The Honesty Conundrum

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battybattybats

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battybattybats

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MissConstrued

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battybattybats

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deborah Jane

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.

Batty, I'm amazed! Such a short response! Hooray for brevity!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battybattybats

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battybattybats

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MissConstrued

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satrana

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?

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MissConstrued

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MissConstrued

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.

Quote:

---

But making a "confession" of it gives the wrong impression.

---

I think that would depend on how you tell.

Quote:

---

What an employee does on his own time is none of his employer's business. Period.

---

Tell that to Peter Oiler.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MissConstrued

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battybattybats

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......"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MissConstrued

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBB

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 :\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorileah

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MissConstrued

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/...ad.php?t=97576

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VeronicaMoonlit

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battybattybats

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berinthia

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:

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.

Ding ding ding ding!! This one did it. This thread be dead. :Angry3: