If honesty with ones spouse is as important as many here claim it is (and I'm saying this as an idealist who is a lot more honest than most people according to psychologists I know) then I'd like the 1 in 3 SO's here who cheat on their partners to fess up. Cause about 1 in 3 of men and women cheat on their spouse and I've heard of no reason why the wives of CDs would be dissproportinate in that. Same with the CDs. And I'm pretty sure the stat is way higher for those who have concealed much of their past sexual activity though I don't recal it offhand.Originally Posted by trisha59
Cool.
And yet it is so utterly important that everyone respect this boundary. When it comes to shared resources, shared possessions then each must have a say. Over a persons own body? We should be outraged that anyone ever think they have a say in that decision! Make suggestions, say 'if it were me' etc is fine but to be upset not to be part of the final decision is to disrespect the partner at the most fundamental level possible!"Need to involve in the making of the choice". No, absolutely not and yet if we don't then we have no reason to cry about it when our SO is unhappy about being cut out of the decision-making process. While the choice is ultimately that of the individual, to say it doesn't affect anyone and their opinions and needs can be ignored seems.....odd.
Sure others are effected by a persons choice for themselves, but it is not a fair nor valid thing for us to extend ourselves over anothers boundaries. It'd be like being upset with the colour a neighbour painted their bedroom interior walls in.
Its natural for us to have emotional reactions to others choices and preferances for others decisions for themselves but it can never be valid for us to have a say over them!
Each though is seperate in it's field. Discussions involve exploring an issue often broadly and asking for opinions means to literally seek to consider their personal view and both may be considered but both may also be rejected. A say in the actual decision however is different."Discuss with". Again, this really seems to be the same point as the one above .
"Ask the opinions of" is again sort of the same point so let's group it with the above two points.
I've already said it is the wisest course of action under most circumstances, but that is different from a moral obligation. Explain the principle of the WHY you think it is a moral obligation please."Allow the other to have a say in the decison To have a veto". I'll say again that I think that ultimately it's the choice of the individual to make but if they have an SO e.g. a wife, then they have a moral obligation to discuss such a fundamentally life/relationship changing event.
Oh very much absolutely! That is definately the case!The SO may not be able to exercise some form of veto but they can make an informed decision as to whether they choose to remain in the relationship.
Unreasonable behaviour? I had no idea your divorce laws were still full of such injustice and archaic nonsense! Either partner should be free to leave at a moments notice from a marriage for any reason whatsoever. Personal assets should remain such, shared assets split equally. Custody based on purely the best interests of the child. Only if one side has been economically or otherwise abusive of the other should such things become involved. The kind of punatative system you describe is itself a great injustice.Apart from anything, consider what has apparently happened here. There is now a divorce in the offing. Under these circumstances, the TG will be eaten alive by the SO's lawyers on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour and everything will end up in the SO's hands.
Indeed. that makes it wise. But wise is seperate from ethical or moral. We can judge someone as bad for being unethical, but being unwise is merely worthy of pity not scorn.If there had been discussion and honesty, the whole separation might have been far more amicable and less destructive and possibly even avoided entirely.
Require again is different from it being wise to take up an option. If the wife suggests that is a better way to do it and the husband agrees that is good. If the husband can only transition with the wives pernission following negotiation that is abuse. The difference is important. And a TS may not be able to wait if the GID crisis is severer and current."To require negotiation about". Actually what if the SO had said she would support the transition but asked if it could wait for six months until little Johnny was past his exams and so wouldn't have the extra strain of dealing with the events. Would that not be a justifiable type of negotiation? That's one example, I can think of several.
You are making an error by suggesting that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the severity of its impact. Its still right or wrong just more impactfully right or wrong. Stealing a single bisuit is still stealling. It's stealling less than a billion dollers and so has less impact but it is still stealing and both can be compared as different degrees of the same crime.So let me repeat. While it is the right of the individual to make any final decision, if the making of such a decision will affect the lives of others to such an extent (comparing it to a haircut is ludicrous, sorry) then there is a moral obligation to keep all affected parties in the loop at all times.
All decisions effect others. But we are only bound to respect the effects on others rights, not neccessarily their emotions. Otherwise we should never have let women be the equals of men under law because that upset the emotions of some men! Justice, fairness and Right itself requires that this be so! Sometimes it is right to act within ones rights no matter how much emotional upset it causes but would be wrong to restrict ones actions within ones rights because of those emotions. As every civil rights cause has proven as every one has upset people.
Puting yourself in the shoes of others can only work so far as not everyone has the same size and shape feet.I try to look at situations and imagine myself in them. I imagine myself taking action like this and then imagine how my GF would feel and act. As much as I try to see both sides of an event no matter what it is, in this case I know that she'd be absolutely gutted that I'd kept her out of the loop, she'd realise that the relationship existed in name only and she'd quite rightly decide to cut me out of her life as is her right and frankly I wouldn't blame her.
You are making presumptions of intent. Thats very dangerous when evaluating anothers thoughts and actions. It's simplistic and ignores psychological issues which effect decision making and thinking.The person in question, IMHO and admittedly only based on the few facts we have, has shown nothing but utter disdain for the SO and their marriage and deserves the coming repercussions.
Do you have any idea how few decisions humans make like that? Not only are you assuming they considered pros and cons rather than acting on instinct or inner drive but your also assuming they had the capacity to rationally evaluate them clearly free of any other influnces (like a gender identity disorder crisis! GID being after all the reason people usually get SRS is it not?)They obviously weighed up the pros and cons of their decision and made their choice accordingly.
Forgot? Maybe.I respect their individual freedoms to do so but I think they forgot that any decision they make has an outcome;
Made bad assumptions possibly, perhaps based on prior paterns of behaviour, such as the SO might leave or prevent her from getting the surgery if she revealed it in advance but might accept it if it had already been done which while we are assured the opposite would be the case may be an understable fear... I'm reminded of a friend who was afraid to go anywhere at all alone even in broad daylight, she'd been raped on no less than 7 different occassions in her teens so her fear is quite understandable. The pattern of her life thus far has given her unconcious an unrealistic view of the odds of being assaulted.
There are many possible motivations for the TSs actions. If my friend is scared to be with a single male friend in the mall in case he has to go to the toilet leaving her alone where she may be raped waiting for him in public we may easilly say that it is an irational fear as the chances she will be raped in a busy shopping mall in daylight is extraordinarily low, but given her past experiences surely anyone can understand why she may have this irrational fear and therfore act based on that fear regarding the circumstances she goes into town in?
And if a spouse insists on overiding the bodily autonomy of their partner with an insistance of having a say over the final decision should we not expect that the ending of such a marriage may be possible?in this case the outcome was the loss of their marriage.
No, we cannot make that assumption! Nor can we assume that it was wrong for them to take such a risk by going ahead anyway!We can only assume they realised that possibility beforehand and decided to go ahead anyway and that speaks volumes.
Example: confessing to being a CD may also risk the loss of a marriage. Should then a closeted Cd only just becoming able to admit to themselves that they are a CD then hide it perpetually from their wife because of te possible loss of the marriage??? Your argument says YES!
I'm reminded of the philosophy/psychology thought-experiment on intent where if a CEO says that they will go ahead with a project because they dont care about the environment and are only there to make profit even though it may harm the environment most people say that he intentionally hurt the environment whereas if its a project which will help the environment but he says hes doing it only to make money etc they day he is unintentionally helping the environment. Both are exactly the same! But most people hold a double-standard based on perceptions of the consequences!
That is indeed possible.If anything, my suspicion is that this was done to force the situation into a position where it had to be dealt with one way or another rather than linger as a possibility :2c:
