The Honesty Conundrum

[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!

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.