The Honesty Conundrum

[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.

[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.

[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

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

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

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.


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.: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.

[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, [SIZE="2"]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.[/SIZE]

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, [SIZE="2"]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.[/SIZE]

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/2n...tationQuestion

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=LA CINDY LOVE;1745427]

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:

[SIZE="3"]"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."[/SIZE]

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.

[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.