged act to remove obstacle for other Cd's, each CD and their SO need to work out their own obstacle.



Actually this whole thread is doing just that! Thinking about the needs of other relationships, other communities, the children of Cd's and TG children especially.

Tell me what going to happen to the kids when the CD comes out to all what do you think is going to happen when it gets around school the kids are going to tease them and just how much of a burden are the kids going carry..........for the right thing to do.


LA CINDY LOVE

[battybattybats]

[QUOTE]The ONLY person that a CD needs to come out to is their SO that is IT,

Why?


their is no reason or need to tell ANYONE else

What makes the difference?


and tell me Batty what if the CD want to come out to all but the SO dose not want that and just wants to keep this in the family

Then isn't she allowing transphobia to still exist by not challenging it? Assuming hse doesn't do so some other way.

And if TG is genetic isn't she allowing her descendants, maybe her own children, to suffer and be at risk for her own comfort and safety?


...............and what if the CD come out to all family, Friends, co-workers and job against the SO wishes.....was it right......was it the right thing to do.

That may depend on other circumstances. But in this case i'm suggesting both CD and GG have an obligation to reduce transphobia and that insisting on one form of honesty for just one form of relationship may be a double-standard unless a reason for the difference can be identified


NO a SO should not HAVE to take the same risk just because the CD came out to them

Thats not ehat i said. It's not because the CD did come out to them but if they think the CD should have come out to them, especially from the start. That difference is important. If you don't agree with my actual stated point again I ask WHY.


and are NOT obliged act to remove obstacle for other Cd's,

Why? IF a GG thinks their CD should have been up-front, and transphobia is the reason they weren't able to then isn't a GG who doesn't try to remove that obstanccle for others being hypocritical? Aren't they failing their responsibility to the community? To their possible TG descendants?


each CD and their SO need to work out their own obstacle.

Why when no-one exists in isolation, the CD is already effected by the society, as is the GG. And both as Sheila has said before are part of the society. Doesn't it make it their fault if they let the society stay transphobic and others suffer just like them later?


Tell me what going to happen to the kids when the CD comes out to all what do you think is going to happen when it gets around school the kids are going to tease them and just how much of a burden are the kids going carry..........for the right thing to do.

If we don't act now future generations will suffer just as we did. Look at the TYFA links I already posted! Look at how wmein and African Americans had to deal with standing up and taking risks for them and their families or condemning their families to more of the same.

And finally look at the suicide rate of TG people.

Also I'm NOT saying everyone needs to be out now!

I in fact pointed out the ENDA stuff as many would want it passed before they (or their partner) get outted accidentally or out themselves.

Seriously. I didn't say everyone should be out. I just pointed out an apparent double standard. If you don't feel everyone should be honest.. fine!
But where do you draw the line and insist you must be honest to THESE people but not to THOSE? WHY?

[ReineD]

Batty, here we go again with the single purpose examples that fit only one specific set of circumstances. They make the argument circular, and they take us away from the core issue. People do read your posts and of course apply them to their own personal situations, believing that you are suggesting they should stretch beyond their ability to stretch at the moment. Remember: from step 1 to step 2, and not to step 5 omitting steps 2, 3, and 4.

So please, no more argument about whether we should move forward or not. We all know IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

Again, let's focus on each one of us determining what we CAN do. Batty, I am sure you will agree, and I am putting this in very large letters to help people stop arguing about what they believe they CAN or CANNOT do:

"It is each person's responsibility to determine for themselves how much they CAN stretch in order to overcome their internalized oppression. This is in accordance with the Principles of Intrinsic Inalienable Self Evident Rights."

Cindy, if Batty's suggestions do not fit your own personal circumstances, then you are in your every right to feel the way you do for yourself. But others, for example couples who are fully out, may feel differently than you do. :hugs:

[AmandaM]

Uncompromising ethics are the bane of man.

[Kate Lynn]

How many people have you been honest with, Batty? Aren't you in the closet?

I thought Batty was hanging from the rafters in an attic.

All kidding aside,my wifes children have no clue,her children have no need to know because of their religious indoctrination,the men I work with here in the green zone have no clue,I can't be myself here I have to wait 8 more months to get back to normal.

Personally because the way I was treated as a child,like I was a freak,an outsider,I truly wish I had never been born this way.

[Charlena]

Wow...this is weird?

[curse within]

I thought Batty was hanging from the rafters in an attic.

All kidding aside,my wifes children have no clue,her children have no need to know because of their religious indoctrination,the men I work with here in the green zone have no clue,I can't be myself here I have to wait 8 more months to get back to normal.

Personally because the way I was treated as a child,like I was a freak,an outsider,I truly wish I had never been born this way.

I can completely relate, in order for one to stand on a "soap box" to preach acceptance would depend on where you fall at, in the spectrume.

It appears to me, that Batty is proud of her lifestyle and she wishes to express it, I believe she is only concerned that others who appear to be afraid to step out of the closet or dipping their toe to test the water are afaid to take that first step. I see nothing wrong with her speading her good fortune to put herself out there by letting others know in here it is ok to do that.
However I DO NOT understand how some in here get offend with her crusade? Batty is a wealth of information, she has yet one time lead anyone a stray that I have ever seen. Too much confusion lays amoung the spectrume that allows certain spectrumes to easily become offended as I fell victum to already in here.

Until this matter is corrected there will always be a division of US and THEM in this ficticious spectrume that in my ophinion does not exist. How can all lay within a certain catagory when divided we fall into men who wish they where females and men who enjoy dressing from time to time?

[Lorileah]

Batty, our President Obama started as a Community Organizer, nobody's going to take a guy in a dress seriously. That's the Law.
I think you should decide between Poetry or Politics, you obviously have alot of talent.

I can't figure out if that was a compliment to Batty's political bend or not. Recently I don't seem to be getting some posts. However I don't know the law of which you speak. Did I miss a caucus?

One of the things that Batty is working toward here is being taken seriously. 60 years ago no one would take a black man who's father was a Muslim seriously either. 40 years ago you would be considered a criminal. Things change and often they change because someone finally says "enough! what you think is incorrect!"

As far as keeping your mouth shut, once again I refer to the poem written just after WWII that ends "there was no one left to speak out for me."

[DaphneGrey]

First I owe Batty an apology, yesterday while responding to another thread I made some rather harsh remarks about her academic writing. What I should have said was I do not agree with your statements and here is why. As it is I fell prey to my emotions as any who has taken the time to get to know me will tell you is not uncommon. An admitted character flaw on my part. I am working on it though.

In any case I offer you my humble apology. For my seemingly anti intellectual remarks.

But to try to answer your question. If I am advocating honesty between SOs do I have a moral obligation to have the same standard for relatives, children and close friends, and the community. Also my SO has the same moral obligations (please forgive me I am para phrasing) ?
t and
My answer is no, for several reasons all based on my own life experiences.

First let me explain that I live my life openly with a great deal of discretion for many reasons. That is to say I am quite honest about being transgendered something I do very little to hide. However I don't shout from every rooftop look at me I wear a dress. At the same time I have never lied to anyone about my gender, but I haven't told everyone either nor do I intend to. Like you in my day to day existence I am very gender neutral. I wear femme jeans and jewelry girls kicks, bandanas or scarves, my body is kept hairless and I wear some femme jewelry once in awhile a little make up. I guess the word is gender queer. My point is everyone and I mean everyone who knows me has seen this. If someone should ask are those girls jeans I simply reply "yes they are but i like them" the simple truth as it were. I come and go in full girl mode in broad day light whenever I feel like it. If the people across the street or next door wave I smile and wave back. However I have not gone over to them and had a long discussion about being transgendered , nor do I intend to. I quite simply live my life. On the very rare occasions when asked if I crossdress I answer yes.

So that is the open part now on to the discretion part. I am not at all ashamed of who or what I am (although this was not always the case) However there are many people I choose not to tell. A perfect example would be one of my closest friends who happens to be a GG. She although a wonderful person is not emotionally equipped to handle anything gender variant I wont go into why, I just use this as an example. So in this instance my moral obligation is to her and her emotional well being.

My next example would be my children, My two sons whom I love more than life need their father, they both know dad is different but still very much their dad. I choose not to share thais part of my life with them because it will do them (as individuals) no good. If I had a reason to tell them if it would benefit them in some way, then absolutely I would tell them. My youngest son is somewhat gender nonconformist himself, I simply allow him to play with and wear what he chooses and make sure he knows he is loved and not judged and his creativity is not hindered. As a parent of gender nonconforming child, this is the best thing I can do for him. He has a mother a female role model to say it is OK to play with Barbie. He needs his father to say it is OK as well, ( I do of course ) But even for him seeing me in over the top girl mode would do no good. My children are better off not knowing for now. if and when circumstances change I may come to a different conclusion.

My thoughts on transphobia, The murder rate per capita in the US is 1 in 18,000 The Murder rate for transgendered persons in the US is 1 in 12. Every time I interact with someone while I am wearing a skirt I am doing a little bit to further the cause. In view of the statistics I think what we do is enough and should not be marginalized. I do what I am capable of doing and I won't put my career, or the well being of my family at risk. I would be remiss in my moral obligations if I did.

My problem with your point of view batty is that it is binary in nature as is usually the case when dealing with moral and ethical questions in an academic/forensic discourse. There are just to many variables to consider. And they change from person to person, or family unit to family unit.

[LA CINDY LOVE]

[QUOTE=battybattybats;1745451]
Then isn't she allowing transphobia to still exist by not challenging it? Assuming hse doesn't do so some other way.

[QUOTE]
That may depend on other circumstances. But in this case i'm suggesting both CD and GG have an obligation to reduce transphobia


[QUOTE]
Why? IF a GG thinks their CD should have been up-front, and transphobia is the reason they weren't able to then isn't a GG who doesn't try to remove that obstanccle for others being hypocritical?


[QUOTE]
Doesn't it make it their fault if they let the society stay transphobic and others suffer just like them later?


So a family way of life, a family stability, a family value and the love for ones family should be sacrificed for transphobia?...........because that is the right thing to do..............WOW.

Any time a CD gets dress and walks out that front door they are doing their part to reduce transphobia.

Any time that a family stays together and accept or tolerate a CD that family is doing their part to reduce transphobia.


LA CINDY LOVE

[Carin's Wife GG]

I am an ex wife. I was married to a transgendered person for 25 years. We raised 7 wonderful children together. We were pretty good parents. I do believe we loved each other.

I found out about her transgender when we were ten years married. Yes, I was shocked and I accepted. Why would I not? It is a huge part of this person. It is just is.

In our marriage we adopted four children to go along with our three birth kids. Our children are now quite grown and a diverse group. Racially, varying abilities, gifted ect ect. Different children needing our love. All our children.

One of my personal dilemmas, as I was busily hiding her transgender, not willing to take that risk in my own life, was knowing this hiding was truely not in adherance to my own values. Those values were ones of honesty and truthfullness. Hiding transgender was a contraction to the many lessons I was trying to pass on to my children.

It was this dilemma that eventually forced me to share with our children (along with my then husband) about this part of their father. I still believe this was a wise choice. Doing so helped to match up our values with this part of his/her life.

And in finally being honest with myself I came to the reality that I could not stay married. Yes transgender played a big part and so did other issues.

I think the responses to the OP were of course emotional. This is obviously an emotional issue. The OP was posted I believe as a *debate*, a discussion with other (opposing) POVs welcomed. I have been a member of debate boards for many years. Personal retorts are usually frowned upon. The *game* is the debate, the back and forth, the discussion. In the course of the debate sometimes POV will change, many times they will not. But the discussion opens up minds IMO. And I do love the debate, lol.

I certainly do not always agree with Batty but I sure do enjoy reading her posts, academic or not.


Louise.

[Satrana]

Personally, I find this whole argument irrelevant because I reject the premise that there is an obligation for the CD to tell his partner in the first instance.

Every day we all make judgement calls on how much to tell each and every person we meet. We do this in order to maintain relationships, to ensure our own safety and success, and in order to protect others from unnecessary harm and distress.

We make these decisions continuously. We all understand the goals to aim for, ie total honesty, but in reality total honesty is an impossible summit to reach. These are our decisions to make and we must live with the consequences.

It is not unethical to withhold information from another. However if we are to be considered a good, loving, trustworthy persons then we must reach decisions by carefully weighing the interests of all parties involved and coming to what we believe to be the best compromise. We must resist our selfish drives to tip the scales too much in our favor. We have an obligation to ourselves to ensure we do our utmost to be fair to everyone we love and value when deciding what we believe to be the best course of action.

So the ethics involved here is about how a decision was reached on whether to reveal the CD behavior. There is no obligation. Some SOs may get upset that they did not have the opportunity to decide for themselves but then there are others who say they wish they had never been told. There is no absolute right or wrong.

And if a SO is given the full facts, then she then goes through the same process of deciding if she should then inform others (with the partner's consent) or if it is best to withhold the information.

Included in that decision making matrix, should be the moral issue of educating the public and tackling transphobia. However understandably private relationships will be prioritized.

[Lilith Moon]

The OP was posted I believe as a *debate*, a discussion with other (opposing) POVs welcomed. I have been a member of debate boards for many years. Personal retorts are usually frowned upon. The *game* is the debate, the back and forth, the discussion. In the course of the debate sometimes POV will change, many times they will not. But the discussion opens up minds IMO. And I do love the debate, lol.

I certainly do not always agree with Batty but I sure do enjoy reading her posts, academic or not.


Louise.

Louise, that was exactly my understanding of the Batty's original post and why I was taken aback by some of the ad hominem style responses.

[lesley jay]

its a tricky question and touchy based on some of the responses.i kept my cding a secret for approx 28 years before telling my wife and during that period of secrecy it was hell at times,nobody to talk to,nobody to answer questions,at times i thought that my head would be no longer capable of handling it and that i was going insane.when i told my wife and 4 close female freinds it was such a relief to have somebody to talk to,shop with etc,i now wish i had told them many years ago.when it comes to kids,parents and freinds they have not been told and that will remain,yep i would love to tell them,but take my kids 4 example they would be ridaculed at school for having two mommies,proberly bullied,i would not put them through that.some people may differ but they are my views,i think this is a debate that i could write a book on but i dont have the time or space on this site.in a nutshell i am happy with things the way they are at present with my situation,taking baby steps i guess.have a great weekend ladies.

[battybattybats]

Uncompromising ethics are the bane of man.

Who said anything about uncompromising?
And your mentioning the word bane is going to have those who know me laughing a lot. As it's rather close to my birth-name.


Personally, I find this whole argument irrelevant because I reject the premise that there is an obligation for the CD to tell his partner in the first instance.

Wells ee that there is a really important point. The crucial IF at the very beginning! Unless that first IF is true then the rest ends up false. Which is a very valid interpretation of the idea!


So the ethics involved here is about how a decision was reached on whether to reveal the CD behavior. There is no obligation.

But aren't there reasons a person has a disclosure obligation? Like having an STD needing to be disclosed before sex?


Included in that decision making matrix, should be the moral issue of educating the public and tackling transphobia. However understandably private relationships will be prioritized.

But doesn't the gene found suggest that there is need to make the world more TG friendly for the sake of children and childrens children? Doesn't it make overcoming transphobia part of protecting our own familes (mine too, I still have cousins!)

Edit: for those concerned about harm to the children if parent is out, might I suggest we consider that some will experience this already anyway? That there are TS parents, Intersex parents like blogger Zoe Brain and TG kids too. Looking at TYFA's group for kids of TG parents might be an idea.

[Deborah Jane]

Personally, I find this whole argument irrelevant because I reject the premise that there is an obligation for the CD to tell his partner in the first instance.

On that point i have to disagree entirely!

If you are planning to spend the rest of your life with someone, then surely she has the right to expect total honesty from you regarding something like crossdressing, which could affect whether or not she would want to spend her life with you!!
Also, by the same token, i would expect total honesty from my life partner if she did something that could affect my decision to want to spend the rest of my life with her!

I think being honest about the major issues before committing yourself to and expecting honesty from your partner before she expects you to commit to her, would save a lot of problems later on in most long term relationships!!


Every day we all make judgement calls on how much to tell each and every person we meet.

I agree, each such person should be told as much as we deem relevant in our relationship with them and as to how much it could affect that particular relationship.
Most people i know in my life i would never tell, there is no reason to tell them and with many it would have a negative impact on our relationship if i did.
But by the same token, if i was planning to spend the rest of my life with someone, i would try to be totally honest from the start and would expect the same in return!

[battybattybats]

Most people i know in my life i would never tell, there is no reason to tell them and with many it would have a negative impact on our relationship if i did.

But by the same token, if i was planning to spend the rest of my life with someone, i would try to be totally honest from the start and would expect the same in return!

But wouldn't telling an SO before making a life commitment involve the same risk?

and wouldn't waiting for her to be in love enough that your both ready to make that committment be bieng already unfair if honesty up-front is important?

Also, you suggest you have no reason to tell anyone else.. but consider these points. (and by WE i mean both CDs and GGs too)

* if we are the ones to most know transphobia exists and we do nothing, aren't we then most responsible for it's continued existence? and the suffering others will endure?

* if transphobia is the main reason people aren't told up front and we do nothing to stop it aren't we partly responsible for other wives not being told from the start?

* if transphobia causes a 50% suicide attempt rate and we are the ones with the most power to stop it and dont arent we responsible for the deaths?

* if the TS gene or one or more like it is the cause of CDing doesnt that mean that not trying to reduce or stop transphobia is negligence to our families?

Now I certainly don't suggest coming out is the only way to resolve those points... but as we are the ones who right now are most aware of these issues, are we not then the ones respobsible for them?

[Sheila]

* if we are the ones to most know transphobia exists and we do nothing, aren't we then most responsible for it's continued existence? and the suffering others will endure?

* if transphobia is the main reason people aren't told up front and we do nothing to stop it aren't we partly responsible for other wives not being told from the start?

* if transphobia causes a 50% suicide attempt rate and we are the ones with the most power to stop it and dont arent we responsible for the deaths?

* if the TS gene or one or more like it is the cause of CDing doesnt that mean that not trying to reduce or stop transphobia is negligence to our families?

Now I certainly don't suggest coming out is the only way to resolve those points... but as we are the ones who right now are most aware of these issues, are we not then the ones respobsible for them?

Batty do you mean trans phobia or internalised transphobia, as GG's by your own admission cannot have internalized Transphobia?

At the end of the day A PHOBIA IS AN IRRATIONAL FEAR ...................... it is perfectly possible to actualy dislike a TRANS PERSON without actually being TRANSHPOBIC or is that too difficult for you to understand ............... I am by Birth a SCOT .............. I do not like all SCOTS .................. that does not make me A SCOTOPHOBIC SAVVY:)

[Shelly Preston]

But wouldn't telling an SO before making a life commitment involve the same risk?

and wouldn't waiting for her to be in love enough that your both ready to make that committment be bieng already unfair if honesty up-front is important?
There is a huge difference as it needs to be said for a lifelong commitment . The risk of telling later or getting found out could be extremely unpleasant


Also, you suggest you have no reason to tell anyone else.. but consider these points. (and by WE i mean both CDs and GGs too)

* if we are the ones to most know transphobia exists and we do nothing, aren't we then most responsible for it's continued existence? and the suffering others will endure?

* if transphobia is the main reason people aren't told up front and we do nothing to stop it aren't we partly responsible for other wives not being told from the start?

* if transphobia causes a 50% suicide attempt rate and we are the ones with the most power to stop it and dont arent we responsible for the deaths?

* if the TS gene or one or more like it is the cause of CDing doesnt that mean that not trying to reduce or stop transphobia is negligence to our families?

Now I certainly don't suggest coming out is the only way to resolve those points... but as we are the ones who right now are most aware of these issues, are we not then the ones respobsible for them?

There are and awful lot of if's in that statment

You can also fight transphobia without coming out as you say but I dont see how we can be responsible just because something exists

We may have a duty to do what we can to eliminate it but thats not quite the same thing

[battybattybats]

Batty do you mean trans phobia or internalised transphobia, as GG's by your own admission cannot have internalized Transphobia?

Both! One creates the other. Both are merely part of the same phenomena.


At the end of the day A PHOBIA IS AN IRRATIONAL FEAR

No it's not! Thats only classical phobias. The terms Xenophobia, homophobia and transphobia are different http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia#Terms_indicating_prejudice_or_class_discrim ination please follow that link.


...................... it is perfectly possible to actualy dislike a TRANS PERSON without actually being TRANSHPOBIC or is that too difficult for you to understand

I'm aware of that. But have you looked into the evidence of subtle unconcious biases on all forms of discrimination since I last mentioned it? Transphobia takes many forms not just hatred or disgust at all TG people. For example with race many people considered they were not racist as they got on well with black men and women so long as they weren't 'uppity' or in other words as assertive as they would accept in a white person but viewed differently from a black person. Same where women are still often disliked in the workplace for showing the same qualities admired in men in the workplace.

Often we are unaware of such double-standards we experience or perpetuate.


There is a huge difference as it needs to be said for a lifelong commitment .

In degree yes, but principle? robbing a million dollers is not the same as 100 but we consider them both theft because they both involve stealing. Right has degrees but each degree still works on and is right because of the same principle, same with wrong.


The risk of telling later or getting found out could be extremely unpleasant

Yes! Which is why i told about a week or so from the first date with my ex-girlfriend. However there is HUGE risk any time you tell if your closeted! If they freak out and out you it risks all your friendships and family relationships instantly without having the time to prepare how to tell them.. you place a massive trust when telling anyone when deeply closeted!

And waiting till your sure you can trust them (and you can always be mistaken!) likely means they will feel hurt you didnt tell them earlier.

Either way it's a gamble involving tremendous risk unless the CD is prepared to be totally outed from the start!


There are and awful lot of if's in that statment

Yes but they are if/then logic ifs, not normal ifs. Do you think any of the IFs are not true? Do you disagree with any of the THENs when you agree with the IFs or even if you just assume the IFs are true for the sake of examining the idea of the THEN?


You can also fight transphobia without coming out as you say but I dont see how we can be responsible just because something exists

It's because we have the choice to act or not act. Whenever someone has a choice they become responsible for the predictable consequences of that choice. Even when the choice is to do nothing.

If we can swim well and a child who cannot is drowning in front of us and we turn away and do nothing we choose the childs death. Certainly that's so right?

Well we are the ones who most know this problem exists and we are the ones who can try and do something about it. Each of those, the knowledge and the power that others in the community don't have means we are the ones best equipped to change social transphobia to reduce the internalised transphobia that kills people.

The person with the choice and power to change the situation is the one responsible for changing it. And by not doing so they become more responsible than those who act on it who don't know any better!

[Shelly Preston]

Either way it's a gamble involving tremendous risk unless the CD is prepared to be totally outed from the start!


Is being totally outed from the start not a tremendous risk as well

It seems to me that can be more of a risk due to the fact some groups take a dislike to people just because the dont fit with there idea of normal

That has nothing to do with transphobia because they dont just pick on a particular group . They just chose those who are different

[Karren H]

Lucky for me I'm a person of low moral fiber... And some of my best friends are liers and cheats... So I have no moral conundrum about not telling someone something that would hurt them...

And since no one ever asked me. Straight out "Are you a crossdresser" then I have never dishonstly replied about my hobby..

[Lorileah]

How's this for a new take, the earlier you come out to people around you the quicker you can move on to find new friends IF the old ones drop you or party with the ones who accept you. Then you won't be worried about losing friends for such a long time. Life is short, most people's memories are shorter when it comes to something like this.

Take the hit, move on. Or to put it in Karren's vernacular Take the hit, if you get caught serve your 2 minutes and then skate on. Usually you score soon after

[Tamara Croft]

At the end of the day A PHOBIA IS AN IRRATIONAL FEAR
No it's not! Thats only classical phobias. The terms Xenophobia, homophobia and transphobia are different http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia#Terms_indicating_prejudice_or_class_discrim ination please follow that link.Just because wiki says that, does not make it right. We can all find answers with different opinions about something, it doesn't take rocket science to use google and start pasting links.

According to answers.com

Xenophobia

People who have an irrational fear or hatred of foreigners ironically suffer from a condition whose name is composed of two Greek words, xenos and phobos.

Homophobia

An irrational fear or intolerance of homosexuality, or behaviour that is perceived to uphold and support traditional gender role expectations.

According to trans-academics.org

Transphobia

The irrational fear of those who are gender diverse and/or the inability to deal with gender ambiguity.

So, instead of constantly telling people they are wrong, use that intellect of yours and research things properly.

[Lorileah]

Just wondering, are there rational fears? I guess dying after jumping off the Empire State build would be a rational fear wouldn't it. Or would it be a guarantee?

Fear of being bitten by a rattlesnake seems like a rational fear so it wouldn't be a phobia. OPHIDIOPHOBIA is the fear of all snakes which would be irrational but Crotalusphobia (if there is one) seems to be rational for most people. So can a phobia be rational?

And why is it ironic that two Greek words form a word? Technically the Greeks who formed the word were not strangers or foreigners. It is interesting but not ironic.

And why do I sound like Andy Rooney?

[battybattybats]

Is being totally outed from the start not a tremendous risk as well

I thought I covered that. That any time someone closeted risks being outted there is risk.

Unless you mean being out from the start rather than out-ed?

In which case with friends and family you have the luxery of telling them in your own way, of trying to build up, drop hints, prepare, practice with friends before coming out to family etc. And it gives you more time to find new accepting friends if you lose them, the same argument about coming out to an SO early gives both more time to find someone more truly compatable no?

However unless you work for the big companies with gender expression on their anti-discrimination rules it can still be bad for career.. a good reason for everyone to fight for enda who is not out in case one day they are outted by accident.


It seems to me that can be more of a risk due to the fact some groups take a dislike to people just because the dont fit with there idea of normal

Dont I know it!
I have lots of personal experience there! I took punches to the face to make Goth acceptable in public! And public violence against the different was more acceptable in the late 80's and 90's Australia. Any difference was labeled 'poofta'. However violent attacks on Goths are rare now. Because lots of Goths are out.


That has nothing to do with transphobia because they dont just pick on a particular group . They just chose those who are different

Well thats only sort-of true, as everyone is different somehow and those groups choose parameters they accept and those they don't often in ranges at that.

And most conformists have something to hide anayway, like most homophobes are repressed gays. And bigots can have intersections of bigotry just as oppressed people can have intersections of discrimination against them.

For certain just looking at the TDOR list there's a lot less whites than a proper equal split per proportion of the polpulation. so they suffer Racism + Transphobia and they make up most, not all but most, of those at risk.

And doesn't that just add more responsibility to the white TG people who can be out safer to help the non-white ones who are more at risk?

Edit to avoid double-post:


Just because wiki says that, does not make it right.

True but it doesn't make it wrong either!


We can all find answers with different opinions about something, it doesn't take rocket science to use google and start pasting links.

According to answers.com

The problem in this case isn't source. Yours backs me up also. Rechanging the emphasis of bold text:

Xenophobia

People who have an irrational fear or hatred of foreigners ironically suffer from a condition whose name is composed of two Greek words, xenos and phobos.

Homophobia

An irrational fear or intoleranceof homosexuality, or behaviour that is perceived to uphold and support traditional gender role expectations.

According to trans-academics.org

Transphobia

The irrational fear of those who are gender diverse and/or the inability to deal with gender ambiguity.

There's a lot of meaning in the word 'or'.
Intolerance and 'deal with' can include subtle levels, just like racism and sexism.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=MKjAMt2NFwQC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=unconscious+sexism&source=bl&ots=dn-UliHhQ7&sig=lZ-G-YhON2TugBCBksgpsM_xjnE&hl=en&ei=JV4pSqOpDJaTkAXKlcDzCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10 whole chapters of etext evidence for you there on unconcious sexism which corollates with unconcious homophobia and unconcious transphobia.

Lets cut straight to homophobia and transphobia with some detail now shall we? http://www.uoguelph.ca/hre/hr/docs/RecognizingHeterosexism.pdf


Homophobia and transphobia can range from discomfort and fear to disgust, hatred and violence, and are manifested in four different ways:

1. Personal or internalized homophobia/transphobia consists of personal beliefs and prejudices.

2. Interpersonal homophobia/transphobia (harassment and individual discrimination) involves individual behaviours based on those personal beliefs.

3. Institutional homophobia/transphobia includes the ways that institutions discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

4.Cultural homophobia (heterosexism) refers to societal values and norms that advantage heterosexuality over all other forms of gender expression and sexual orientation.


Now combine that with the info on iunconcious biases such as the unconcious sexism in that book on applied ethics i gave the link to above and you get the full picture.

Cut-and-paste from that document is messy but people may like to look at the long lists of what gets classed as homophobic and transphobic behaviours.

As well as the Recognising Heterosexual and Gender Identity Advantage.

In fact it's an all-round great resource, much better than pulling out the sociology and ethics and womens studies textbooks I would have done if I had the energy to search through 20 boxes of books to do so (my bookcases overflowed a very long time ago) besides those texts are decades out of date. The term Kyriarchy isn't even in them! http://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/word-of-the-day-kyriarchy/

Oh and while discussing academic notions related to this subject and gender the australian governemnts human rights community consultation had a great post to it yesterday linking to this good article on Kohlbergs theories on moral development some may find interesting, including it's criticisms http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm which go into an interesting conflict on moral reasoning and gender!

Now if no-one has any further objections for a few hours i need enough sleep to ensure that Transgender Australians actually get more equality under the law and australia actually gets some valid human rights protections incluidng the right to gender expression (we have NO federal bill or charter or statute of rights!).. cause I'm not just talking about this stuff, I'm actually doing something about it!

Further edit: I almost forgot this on unconcious racism http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/opinion/06kristof.html

[Nicki B]

To make a long story short, I confided to my significant other straight off about my crossdressing, criminal past, other women, drug use, etc, and she was real cool with all that

My other half took a long time before she told me she'd had a lump removed from her breast - and an awful lot longer before she brought up the fact that she'd had an abortion, when she was sixteen...

There are lots of things people are ashamed of, and hide. Much of it isn't logical, either. :sad:

[Joanne f]

There are lots of things people are ashamed of, and hide. Much of it isn't logical, either. :sad:
Ashamed, now there a word to play with .
This thread may be idealistic and has got a lot of people going but it has a certain amount of sense to it ( when you look past all the negatives).
But it has caused a spin off thread that at first made me feel very ASHAMED of what i am and what i have done in the past .
If it is felt that you need to hide things from you children and family then surely you are saying that there is something wrong with what you are doing .
Just from the words i will support you could mean that you are saying " i will support you because you are doing something wrong" but it will be our secret .

[Deborah Jane]

But wouldn't telling an SO before making a life commitment involve the same risk?

If Sheila hadn't been aware of my c/ding before we met and if i hadn't told her before proposing marriage to her, i believe the risk on her discovery afterwards would been far higher :eek::eek:


if transphobia causes a 50% suicide attempt rate

That would mean half the people on this forum have attempted suicide over trans issues.....Possible, but i find it very hard to believe....My own previous suicide attempts were not trans related, they were actually related to other issues from my past......Would the fact that i am trans have made them trans related....In some peoples eyes..YES, but in actuallity a definate NO!!!

[Sheila]

If it is felt that you need to hide things from you children and family then surely you are saying that there is something wrong with what you are doing .
Just from the words i will support you could mean that you are saying " i will support you because you are doing something wrong" but it will be our secret .

it could also be saying " I support you because I believe what you do is not wrong ,nor anything to be ashamed off":)

[Sarah Doepner]

First I note that most of Batty's provocative concepts are usually followed by a question mark; she is asking questions, not making judgements. There are also statements that are staged, if you accept the first, then the second and so on, you will eventually arrive at the same conclusion as Batty has. We need to look for assumptions that may be the weak links in that chain of logic if we want to deter her in any way.

For instance;

She says "I'm saying that IF honesty about CDing is an obligation in one relationship THEN isn't it also one in other relationships?"

The assumption embedded there is that all relationships are equal in regard to the need for honesty and full disclosure. I don't know if I can accept that assumption. While it is appropriate in my relationship with my wife to be fully honest about my CDing, that relationship is not based on the same thing as my relationship with my boss or the neighbor. Are we looking at Full Disclosure as being the same as Honesty? While it is critical to be Honest, Full Disclosure at work or in the neighborhood has never been expected while it is within the confines of marriage. I just can't see the need to tell my neighbor about my CDing when our relationship is based on landscaping.

However, if my co-workers or neighbors have misconceptions about gender that I can address and clarify, I see my obligation to deal with them. I am advocating situational ethics based on the need for a consistent definition of Honesty in regard to gender issues. However, is Full Disclosure necessary for an Honest discussion of gender issues outside the question of how it impacts our offspring? Is Full Disclosure necessary for most action addressing these same issues?

If we become involved in this type of discussion and/or action, it may be encumbant on us to be ready to reveal information about ourselves that would both lend credibiltiy to our arguements, but endanger something we have wanted to protect.

[Ralph]

The difference between telling your spouse and telling other family, coworkers, etc. is that you live with your spouse. There is a degree of trust and intimacy in cohabitation that surpasses any of those other relationships - and if there isn't, you're doing it wrong. I am totally, 100% honest with my wife because everything I have is hers, and I expect her to do the same. The guy who works next to me, my boss, those are people who might not even be there a week from now and won't remember my name after they're gone. My brother, my mom... they only see me every few years and we talk maybe once a week, but there are other issues involved - telling them would cause more harm than good to our relationship.

Now having said that, I would not actively lie to anyone in my immediate family; if they flat-out asked me if I crossdress, I would tell them yes. But there are things about myself that I simply don't bring up because it's none of their business. I would no more tell my mom what I wear around the house than I would tell her about sex with my wife.

HTH.

ralph

[AmandaM]

<<But doesn't the gene found suggest that there is need to make the world more TG friendly for the sake of children and childrens children? Doesn't it make overcoming transphobia part of protecting our own familes (mine too, I still have cousins!)>>

I don't know Batty, that seems to be a stretch.

[sarahm]

And then I consider the evidence that there is a genetic aspect to being transsexual and that the scientists behind many of these discoveries think this will be true for all forms of transgender.

Your comment peaked my interest since I manage a multi-million dollar NIH funded research study. I'm fascinated by research being done on this topic or any topic, however I have yet to see any conslusive evidence that there's validity or significance to your statement. I'd appreciate you sharing w/the group multiple citations of conclusive evidential research that's been published in scholarly journals that support your statement.

Best,
sarahm

[AmandaM]

And then I consider the evidence that there is a genetic aspect to being transsexual and that the scientists behind many of these discoveries think this will be true for all forms of transgender.

Your comment peaked my interest since I manage a multi-million dollar NIH funded research study. I'm fascinated by research being done on this topic or any topic, however I have yet to see any conslusive evidence that there's validity or significance to your statement. I'd appreciate you sharing w/the group multiple citations of conclusive evidential research that's been published in scholarly journals that support your statement.

Best,
sarahm

Go ahead Sarah, you can say "gotcha". My previous reference to this discussion belonging on a metaphysics forum stands. In layman's terms, my response to Batty could be stated as "are you friggin' for real?". :D

P.S. Don't be mad Batty, I actually like you. :)

[battybattybats]

If Sheila hadn't been aware of my c/ding before we met and if i hadn't told her before proposing marriage to her, i believe the risk on her discovery afterwards would been far higher :eek::eek:

I agree. That was my own personal conclusion with my last romantic relationship too.

Of course telling someone on the first date means you wont know at all if you can trust them, that takes a long time to learn but waiting till you know you can trust them means increasing constantly the risk of them feelling upset they didn't know it from the first date.

Does that mean the only virtuous course of action is to be upfront from the first date no matter that risk?

If so then doesn't that mean you'd have to already be prepared to be publicly outed before you could ever date sensibly?

If so then wouldn't the most sensible course of virtuous action be to 'bite the bullet' and be out publicly from the start? Thereby being honest from the outset, no longer having the complicating risk of being outted? Even though there would be intitial cost of risk of loss of relationships and the medium-to-long-term cost of discrimination? Yet also by being out publicly adding to the net reduction of that discrimination?

And again there's the point that IF a GG considers that CDs should be honest and confess their CDing from the outset despite all the risks that entails and the overcoming internalised oppression and the natural human instinct to avoid judgement THEN is it not hypocritical of them IF they are unwilling to suffer those same risks?


That would mean half the people on this forum have attempted suicide over trans issues.....Possible, but i find it very hard to believe

Well by all means check the studies and question their methodology. When published in peer-review journals or the like you or I or others here could write to those journals requesting a further review.

Also it's entirely possible that different groups of people are more susceptible. Like the murder risk being mostly suffered by non-white MtF CDs and TSs intersections of discrimination may dramatically vary the risks and most CDs being closeted compared to TS means that many TG people will be under-represented in most studies.

However if the same genes cover CD as well as TS, perhaps as a result of combinations of genes or double-expressions of genes etc as seems likely then it's still our problem.


....My own previous suicide attempts were not trans related, they were actually related to other issues from my past......Would the fact that i am trans have made them trans related....In some peoples eyes..YES, but in actuallity a definate NO!!!

There will always be situations where TG people have the same reasons for suicide as non-TGs, but where the rate is higher then there is more obviously. And don't forget co-morbidities! Where issues that would normally be more easilly coped with become harder to cope with because of the strains and pressures of internalised oppression or living with repression or under oppression etc. This was noted as a key point in the removal of homosexuality from the DSM in the 70's because the suicide risk etc wasn't caused by being gay but by being gay in a homophobic society. I'm having trouble finding the study I'm after (i'm sure there was a latrobe uni study with the TG suicide stats for Australia) but these comparisons of GLB youth suicide in Australia might help the point: http://www.acys.info/youth_facts_and_stats/design_extras/focus/gaylesbianbisexualtransgender_youth


Suicide risks:
A national study by Jonathan Nicholas and John Howard presented at the Suicide Prevention Australia national conference revealed the following figures around suicide attempts:

Gay male: 20.8% had attempted suicide
Heterosexual male: 5.4%
Bi/undecided male: 29.4%
Lesbian female: 28%
Heterosexual female: 8.3%
Bi/undecided female: 34.9%
The study included same sex attracted young men and women up to 30 years of age with an average age of 21. It also documented when the first suicide attempt occurred.

For gay males, this was on average:

5.7 years after becoming sexually interested in men
3.5 years after self identifying as gay
0.4 years before another person found out they were gay
0.3 years before they had their first same gender sexual experience.
For lesbians, this was on average:

1.9 years after becoming sexually interested in women
0.2 years after self identifying as same sex attracted
0.8 years before another person found out they were lesbian
2 years before they had had their first same gender experience.

ok, here's a source for a 53% attempt rate of TSs http://www.outproud.org/article_suicide.html
Transsexuals may be at higher risk than homosexuals and much higher risk than the general population to suicidal behavior. (13) Fifty-three percent of transsexuals surveyed had made suicide attempts. (14)

13. Harry, J., "Adolescent Suicide and Sexual Identity Issues," submitted to the National Institute of Mental Health for the Secretary's Conference on Adolescent Suicide, Washington, DC, May 8-9, 1986.
14. Huxdly, J., and Brandon, S., "Partnership in Transsexualism, Part 1: Paired and Non-paired Groups," Archives of Sexual Behavior, 10, pp. 133-141, 1981.

Like most things CDs are likely not studied, so the result could be lower, or even higher.


First I note that most of Batty's provocative concepts are usually followed by a question mark; she is asking questions, not making judgements. There are also statements that are staged, if you accept the first, then the second and so on, you will eventually arrive at the same conclusion as Batty has. We need to look for assumptions that may be the weak links in that chain of logic if we want to deter her in any way.

Thankyou for comprehending that! All the vitriol really gets upsetting when I'm falsely cast as the villain. I have feellings too after all.


For instance;

She says "I'm saying that IF honesty about CDing is an obligation in one relationship THEN isn't it also one in other relationships?"

The assumption embedded there is that all relationships are equal in regard to the need for honesty and full disclosure. I don't know if I can accept that assumption. While it is appropriate in my relationship with my wife to be fully honest about my CDing, that relationship is not based on the same thing as my relationship with my boss or the neighbor.

Sure. But what makes the operative difference? What about the difference makes one thing right and not the other?


Are we looking at Full Disclosure as being the same as Honesty? While it is critical to be Honest, Full Disclosure at work or in the neighborhood has never been expected while it is within the confines of marriage. I just can't see the need to tell my neighbor about my CDing when our relationship is based on landscaping.

Are, careful there, thats a recent notion of ones obligation to ones neighbours your using there. It has in the past been considered that everything is the communities bussiness, such as being allegedly a witch or having the plague. And some things we consider today in some places go that far by law such as former already-punished sex-offenders being outted to their neighbours by law in some places. Meanwhile the right to keep things secret from your partner has also been legally recognised and was a key piece fought for by feminism.


However, if my co-workers or neighbors have misconceptions about gender that I can address and clarify, I see my obligation to deal with them. I am advocating situational ethics based on the need for a consistent definition of Honesty in regard to gender issues.

Good point.


However, is Full Disclosure necessary for an Honest discussion of gender issues outside the question of how it impacts our offspring? Is Full Disclosure necessary for most action addressing these same issues?

Good questions!

I'd argue personally that at present the risk to career of full disclosure when someone has family responsibilities is too great when there are not employment protections and that instead work to ensure such workplace protections would be for those people the most important action, and one which, being about to go before US federal legilative bodies soon, would justify (or even demand) taking substantial risk far more so than the advances of full public disclosure!


If we become involved in this type of discussion and/or action, it may be encumbant on us to be ready to reveal information about ourselves that would both lend credibiltiy to our arguements, but endanger something we have wanted to protect.

True but short-term risk may well be a neccessity because of the obligation to the long-term risks.


<<But doesn't the gene found suggest that there is need to make the world more TG friendly for the sake of children and childrens children? Doesn't it make overcoming transphobia part of protecting our own familes (mine too, I still have cousins!)>>

I don't know Batty, that seems to be a stretch.

Why so?
We consider that true for breast cancer.
If a parent knows there is a family history of breast cancer or learns they carry the gene that increases the risk of breast cancer don't we consider it neccessary to tell their children?

Didn't Women determine they had an obligation to make the world less sexist for their daughters whe they fought for equality?

Didn't African Americans do the same?

Where do you consider the stretch?

[Nicole Erin]

Am I the only one who was digging out earwax out of my ears with a q-tip and playing with my cell phone wile reading the origina post?

[battybattybats]

And then I consider the evidence that there is a genetic aspect to being transsexual and that the scientists behind many of these discoveries think this will be true for all forms of transgender.

Your comment peaked my interest since I manage a multi-million dollar NIH funded research study. I'm fascinated by research being done on this topic or any topic, however I have yet to see any conslusive evidence that there's validity or significance to your statement. I'd appreciate you sharing w/the group multiple citations of conclusive evidential research that's been published in scholarly journals that support your statement.

Best,
sarahm

Being so well situated (seing as the gene study was co-funded by NIH, the people funding your own study) you could find the sources faster than I (and seriously, most of my time is busy on that little human-rights for Australia deally) so here's the mass-media piece to get you going http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24556699-12377,00.html


THE nature versus nurture debate rages on but a new study of transsexuals has shown genetics plays a key role in determining our sense of gender.

In the largest genetic study of its kind, 112 male-to-female transsexuals took part in a study involving several Melbourne research bodies and the University of California, Los Angeles.

Researchers measured the variation in the androgen receptor gene, which is involved in the functioning of the sex hormone testosterone.

DNA samples from the transsexuals were compared with the samples from 250 typical men.

Researchers discovered the transsexuals were more likely than non-transsexuals to have a longer form of the gene.

"We think these genetic differences might reduce testosterone action and under-masculinise the brain during foetal development," Prince Henry's Institute researcher Lauren Hare said.

Lead researcher, Associate Professor Vincent Harley, head of molecular genetics at Prince Henry's Institute, said there had long been debate about the causes of transsexuality.

"There is a social stigma that transsexualism is simply a lifestyle choice. However, our findings support a biological basis of how gender identity develops," he said.

He said researchers were recruiting transsexual people for another study and hoped to double the sample size and examine other genes.

Assoc Prof Harley said it was important to replicate the findings in other populations.

Researcher Trudy Kennedy, director of the Monash Gender Dysphoria Clinic, said the study supported other evidence that genetics and brain gender were important in transsexuality.

"This is something that people are born with and it's certainly not a lifestyle choice as some have suggested," she said.

Julie Peters, a transgender person, said she knew from as young as three or four years old she did not fit into being a boy.

"I have always had the personality of a girl, I suppose is the way I perceive it and even from a very young age, three or four, I was really mad at people for making me a boy," she said.

"I personally think it (gender) is a combination of both (nature and nurture).

"You are born with a predisposition to have a certain personality and then depending on the culture you are brought up in your personal situation it becomes active in a particular way."

The study research was jointly funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council and the US National Institutes of Health.

Zoe's been collecting much of the research on transgender neurology together and discussing it's implications on her blog (currently considered of enough significance that it's being archived by the Australian National Library iirc) so cast your eyes over her blog posts with her frequent citations of studies :D http://aebrain.blogspot.com/

[curse within]

<<But doesn't the gene found suggest that there is need to make the world more TG friendly for the sake of children and childrens children? Doesn't it make overcoming transphobia part of protecting our own familes (mine too, I still have cousins!)>>

I don't know Batty, that seems to be a stretch.

I would think that if it was a gene found they would more likely curb it rather find use for it..Just as they would with any birth defect..

Hitler still lives amoung us ,a perfect human is societys idea of the future.

[battybattybats]

Oh and further on biological causation of CDing as I argue in my blogpost on the sbuject http://caveofrationality.blogspot.com/2009/05/crossdressing-and-biological-causation.html

Science doesn't work by proof but by constructing falsifiable hyptheses and then testing them and being unable to disprove them. My post was in response to a discussion at Zoe's blog here http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2009/05/it-all-depends-where-you-are.html in which the following public comment was left, (emphasis with bold added by me for this post) make of it what you will...


riki said...
I am doing a PhD on the political and social implications of the brain sex theory of trans. My assessment is that there is certainly more evidence for that theory than for any other, but that it is far from "proven", and that many biological hypotheses have been falsified on the past (EG the HY antigen in the 70s and 80s). The psychological theories have very little evidence to support them.

I interviewed Dick Swaab, whose lab produced the BSTc research that is the strongest evidence for a neurological correlate for trans. It should be noted that one of the six MTF transsexual people in the original 1995 Zhou study had never transitioned, but insisted that they had a female gender identity. It sould also be noted that the 2002 Chung study found that the difference between males and females in the BSTc does not occur until after puberty, which poses some problems for a pre or early post natal hormonal causation theory.

Swaab thinks the BSTc is probably a part of a network in the brain involving the hypothalaumus and cortical areas.

"We only, by accident, hit on a little bit of it"

He also explicitly supported the idea that there is a biological causation for the whole range of gender identity variations:

"I think we talked about a scale like the Kinsey scale for sexual orientation – we should also have a gender identity scale. It is not either this or that; there is also something in between. The distribution will not be simple, but here will be people somewhere in the middle."

"So it is not the entire brain that is switching, it is some systems, and that may also be the explanation for the [gender identity] scale. Some systems do switch and others don’t and it depends on which systems have switched where you enter on the scale."

Other recent research (as reviewed by Zoe in earlier blogs) also supports the idea of certain sex differentiated brain areas being switched in ts or tg people while others are not.

So if that is the opinion of Swaab, perhaps the best qualified scientific researcher in the field, perhaps we can accept that tg is as likely to be biological as ts?


And by all means folks, follow it up. I dont mind being disproven, science learns new things all the time many that don't follow predictions.

But for choices we make right now we must act on the evidence and probabilities available right now so my points based on this research remain valid not till there is definitive proof (as science doesn't even work that way! Those in doubt look up naturalistic methodology or any textbook on philosophy of science) but until there is disproof.

[letsdance GG]

Never mind. Won't matter what I think anyway. If you choose to continue picking me apart, by all means have at it.

[battybattybats]

Never mind. Won't matter what I think anyway. If you choose to continue picking me apart, by all means have at it.

I'm not picking anyone apart.

I'm not attacking anyone.

I'm just raising important questions.

Only slight variations of the hard questions the Suffragettes asked each other that led to women getting the vote, only slight varaitions of those that feminists asked themselves that led to women gaining near-equality, that African Americans asked each other that led to desegregation and the current presidency, the same questions that gays asked themselves that led to their being decades ahead of us!

Some questions have painful answers. But hiding our heads in the sand just passes the buck and makes others suffer for our inability to ask and answer hard questions. And some of those painful answere lead to less pain in the future. And if you look at my actual points like the one above where I say many shouldn't yet come out because of risks to jobs but instead fight for ENDA from the closet to protect against accidental outting you'll see i'm not saying what everyone keeps reading into my posts thats not actually there!

I'm not saying anyone did the wrong thing to their children. I already said I'm sure people made the best decisions they could with the knowledge and ideas at hand. I'm just saying we need to consider these questions, all of us, and that the answers may take years to implement but that we need to start now... gradually!

I think we've been avoiding these questions for fear of discomfort or painful truth. If these questions lead to truth that however painful leads to progress maybe thats the most important honesty we have to deal with that we are hiding from.

It's better to pull a rotten tooth than die of blood poisoning, pain often goes hand in hand with growth and healling.

[AmandaM]

Batty, I think the acceptance of TG's in world society is in shades of gray and a black and white approach to it is not useful in all contexts.

[battybattybats]

Batty, I think the acceptance of TG's in world society is in shades of gray and a black and white approach to it is not useful in all contexts.

I don't think my approach is black and white, especially when my personal view is expressed that those married CDs without workplace protection should probably work within the closet for that rather than come out.

And I'm not suggesting lesser-of-two-evils approaches are invalid. But my points do suggest that the short-term lesser of evils may well be for many the long-term greater and vice versa.

By all means look at the point-form versions of some of the questions i posed and we can discuss the relativist perspectives on them.

We needn't take just one approach on these ideas. By all means lets examine those shades of gray :)

[Mary Jane1]

I think few would dispute that in an ideal circumstance a CD should be honest about their CDing early on.

Of course theres a lot of things that make a circumstance not ideal that many discuss here a lot already.. self-acceptance, the trust involved in coming out early, the risk of being outted publicly, fear of burdening the family etc.

But I think it's worth considering the broader issue.

If we say a CD should come out to their partner early, despite the dangers to the relationship, family, job, career etc...

Then shouldn't the CD also be honest to everyone? Shouldn't they be honest to Parents, children, siblings, cousins, workmates and on to cover everyone? Certainly some of these relationships are more important than others but shouldn't CDs be honest in all of them?

Shouldn't SO's? Shouldn't they risk their families, their friendships, their jobs even by being open about being in a rlationship with a CD (as well as any skeletons in their own closets)? Essentially if a SO thinks a CD should confess they are a CD despite the risk of others judgement should not the SO be willing to eqaullly share that burden?

But this drives me to a far stronger conclusion than simply avoiding hypocracy.

If an SO thinks that CDs should come out early, do they not have a responsibility to make it easier for all CDs to do so?

So if an SO thinks CDs should be out to them from the outset don't they have a responsibility for working towards transgender civil rights and social acceptance? The very things that would protect their partners job but also make it easier for future CDs to come out to their partners and at least make things easier on the next generation?

And then I consider the evidence that there is a genetic aspect to being transsexual and that the scientists behind many of these discoveries think this will be true for all forms of transgender. Which means that the children of CDs will have a greater chance of being CD/TS...

So then don't SOs have a responsibility to strive for TG rights and acceptance for their childrens or grandchildrens sakes?

This seems to me the consequences of concluding that CDs should be honest with their partners. What do you think?



I'm not sure why you went to such lengths to confirm in your last setence what you started out by saying 'few would dispute', in your first sentence.

Between the two are a lot of suppositions that don't necessarily or logically support it. (ie: social & career suicide)
What would be accomplished by my SO exposing any skeleton's they may have. Some kind of perverse solidarity so we can sink or swim together? Both without jobs?


... for the sake of brevity.

Responsibility- We are responsible to ourselves alone. More than that is dictated by personal belief, integrity, ethic and circumstance. And no two people have the same circumstances.

Conversely, 'I am my brothers (sister's) keeper' and should do what is right. But again, what is right is dictated by personal belief and circumstance, of which no two are the same.

It is not someone else's responsibility to fight my battles. If they believe my cause is just, I would expect them to step up, but it's their decision. So no, SO's do not have a responsibility to strive for tg rights. They have a responsilility to be true to what they believe is right. I'm the one that put on the heels, so I'll walk in them. Others will follow and support because they believe in me. If my SO doesn't believe in me I've got bigger problems than gender acceptance.

So, I agree when you first said 'a cd should be honest early on' and I agree in your conclusion that 'CDs should be honest with their partners'. I don't agree with the logic connecting the two.


P.S. ... Do you realize you've written 3039 posts since you joined. That's amazing. That's like, 84 posts a month, or almost three posts a day, every day, seven days a week for three years. Incredible.

[AmandaM]

Of course theres a lot of things that make a circumstance not ideal
that many discuss here a lot already.. self-acceptance, the trust involved
in coming out early, the risk of being outted publicly, fear of burdening the
family etc. But I think it's worth considering the broader issue.
If we say a CD should come out to their partner early, despite the dangers
to the relationship, family, job, career etc...
Then shouldn't the CD also be honest to everyone? Shouldn't they be honest
to Parents, children, siblings, cousins, workmates and on to cover everyone?
Certainly some of these relationships are more important than others but shouldn't
CDs be honest in all of them?


No, I don't think we can say the CD'er should come out at all times.


Shouldn't SO's? Shouldn't they risk their families, their friendships,
their jobs even by being open about being in a rlationship with a CD (as well
as any skeletons in their own closets)? Essentially if a SO thinks a CD should
confess they are a CD despite the risk of others judgement should not the SO be
willing to eqaullly share that burden?

No, you link the first argument to this one. If a CD comes out, then that doesn't
necessarily require a GG to also. This is highly dependent on individual life
circumstances.



But this drives me to a far stronger conclusion than simply avoiding hypocracy.
If an SO thinks that CDs should come out early, do they not have a responsibility
to make it easier for all CDs to do so?

You have linked the second argument to the first to justify a perceived hypocrisy.
There is no justification, still. And an SO can only make it easier if they are
seeking out CD'ers as partners. Else, it's just an intellectual exercise.



So if an SO thinks CDs should be out to them from the outset don't they have a
responsibility for working towards transgender civil rights and social
acceptance? The very things that would protect their partners job but also make
it easier for future CDs to come out to their partners and at least make things
easier on the next generation?

No, even if SO's actively seek CD'ers, they do not have a responsibility to
forward any cause. You are linking this third argument to the first two trying
to create an ascending responsibility chain. Yet, there is no substance to your
attempt. You state only assumptive conclusions.



And then I consider the evidence that there is a genetic aspect to being
transsexual and that the scientists behind many of these discoveries think
this will be true for all forms of transgender. Which means that the children
of CDs will have a greater chance of being CD/TS...
So then don't SOs have a responsibility to strive for TG rights and acceptance
for their childrens or grandchildrens sakes?
This seems to me the consequences of concluding that CDs should be honest
with their partners. What do you think?

There is no substantive evidence that the children of CD's will become CD's.
Therefore, this fourth argument in your escalating responsibility chain is
also not valid. It is still all supposition. You did not logically link the
right of a GG to know her man is a CD to any of your latter arguments. This is
only an argumentative essay designed to force people to think. But, in your efforts,
it has backfired. Instead of thinking about this subject, all their thinking about
is that you are a boob. (pun intended, lol).

[TSchapes]

but I feel I need to say a few things. I certainly don't wish to argue these previous points that have been beaten to death.

First of all, I think we need to look back at any civil rights or human rights movement and recognize that not everyone who would benefit would be either in a) a position to be able to make a difference , nor b) have the courage to make a difference or c) even believe that the movement was right for them. For example, there are still women that believe that they should not have equal rights with men, and therefore would never stand up for women's rights. You are not going to get everyone on board to join in a crusade to help with transgender rights.

Second, there has to be a tipping point. That is, when more than just a few cross-dressers and their SO's are out fighting for understanding. This means cisgened people (like friends, neighbors and extended family) will have to be supportive. How does this happen? By those of us that can come out, to slowly and with some sort of decorum come out to those we can. Not by being in your face on Jerry Springer or arguing with some shock jock. I say be honest when you can, but certainly use some sense as to what you may be sacrificing when you do. Again, as in my first point, this is not for everyone.

Third, and I wish I could remember who said this, but "What if every person in the world that is LGBT were to suddenly turn green?" I think if this were to happen, honesty would not be a factor at all. So this is crux of both gender identity and sexual orientation conundrum. We are not automatically visible like it is for women and racial issues. We can hide.

So yes this is a conundrum, a puzzle, a problem having only a conjectural answer. It's a classic chicken and egg problem, what comes first acceptance or visibility?

I believe the only thing we can wish for is a cascading type process. One person will come out, which will allow another and another, and eventually, cisgened people that are our allies will out number those that are not. And CD's that haven't been convinced that TG rights are worth fighting for will be able to join in when they can.

:2c: Tracy :2c:

[battybattybats]

I'm not sure why you went to such lengths to confirm in your last setence what you started out by saying 'few would dispute', in your first sentence.

Because they are two different points. The first sentence says:
"I think few would dispute that in an ideal circumstance a CD should be honest about their CDing early on." And then sentences mention "a lot of things that make a circumstance not ideal". While the last sentence "the consequences of concluding that CDs should be honest with their partners"

The last sentence refers to people saying that a CD NEEDS TO be out to their partner no matter what and what that means for them too, that in expecting the CD to out themselves from the start at great risk doesnt that mean they have an obligation to be willing to take such risks themselves.

Does that explain it better?


What would be accomplished by my SO exposing any skeleton's they may have. Some kind of perverse solidarity so we can sink or swim together? Both without jobs?

Virtue. Lack of hypocracy. Integrity. But the IFs are crucial.


Responsibility- We are responsible to ourselves alone.

We aren't crocodiles. We are a social animal with each member gaining benefit from that, like a pack, a herd, a swarm, a flock. Not only does the UN decleration of human rights recognise this but so do the majority of philosophers throughout history. See: State of Nature and Social Contract Also Rawl's Veil of Ignorance.

What about responsibility to ones own underage children for example?

Consider, if a child is drowning before you and you can swim well and they cannot and you dont save them you killed them by will. By choice of inaction. How can someone make a choice and yet not be responsible for the predictable consequences of that choice?


P.S. ... Do you realize you've written 3039 posts since you joined. That's amazing. That's like, 84 posts a month, or almost three posts a day, every day, seven days a week for three years. Incredible.

Wow. I hadn't noticed.


If a CD comes out, then that doesn't
necessarily require a GG to also. This is highly dependent on individual life
circumstances.

Crucial difference. I'm referring to IF the GG thinks the CD MUST or SHOULD be out, not IF the CD merely decides to.


There is no substantive evidence that the children of CD's will become CD's.

There doesn't need to be, just the implication that there is or may be a greater chance which the finding of a TS correlate gene does all on it's own until dissproven. Besides even without a TG gene if TGs are 1% of the population they have a 1 in 100 chance each child of theirs will be TG even if by a non-TG father, if TG's are 10% a 1 in 10! The breast cancer gene increases the breast cancer risk by 10% iirc. So there is always a chance a child, grandchild, nephew, cousin etc will be TG.

[Sheila]

well i guess this means that the arguement over whether a GG being honest over her CDing partner and his CDing being the cause of the seperation (if they decide to split) mutes any of the old arguemnets about it being against his privacy:straightface::eek:

[battybattybats]

well i guess this means that the arguement over whether a GG being honest over her CDing partner and his CDing being the cause of the seperation (if they decide to split) mutes any of the old arguemnets about it being against his privacy:straightface::eek:

Nope.

As the concepts are, if correct:

IF a CD SHOULD be honest from the start with one relationship THEN unless there is a KEY difference (which some say there is!) the CD should come out to other relationships like parents, siblings and children etc.

That doesn't mean the GG gets to out them after a split.

And IF a GG thinks a CD SHOULD risk all relationships and livelihood by trusting the GG from the start with potentially damaging information THEN the GG SHOULD also be willing to suffer the same risk.

That doesn't mean they have to be out, only apply the same standards of risk to themselves that they demand from their partner.

And IF a GG thinks a CD SHOULD be open from the start AS ITP and ETP are the main if not only cause of their hiding THEN the GG SHOULD make it easier for other CDs to be open to other GGs from the start by fighting ITP by raising acceptance whatever way is appropriate and ETP by fighting discrimination like the risk of job-loss which helps their family and others too.

Just outting their partner especially after a split is not doing that really.

And AS any child could be TG AND there may be a genetic inheritable increased chance THEN fighting ITP and ETP is also protecting ones own children.

Again outting a CD partner after a split is not doing that much either.

But fighting for ENDA would be. It could protect Alimony payments, child support etc.

[Sheila]

now I am not surprised no way

[battybattybats]

Telling one's spouse is not the same as telling one's boss or one's neighbours. I have entered into a socially-recognised personal contract with my wife, an impersonal contract with my boss and no contract at all with my neighbours outside common law and friendship.

That the relationships are different is clear. But what is the operative difference that effects disclosure at which stage of intimacy? This is needed to know what relationships disclosure of being a CD is neccessary.

And remember we do consider some things, like STDs, require disclosure by law prior to engaging in sexual acts but outting someone elses medical history against their will is often considered both unethical AND a crime. So both an obligation to anothers privacy as well as an obligation to disclosure BOTH exist in ethics and law in certain circumstances.

Firstly on when one would someone be obliged to tell:

A first date?
Asking someone on a first date?
Before first sexual encounter with that person?
Before Marriage?

As for other relationship types:

Should close friends where there is a strong trust bond be told?
Ones parents?
Ones children?
Ones siblings?
A Boss if being outted could effect the business?


If not that, why? If not you, who?

Darn good questions.
I decided that I couldn't stand by and that if I wanted anyone else to do things then I should do them too so thats why I'm doing what I can, increasing in stages both my public outness and my civil-rights activity.

[Tamara Croft]

But fighting for ENDA would be. It could protect Alimony payments, child support etc.Why do you keep ramming ENDA down our throats? ENDA is a proposed U.S. federal law, and I'm not from the US, neither is Sheila, or did you miss that fact? And don't bother picking my post to pieces, a simple yes or no will do if you can manage that :rolleyes:

[Lorileah]

well i guess this means that the arguement over whether a GG being honest over her CDing partner and his CDing being the cause of the seperation (if they decide to split) mutes any of the old arguemnets about it being against his privacy:straightface::eek:

absolutely great point. If you is gonna be honest and out then you can't fault you ex for telling everyone. That is one reason that in our society we have to keep secrets. This will never be an ideal world. You can't walk up to someone and say "you're the ugliest thing in the world" put in parentheses (just being honest). Batty's conundrum points this out. Everyone has taken it as you HAVE to. When what Batty said (if I remember so long ago) is that if we expect honesty we should be honest and it won't happen in the real world. The conundrum as I see it is that CD's want total acceptance even in their closet except when it may hurt their feelings. So if you want public acceptance and you get outted by your SO (usually not due to CDing but from some other arrogant selfish thing(s) you have done), expect her to tell someone.

See the conundrum? Damned if you due, miserable if you don't. So I say we work on removing the stigma and then being outted as a CD is no worse than sitting around the house in your boxers and the true reason your wife is packing her bags becomes more evident to you. IT isn't the clothes usually, it is the BS you bring with it. Take that from a princess who knows the world revolves around her.

If it ain't black its white
if it ain't day it's night
if you ain't wrong you're right
gotta be this or that


If life was that easy

[battybattybats]

Why do you keep ramming ENDA down our throats? ENDA is a proposed U.S. federal law, and I'm not from the US, neither is Sheila, or did you miss that fact? And don't bother picking my post to pieces, a simple yes or no will do if you can manage that :rolleyes:

No.

I mention ENDA as an example.
In Australia that anti-discrimination laws vary from state to state and most don't cover CDs only TSs if any and that unfair dismissal laws only cover businesses with large numbers of employees anyway and antivillification laws don't even cover TS and that Australia has no federal charter of rights at all would be Australia examples.

Is the UK a haven of TG equality? Not going by http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108207 or http://birdofparadox.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/uk-trans-survey-on-domestic-violence/
Has it got all family issues covered?
But as these are general principals I'm discussing it doesn't matter, I'm not talking about anyone here's specific lives.

[Tamara Croft]

No.

I mention ENDA as an example.No you did not, or you would have said ENDA for example, you did not say that to Sheila, you said, and I quote: -

But fighting for ENDA would be. It could protect Alimony payments, child support etc.Where in that sentence does it say example?

And London is just one place, don't base the whole of the UK on some pride march. I live in Nottinghamshire, it is very TG friendly, so is Manchester, so is Birmingham... the list goes on... basing that one article on the whole of the UK is an extremely bad reference.

[AmandaM]

Geez Batty, do you "have to win" the arguments in this thread?

[Tamara Croft]

Geez Batty, do you "have to win" the arguments in this thread?Isn't that obvious? I asked for a simple yes or no, still didn't get what I asked for, had to add a load more waffle that still isn't relevant to the original post.

[Deborah Jane]

Isn't that obvious? I asked for a simple yes or no, still didn't get what I asked for, had to add a load more waffle that still isn't relevant to the original post.

I think the reason could be that Batty's a natural for the political arena!!

[Sarah...]

I asked for a simple yes or no, still didn't get what I asked for,

Oh, I don't know. Granted, Batty's response had many words, as is her style. But her response did nonetheless start with the single word sentence:

"No."

Equally, I may have been tempted to put "No." in one post and the rest in a second, supplementary post. :)

Sarah...

[Sheila]

Batty many many have responded here so where do you stand on the questions above ................. no ifs or buts or maybes ............... what is your stance on them?

1) DO you think a CD should come out to their partner early, despite the dangers to the relationship, family, job, career etc...

2) do you think the CD shopuld also be honest to everyone? Shouldn't they be honest to Parents, children, siblings, cousins, workmates and on to cover everyone? Certainly some of these relationships are more important than others but shouldn't CDs be honest in all of them?

3) do you think ... that if CDs should come out early, the SO's have a responsibility to make it easier for all CDs to do so? ..........


4)do you think SO's? Should risk their families, their friendships, their jobs even by being open about being in a rlationship with a CD (as well as any skeletons in their own closets)?

5) so Essentially ,if a SO thinks a CD should confess they are a CD despite the risk of others judgement should not the SO be willing to equally share that burden? ...... do you think this should be the case ?


6) so having given your answers to the above ..... do you believe ...SOs have a responsibility to strive for TG rights and acceptance for their childrens or grandchildrens sakes?

please number your answers in accordance with the questions for ease of refernce ..... thanks

[battybattybats]

No you did not, or you would have said ENDA for example, you did not say that to Sheila, you said, and I quote: -
Where in that sentence does it say example?

Are you suggesting I also have to use the word term before using any term as well as the word example before using any examples? I'm not sure Linguists would concur. But if you suggest I failed to make my use of an example clear then granted that seems to be the case and I'll try to be more obvious. If however you are saying I am a liar thats rather different.


And London is just one place, don't base the whole of the UK on some pride march. I live in Nottinghamshire, it is very TG friendly, so is Manchester, so is Birmingham... the list goes on... basing that one article on the whole of the UK is an extremely bad reference.

Sure, issues vary over geography, though part of the pride issues relate to police behaviour and the other link relates to the UK government. Btw do you have the local stats for TG employment rates? Perhaps we need to work out what TG-friendly places are doing right and un-friendly wrong to better fic the unfriendly places.


Batty many many have responded here so where do you stand on the questions above ................. no ifs or buts or maybes ............... what is your stance on them?

A fair question.


1) DO you think a CD should come out to their partner early, despite the dangers to the relationship, family, job, career etc...

As soon as they can, yes. As the SO should be able to give truly informed consent in the relationship. But ITP is far from easy to overcome and I think that needs to be acknowledged by us all and that has a resulting responsibility on the entire community both Cis and Trans to overcome, just as racism and sexism is everyones problem. And as ITP is so hard to overcome some CDs plain wont be able to come out to partners from the outset, or for many years. Even though I was I acknowledge others are in worse situations, especially because of the era many older CDs married in where the consequences of coming out and the level of acceptance were much worse, and when marriage was touted by some as a cure for homosexuality and the like.

As the overcoming Internalised Oppression article points out people aren't to blame for suffering from it.


2) do you think the CD shopuld also be honest to everyone? Shouldn't they be honest to Parents, children, siblings, cousins, workmates and on to cover everyone? Certainly some of these relationships are more important than others but shouldn't CDs be honest in all of them?

As they can. These relationships are delicate and it may take a long time to effectively come out to each without losing each relationship. Gradually working up to it and helping them adjust slowly is I think often the best way but of course each situation is unique. But transphobia is everyones problem, like racism and sexism. Besides I think everyone deserves to be able to be the real them and for others to have a chance to know the real them, a feelling expressed by most of my family and friends when I came out to them.


3) do you think ... that if CDs should come out early, the SO's have a responsibility to make it easier for all CDs to do so? ..........

I do think that ending transphobia is everyones responsibility, every CDs, every SOs, and everyone elses too. But that doesn't mean it's best fixed by mass outting.


4)do you think SO's? Should risk their families, their friendships, their jobs even by being open about being in a rlationship with a CD (as well as any skeletons in their own closets)?

Just as ideally a CD should be out to the SO from the outset I think a CD should be able to be out as a CD in society and not hide it nor be penalised for being so. And that an SO should ideally also be open about it and not penalised for that.

However because of the delicate relationships involved as well as risk with work etc and the consequences of transphobia that this too pragmatically is difficult, likely needing to be gradual, a likely neccessarily long-term goal. And so gradual work on TG acceptance of each relationship and related issues is likely the optimum way of making this possible rather than directly confrontingly coming out to everyone from the outset. However every out SO makes a big difference to increasing TG acceptance and overcoming the wrongs done to the society by transphobia.

Again circumstances vary case to case so this is generalised rather than universal. Each is a unique circumstance and a matter of balancing predictions of consequences of each possible action and inaction each with it's own responibilities.


5) so Essentially ,if a SO thinks a CD should confess they are a CD despite the risk of others judgement should not the SO be willing to equally share that burden? ...... do you think this should be the case ?

IF they demand the CD should have been open (an argument of extreme idealism of honesty and virtue that also either ignores (or is held in ignorance of, to be fair) the existence of ITP or assumes every CD must be capable of overcoming it) then It seems thus far to me they'd be hypocrits if they are not equally willing to take those risks and be equally as extremely and idealisticly virtuous as they demand others be (noting that pretty much everyone, myself included, is guilty of hypocracy sometimes, that it is a common human behaviour that can be difficult to be self-aware of and hard to overcome). However even if they are willing that doesn't mean they have to do so, but that if for example the CD wants to leave the house dressed or go to meetings or do anything else where outting is possible, including choosing to come out to members of the CDs family or the CDs friends then it seems to me the GG cannot allow her fear of such risks to permit her to demand the CD stay hidden or they'd be being hypocritical (again acknowledging hypocracy is common and difficult to avoid or overcome). However this is not yet a firm conclusion.


6) so having given your answers to the above ..... do you believe ...SOs have a responsibility to strive for TG rights and acceptance for their childrens or grandchildrens sakes?

Yes. But not just them. As I think everyone has a responsibility towards everyones equal rights I think that this is true of everybody for all human/civil-rights issues. That anyone unwilling to undo inequality is cheating the principle of equality and therfore do not deserve the rights and privileges they get from society that are not shared equally. So I think this responsibility extends not just to SO's but to everyone. And for far more than just TG issues.

Again I keep thinking back to the hopothetical dilemma of a drowning child. Once that child is seen anyone who can swim who does not try to rescue them is choosing to let the child die, they are committing murder by inaction. So too then do I think everyone is responsible for ending transphobia with it's resultant harms to CDs and their loved-ones once they are made aware of it's existence. Otherwise they become responsible for that harm by choosing to let it keep occuring.


please number your answers in accordance with the questions for ease of refernce ..... thanks

I hope the question by question answers will suffice?

And I'm still pondering these conclusions, like every idea I re-evaluate it and re-assess it when new ideas, argumemnts or data becomes available.

[MissConstrued]

Firstly on when one would someone be obliged to tell:

A first date?
Asking someone on a first date?
Before first sexual encounter with that person?
Before Marriage?

At no point is anyone obliged to tell anything they don't wish to. Wisdom dictates that one's future spouse should know, however, though I deem it simpler to show rather than tell. In other words, I don't come right out and say it, but I don't hide it either. Show a hint here and there (nail polish, wear panties, etc... lol) and women will clue in. But making a "confession" of it gives the wrong impression.





Should close friends where there is a strong trust bond be told?
Ones parents?
Ones children?
Ones siblings?
A Boss if being outted could effect the business?


No, to all of them. Again, this is personal choice, and depends on one's situation. If, say, my brother asked me, I'd tell him the truth, but as he lives 2000 miles from me, it's just not necessary. What would be the point?

All kinds of people have all kinds of secrets. Maybe that guy you watch football with puts on a dog collar when he gets home to his cat-o-nine-tails wielding wife. Or your co-worker, sitting across your desk, who likes donkey porn. Maybe your sister likes to live out her fantasy of having 9 guys in bed at once. Maybe your cousin likes her husband to pee on her. Would you beat them up with many words until they tell the world of their kinks?


Bosses... absolutely not. What an employee does on his own time is none of his employer's business. Period. Drug testing that is not specific to whether the employee is under the influence only during work hours is already crossing the line.

I haven't even bothered to look into this ENDA thing you're on about, but I suspect it's yet another pile of legalistic excrement designed to further tie the hands of employers in the name of some more of your imaginary "rights." No one has a right to a job. One's employment exists at the whim of the employer -- and even when I'm an employee, I'm okay with that. Keeps me on my toes, working hard, and doing a good job.

And I've found something startling: as long as I work hard and do a good job, the boss doesn't care if I dress up like Little Bo Peep, smoke weed, and rape squirrels on weekends.

And if... big if... I ever ended up working for someone who had a problem with something I did on my own time, I wouldn't wait around to get fired. I'd quit, and go to work for someone who wasn't an asshole.

Boiled down, and simply put: if, for any reason, you need your job protected by law, you're f***ing incompetent, and should just get a federal job, where incompetence is the status quo.

[battybattybats]

At no point is anyone obliged to tell anything they don't wish to. Wisdom dictates that one's future spouse should know, however, though I deem it simpler to show rather than tell. In other words, I don't come right out and say it, but I don't hide it either. Show a hint here and there (nail polish, wear panties, etc... lol) and women will clue in. But making a "confession" of it gives the wrong impression.

What about say someone with an STD being obliged to tell a sexual partner before having sex that they are say, HIV+? Thats the law in many places.


Bosses... absolutely not. What an employee does on his own time is none of his employer's business. Period. Drug testing that is not specific to whether the employee is under the influence only during work hours is already crossing the line.

And yet some bosses do fire people for 'bringing the firm into disrepute' or the like.


I haven't even bothered to look into this ENDA thing you're on about, but I suspect it's yet another pile of legalistic excrement designed to further tie the hands of employers in the name of some more of your imaginary "rights."

It merely says you cant fire people for being a CD or gay etc. Those laws already exist for race and religion etc, this merely covers us as equal to christians and jews.


Boiled down, and simply put: if, for any reason, you need your job protected by law, you're f***ing incompetent, and should just get a federal job, where incompetence is the status quo.

You think Diane Schroer wasn't the most qualified person for the job and was somehow incompetant?

[Satrana]

But aren't there reasons a person has a disclosure obligation? Like having an STD needing to be disclosed before sex? If CDing had an actual negative consequence then yes there is an obligation. But what is getting hurt when a person reveals they are a CD? Just the other person's prejudices and perceptions. That is their responsibility not yours. So a better analogy would be someone with an incommunicable disease - should they tell? knowing that the most likely reaction from the other person is irrational disgust and fear.



But doesn't the gene found suggest that there is need to make the world more TG friendly for the sake of children and childrens children? Doesn't it make overcoming transphobia part of protecting our own familes (mine too, I still have cousins!) You are making a logical argument without regard to human behavior. Taking care of yourself and your immediate family will always take precedence over changing society unless society is particularly threatening - ie a ruthless dictatorship. There are many needs in this world - there a 1 billion people starving as we speak. If you apply logic then tackling transphobia is hardly a priority when there are so many more fundamental issues that need to be tackled head-on.



If you are planning to spend the rest of your life with someone, then surely she has the right to expect total honesty from you regarding something like crossdressing, which could affect whether or not she would want to spend her life with you!!
But that is part of the honesty conundrum - the fact that your clothes choice could make your SO walk away from an otherwise healthy and loving relationship. This should NOT be a subject that is raised to the level of being a relationship breaker -it should be more like your SO knowing that you are a stamp collector. No big deal. However if you are TG to the point of going full time, or going public, or if you have a femme alter ego where you become a different person then these are substantive grounds for telling all.

[MissConstrued]

Batty, I'm amazed! Such a short response! Hooray for brevity!



What about say someone with an STD being obliged to tell a sexual partner before having sex that they are say, HIV+? Thats the law in many places.

Completely off-the-wall irrelevant. Cross-dressing is not a disease. It's a hobby. Like paintball. Lots of hobbies men do take time and money, and lead others to think they're weird. Like golf.




You think Diane Schroer wasn't the most qualified person for the job and was somehow incompetant?

Who? And DILLIGAF?

There is no "most qualified" for a job. There's always someone out there who can do it better. Life sucks, get a new job, get over it.

Want to take a stab at how many jobs I've quit, and how many I've been fired from? I have no sympathy.

It's all very quixotic of you to want to protect the very few people such laws might affect. But the end result is discrimination lawsuits for firing an incompetent worker who just happens to be a member of a special protected minority. Companies either get stuck with dunderheads, or lose money, and lawyers get rich. (Ever ask yourself why the bar associations are always behind new laws like this? Duh!) The bad far outweighs the good.

And one of these days, if you're lucky, you'll bump your noggin and all that Marxist twaddle will fall out.

[Satrana]

But the end result is discrimination lawsuits for firing an incompetent worker who just happens to be a member of a special protected minority. Companies either get stuck with dunderheads, or lose money, and lawyers get rich.

Except that it does not work that way. The private sector always finds ways to dodge the law. They simply announce a company restructuring, the position is no longer required etc. Companies DO NOT get stuck with unwanted individuals, some get sued by being incompetent about how they got rid of unwanted people.

I support these types of laws despite knowing that they do little direct good. The reason I do is laws are powerful tools for social engineering. They inform society in the most direct way what is acceptable and what is not. And although people may hate certain laws when introduced and successfully bypass them, future generations do not. So a law introduced today protecting CDs from discrimination will create a society 20 years from now where such discrimination will be considered immoral and unacceptable.

[battybattybats]

If CDing had an actual negative consequence then yes there is an obligation. But what is getting hurt when a person reveals they are a CD? Just the other person's prejudices and perceptions. That is their responsibility not yours. So a better analogy would be someone with an incommunicable disease - should they tell? knowing that the most likely reaction from the other person is irrational disgust and fear.

As someone with an incomunicable but disabling illness.. that too has an impact on relationships. If back when my illness was mild I kept it hidden only to have it get bad, or if in remission it returned impacting livelihood etc Shouldn't a dating partner have a right to know the predicatble or more likely future possibilities good and bad?


You are making a logical argument without regard to human behavior. Taking care of yourself and your immediate family will always take precedence over changing society unless society is particularly threatening - ie a ruthless dictatorship.

Then Women and African Americans and Aboriginals were wrong and shouldn't have risked their imediate families for the future of their group? As thats's what many of each group did resulting in the better situation for their descendants now. The very possibility of orphaning children, so much more severe than what we're talking about, was discussed by suffragettes who went on hunger strikes when in prison to get women fair treatment and the vote!


There are many needs in this world - there a 1 billion people starving as we speak. If you apply logic then tackling transphobia is hardly a priority when there are so many more fundamental issues that need to be tackled head-on.

As one of the most discriminated groups in the entire world, maybe even the most I'm not sure what civil-rights issue is remotely it's equal. The murder rate of African American Transwomen by official population figures is comparable to genocide. It is almost literally decimation in the roman meaning of the word! What other group of people's leading cause of death is murder?


Completely off-the-wall irrelevant. Cross-dressing is not a disease. It's a hobby. Like paintball. Lots of hobbies men do take time and money, and lead others to think they're weird. Like golf.

Last i checked scientists didn't think there a likely genetic predisposition to paintball or golf. But they do the whole TG spectrum and have evidence thus far for neurological differences in TSs even no-op no-hormones and a gene more common amongst TSs. With more studies expected to find more biological causation.

And if it's an inheritable characteristic, even a recessive one like eye colour that may take 3 or 4 generations to resurface isn't that important to disclose?


Who?

Look her up maybe? It's not like google won't bring up plenty of articles on her court case or vids of her testimony before legilative bodies.


And DILLIGAF?

It's pertinent to the point isn't it?

Regarding your opinions on jobs. You've got a testable hypothesis.

Your notion, that being TG is irellevant, that only bad workers get the sack etc would suggest that out TG peoples joblessness rate should be proportionally equal to non-TG peoples joblessness rate yes?

While if it is not then that would mean their status as TGs did effect their employment sucess and prospects yes?

So check those figures and lets see if that test disproves your hypothesis? Basic scientific method :)

[VeronicaMoonlit]

though I deem it simpler to show rather than tell. In other words, I don't come right out and say it, but I don't hide it either. Show a hint here and there (nail polish, wear panties, etc... lol) and women will clue in.

For most part-timers who don't do that sort of thing, telling is easier. It also insures there the clued in person knows the situation of the teller and not getting the wrong impression. For example assuming the shower is a drag queen, or assuming the shower is a CD when she's a TS in the early stages.



But making a "confession" of it gives the wrong impression.

I think that would depend on how you tell.


What an employee does on his own time is none of his employer's business. Period.

Tell that to Peter Oiler.



I haven't even bothered to look into this ENDA thing you're on about, but I suspect it's yet another pile of legalistic excrement designed to further tie the hands of employers in the name of some more of your imaginary "rights."

ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, is designed to stop the kind of thing that happened to Peter Oiler and others over the years, from happening to other people.



No one has a right to a job. One's employment exists at the whim of the employer -- and even when I'm an employee, I'm okay with that.

To some of us, we think employers should treat employees as assets, not liabilities to be tossed away at a whim.


And I've found something startling: as long as I work hard and do a good job, the boss doesn't care if I dress up like Little Bo Peep, smoke weed, and rape squirrels on weekends.

Peter Oiler found out different.


I ever ended up working for someone who had a problem with something I did on my own time, I wouldn't wait around to get fired. I'd quit, and go to work for someone who wasn't an asshole.

Some people aren't self described misfit singletons who have trouble fitting in and have families and children and are reluctant to quit their jobs since getting a new one can be difficult even in good economic times.



Boiled down, and simply put: if, for any reason, you need your job protected by law, you're f***ing incompetent,

Peter Oiler, and the rest of us too. You don't believe that employers should be allowed to fire us for being TG without repercussion?


Cross-dressing is not a disease. It's a hobby. Like paintball. Lots of hobbies men do take time and money, and lead others to think they're weird. Like golf.

It may be a hobby to you, which may explain your words in this thread, but it isn't to a lot of us, it's who we are. Some of us are TS as well.


Want to take a stab at how many jobs I've quit, and how many I've been fired from? I have no sympathy.

As you have said, you're a self described misfit who has trouble fitting in and getting along. Most of us aren't like you, so we can't live like you. Also some places aren't so misfit-friendly, if you were noted as getting fired/quitting a lot, you might have trouble finding any job at all.


But the end result is discrimination lawsuits for firing an incompetent worker who just happens to be a member of a special protected minority. The bad far outweighs the good.

But ENDA would protect you, as well, and plenty of other competent folks, who vastly outnumber the incompetent so how does the bad outweigh the good? Do you want to get fired for being a crossdresser?


And one of these days, if you're lucky, you'll bump your noggin and all that Marxist twaddle will fall out.

Batty is a Marxist? While she is socially progressive, as I am, I don't recall reading anything on how she views economic matters. Being socially progressive doesn't equal being Marxist. I did not care for red-baiting in the past. You remember the 80's, when some assholes called progressives "pinko commie liberals" and whatnot.

I could also say, "If you're lucky, you'll bump your noggin and all that Libertarian/Rocky Mountain individualist twaddle will fall out." :-)

Veronica
Rondelle (Ron) Rogers Jr.

[Lorileah]

What about say someone with an STD being obliged to tell a sexual partner before having sex that they are say, HIV+? Thats the law in many places.



Sorry Batty but no one dies of dating or marrying a CD and you cannot pass this on via personal contact. It would be more a comparison to say having a seizure disorder r Tourrete's.. It would be nice to know when you are driving 90 MPH down the highway when your partner starts seizing or calling you a "mother......"




Cross-dressing is not a disease. It's a hobby. Like paintball. Lots of hobbies men do take time and money, and lead others to think they're weird. Like golf.



Dang now I am in TWO categories that make me weird. What's next Karaoke?

[Tamara Croft]

Are you suggesting I also have to use the word term before using any term as well as the word example before using any examples? I'm not sure Linguists would concur. But if you suggest I failed to make my use of an example clear then granted that seems to be the case and I'll try to be more obvious. If however you are saying I am a liar thats rather different.What part of my post did you fail to understand? I said, you did not say 'for example' it's quite clear. I never used the word 'liar', I never implied you were a 'liar', I simply stated a word you failed to use, therefore, your post was not clear. You really do have to make something out of nothing don't you, just to argue. And you really are taking your own thread off topic, talking about std's now and some african women... like seriously?? why?? they are completely irrelevant to your original post, which was asking SO's what part they are taking to bring their CD partners out... Don't bother replying to this post, this time I am done with this thread, it's just too :blah: :blah: :blah: You're giving my IQ a headache :\

[battybattybats]

Sorry Batty but no one dies of dating or marrying a CD and you cannot pass this on via personal contact. It would be more a comparison to say having a seizure disorder r Tourrete's.. It would be nice to know when you are driving 90 MPH down the highway when your partner starts seizing or calling you a "mother......"

I actually made that statement to show this one was not correct:


At no point is anyone obliged to tell anything they don't wish to.

By pointing out that under law and by many moral and ethical arguments both an obligatiion to disclose some information can exist at some times buat also where I pointed out that releasing peoples private medical information was also usually illegal and considered unethical that an obligation to respect others privacy was often seen to exist.

I do agree that CDing is not intrinsicly harmful in and of itself and so is not comparable to having an STD. I was merely pointing out that a discloure obligation can exist.. how far and to what that extends and if it covers CDing is seperate from that.

As for the relevance of my mentioning 'some african women' Tamara raised, I was referring to the extraordinarily high rate of African American Transwomen being murdered http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97576

[MissConstrued]

Being socially progressive doesn't equal being Marxist.


"Progressive" is a euphemism for Marxist. It's "progressives" who want gun control. It's "progressives" who want more federal control over the States. It's "progressives" who have been raising my taxes. It's "progressives" who want to tell everyone else how to live. Doesn't sound very liberal to me. Sounds kinda red, really.

Everything "progressives" want involves the implementation of more laws and higher taxation, which are directly contrary to freedom. And anything that impinges on freedom is directly contrary to my way of life in what is supposed to be a free country.

You see, I believe people should be free, which involves large amounts of personal responsibility. (Responsibility? Perish the thought! :eek::brolleyes:) I believe we had something good, once, when we lived by that Constitution, and when we understood the Bill of Rights. I've read the Founders -- Federalists, Anti-Federalists, and all -- and I get it. And I'll savagely fight, tooth and nail, anyone who wants to take that from me. I'll fight until I'm the last one left who wants to be free, and go down fighting.

[Berinthia]

Shay's Rebellion. "there are rules for everything and exceptions for every rule"

Honesty.
Not needed.
Check your marriage CONTRACT. It's alot like your job CONTRACT. A handshake and a promise don't cut it, you sign your name.
I really can't see Batty's or MissConstrued's Significant Others being too shocked to find out they dig on chick's clothes.
If you swear to your Priest that you are going to abide by all the Laws of the Church, make sure you're not biting off more than you can chew.
I'd say most crossdressers do it 'cause they get off on it.
If you played with dolls as a kid and peed sitting down, a dress is not a cure, a dress won't make your life easier. Honestly, your life is going to be difficult.

If you value something, protect it.

[Sharon]

If we don't get back to replying to the original notion of this thread, and stop meandering into irrelevant topics or continually(!!) challenging another member's opinions, this thread will be shut down.

[Lorileah]

I actually made that statement to show this one was not correct:



Sorry Batty, my bad if I misinterpreted :) (should wear the bloody red wig when reading these posts)

[Sheila]

If you value something, protect it.

now I see Truth as protecting my relationship ............ lies as destroying it if they are discovered .............. but I do not believe that we neccasarily have an obligation to be honest with others about what goes on in our relationship and makes them work for us, nor do I see a need for an SO to be honest about her partners TGism to all and sundry ........ just my :2c:

[denise413]

I may not agree (or have time to read) all that Batty says, but after reading something like this quoted above, I definitely would give her my sympathy. I have been on multiple discussion boards on several different topics and I have also moderated some as well. The whole point of a "discussion board" is discussion. If there's something I don't want to read, I don't read it. If there is a person I don't like, I put them on my ignore list. Maybe Batty goes on and on a bit but I have yet to see her make a post stooping to this level.

Anyway, to answer the actual topic, I would say that the more exposure the better. True acceptance of a TG in your life means you also have to come out of the closet (at least at some point). True acceptance doesn't mean "I accept you being trans but don't tell the family or my children or my co-workers or my [whoever]." Keeping something a secret can work in the short-term but it rarely works in the long term. I do believe that true support does obligate the supporter to also accept the right for the TG to tell whoever else they want to. There is a famous quote that went something like "It is better to stand up for what is right than what is popular." I believe there are more important things in life than simply being comfortable. Not having to deal with societal unacceptance by acknowledging a close person to you who is trans may make your life "comfortable" but it is not doing the right thing. A person has the right to be who they are. Children also have the right to be raised in a way that teaches them to learn about differences among people and accept the right for people to be who they are. It is a parent's job to expose their children to different things so that they are properly educated when the real world hits. Hiding someone from something whether it is a kid or adult for fear of unacceptance is not acceptance, period. It is a test of character and ultimately a test on whether or not one is merited to be a honorable leader or a blind follower.

[Sharon]

Ding ding ding ding!! This one did it. This thread be dead. :Angry3: