Here's a left-field question: to what extent do people have a right to know each other's genders and preferences?
If you want me to refer to you in a gendered way, you need to tell me which set of words to use. Or people often guess based on name and/or presentation.
If I am attracted to you and interested in forming some kind of intimate personal relationship with you, then discovering those kinds of things about each other sounds like part of the "are we compatible" coupley negotiation.
One could certainly ask questions about, for example, if you were a feminine-presenting trans woman, is there a point where you have an obligation to inform a partner or potential partner that you are trans, but one must acknowledge in this context that a significant number of trans women have been beaten up and killed by some man who was upset to discover that they were trans.
I don't think any of those fall under other people having a right to know, but under the category of being free to choose what you tell others (with consequences such as potentially being accidentally misgendered if you make the decision to not make your preferences for pronouns known). I can't think of any time when anyone has the moral right to know something the person concerned prefers not to let others know.
I don't think any of those fall under other people having a right to know, but under the category of being free to choose what you tell others (with consequences such as potentially being accidentally misgendered if you make the decision to not make your preferences for pronouns known).
Fair enough. I decided at some point that I was happy to answer to either “he” or “they”, which simplifies things.
The one time “he/him” has appeared next to my name on a form (someone else filled out the form and made an assumption), two different people independently accidentally called me “Ms. Marsupial”. I am sure there is a lesson there somewhere…
@Leorning Cniht what exactly do you mean by "feminine-presenting" though? A butch lesbian trans woman isn't feminine presenting but is likely to still look like a woman. I don't mean this as a "gotcha", but to point out that people seem to use "feminine-presenting" to mean "looks like a cishet woman" specifically rather than "looks like a woman". In my experience, a butch lesbian trans woman isn't less likely to have a vagina than any other trans woman for eg.
Lots of cis people have things about their bodies that they might need to disclose to someone they're going to have sex with, but that doesn't mean it needs to be brought up before you're about to have sex - it means you might have to have sex in a different way, but I don't think anyone would expect eg a cis woman with vaginismus to have to bring it up on a date.
When it's come up in conversations with my trans friends, they have all said they choose to tell prospective partners before getting too intimate and in public because waiting is more dangerous for them in terms of either embarrassment or violence.
That said imagine you have a injury or disability that doesn't obviously show. For instance, you have a giant burn scar all over your stomach. It was from a while ago in a traumatic fire but you escaped and it doesn't hurt anymore (except in memories) but it's considered very ugly. You probably don't wear crop-tops regardless of your gender. Does this you have an obligation to "warn" people before sex? Might tactically want to, but I would say that no you don't morally have to. It's your body and you shouldn't have to tell people about your private traumatic history.
I imagine you see where I am going with that analogy.
I don't see why a burn scar might be a moral decision. I actually have a big scar on my thigh, it never occurred to me to tell someone. If they don't like it, they can sod off. Does this connect with gender, I guess in terms of appearance, but this tangles with the knotty issues of identity, appearance, psychology, etc.
I don't see why a burn scar might be a moral decision. I actually have a big scar on my thigh, it never occurred to me to tell someone. If they don't like it, they can sod off. Does this connect with gender, I guess in terms of appearance, but this tangles with the knotty issues of identity, appearance, psychology, etc.
A big enough scar could certainly be a turnoff to some people but yes people who object can sod off. I think that summarizes my opinions on both issues.
Speaking as someone with a massive abdominal scar, I'd probably tell them - because I wouldn't want to be half naked with someone who then goes "er yuck" - for my own sake rather than theirs.
Lots of cis people have things about their bodies that they might need to disclose to someone they're going to have sex with, but that doesn't mean it needs to be brought up before you're about to have sex - it means you might have to have sex in a different way, but I don't think anyone would expect eg a cis woman with vaginismus to have to bring it up on a date.
I think that, for example, if I knew I was infertile, I would have an obligation to disclose that to a woman I was dating fairly early in the proto-relationship, because I owe her the opportunity to back out before she gets too deeply involved. The same would apply, I think, if I knew that I had made the choice that I didn't want to ever have children.
If I was a gay man, my fertility would be less of an issue, and I suppose if I was just in the market for casual sex, it wouldn't matter at all.
I suppose the question here is whether you thing being trans is just "a thing about your body" of the same order as a scar or something more fundamental.
I mean the context suggested (to me at least) that the issue was about sex rather than long-term compatibility, in which case it seemed fairly logical to equate it to eg vaginismus. I would assume that the subject of transition would just come up pretty naturally in something that was going to be more long-term, but certainly I don't know any trans person that wouldn't make it obvious that they're trans on a dating app for eg.
I'm not sure that's something you (general you) can really make a pronouncement on wrt being a gay man and fertility being less important. I think a lot of this stuff is just about how individuals feel and can't really be guessed like that.
Summary: It soon became apparent that Baroness Falkner thinks Baroness Falkner and the EHRC is doing a good job, regardless of what a lot of trans people (or the select committee) think. After the opening remarks, the initial question and answer ran thus:
Sarah Owen (Chair): It is fair to say that the EHRC faces greater challenges, increasing workload with diminishing resources - only 7 out of the up to 15 commissioners positions are in place - against a backdrop of news reports and statements that have damaged the reputation and public trust in the organisation. In your final few months, what are you plans to improve the situation?
Baroness Falkner: I don't think I could agree with your characterisation of the EHRC, and I hope that as time goes on in the next two hours I will be able to disprove those sentiments with hard facts. But we don't agree with that characterisation; I think it is fair to say that being chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission ... is one of the toughest jobs in British public life.
When Sarah Owen pointed out that she hadn't answered the question, and asked again whether the EHRC were going to do anything to improve the situation, Baroness Falkner replied by saying that the EHRC conducts surveys of public opinion, and that their approval rating had gone from 35% in her first year of service to 81% (currently). She said that she had a whole lot of other figures that she would share, and then repeated that she didn't recognise the characterisation of the question.
I've no idea how their survey was conducted, but if your remit includes protecting minorities, I wonder if it's that straightforward to interpret a figure that suggests a majority of people approve of what you're doing.
I can see, as a cis het man, that if you are someone for whom heterosexuality is a big part of your identity, discovering that the woman you're attracted to has or had a penis might stir up some big feelings. Whatever our rational mind might say we're conditioned to think penis = man, not least because 99 times out of a hundred that's the case, and sexual attraction is an area the rational mind doesn't get much of a look in. I suppose I would regard it as a matter of... courtesy? to inform a potential partner, preferably some time prior to things getting hot and heavy, if you're trans. I can also see that it would feel violating if you (however much we might not share the belief) had sex with a woman and later discovered she was trans and were left feeling that you'd had sex with a man and thus your "straight" identity was challenged. It seems pretty outrageous to legitimise that feeling by treating non-disclosure as a criminal act, which is what current government guidelines seem to do.
Summary: It soon became apparent that Baroness Falkner thinks Baroness Falkner and the EHRC is doing a good job, regardless of what a lot of trans people (or the select committee) think. After the opening remarks, the initial question and answer ran thus:
Sarah Owen (Chair): It is fair to say that the EHRC faces greater challenges, increasing workload with diminishing resources - only 7 out of the up to 15 commissioners positions are in place - against a backdrop of news reports and statements that have damaged the reputation and public trust in the organisation. In your final few months, what are you plans to improve the situation?
Baroness Falkner: I don't think I could agree with your characterisation of the EHRC, and I hope that as time goes on in the next two hours I will be able to disprove those sentiments with hard facts. But we don't agree with that characterisation; I think it is fair to say that being chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission ... is one of the toughest jobs in British public life.
When Sarah Owen pointed out that she hadn't answered the question, and asked again whether the EHRC were going to do anything to improve the situation, Baroness Falkner replied by saying that the EHRC conducts surveys of public opinion, and that their approval rating had gone from 35% in her first year of service to 81% (currently). She said that she had a whole lot of other figures that she would share, and then repeated that she didn't recognise the characterisation of the question.
I've no idea how their survey was conducted, but if your remit includes protecting minorities, I wonder if it's that straightforward to interpret a figure that suggests a majority of people approve of what you're doing.
Good summary.
I wanted to provide the link without commentary in the first instance.
I have two strong feelings here;
1. Utter despair and distain that the EHRC is behaving this way.
2. Encouraged that the Select Committee (or rather some members) are calling this out.
Oh and on the subject of that survey. I maintain significant scepticism...
Comments
If you want me to refer to you in a gendered way, you need to tell me which set of words to use. Or people often guess based on name and/or presentation.
If I am attracted to you and interested in forming some kind of intimate personal relationship with you, then discovering those kinds of things about each other sounds like part of the "are we compatible" coupley negotiation.
One could certainly ask questions about, for example, if you were a feminine-presenting trans woman, is there a point where you have an obligation to inform a partner or potential partner that you are trans, but one must acknowledge in this context that a significant number of trans women have been beaten up and killed by some man who was upset to discover that they were trans.
Fair enough. I decided at some point that I was happy to answer to either “he” or “they”, which simplifies things.
The one time “he/him” has appeared next to my name on a form (someone else filled out the form and made an assumption), two different people independently accidentally called me “Ms. Marsupial”. I am sure there is a lesson there somewhere…
Lots of cis people have things about their bodies that they might need to disclose to someone they're going to have sex with, but that doesn't mean it needs to be brought up before you're about to have sex - it means you might have to have sex in a different way, but I don't think anyone would expect eg a cis woman with vaginismus to have to bring it up on a date.
That said imagine you have a injury or disability that doesn't obviously show. For instance, you have a giant burn scar all over your stomach. It was from a while ago in a traumatic fire but you escaped and it doesn't hurt anymore (except in memories) but it's considered very ugly. You probably don't wear crop-tops regardless of your gender. Does this you have an obligation to "warn" people before sex? Might tactically want to, but I would say that no you don't morally have to. It's your body and you shouldn't have to tell people about your private traumatic history.
I imagine you see where I am going with that analogy.
https://bsky.app/profile/bernietranders.bsky.social/post/3lrdi7sey6s2u
Coverage of Baroness Falkner before the select committee.
A big enough scar could certainly be a turnoff to some people but yes people who object can sod off. I think that summarizes my opinions on both issues.
I think that, for example, if I knew I was infertile, I would have an obligation to disclose that to a woman I was dating fairly early in the proto-relationship, because I owe her the opportunity to back out before she gets too deeply involved. The same would apply, I think, if I knew that I had made the choice that I didn't want to ever have children.
If I was a gay man, my fertility would be less of an issue, and I suppose if I was just in the market for casual sex, it wouldn't matter at all.
I suppose the question here is whether you thing being trans is just "a thing about your body" of the same order as a scar or something more fundamental.
I'm not sure that's something you (general you) can really make a pronouncement on wrt being a gay man and fertility being less important. I think a lot of this stuff is just about how individuals feel and can't really be guessed like that.
Summary: It soon became apparent that Baroness Falkner thinks Baroness Falkner and the EHRC is doing a good job, regardless of what a lot of trans people (or the select committee) think. After the opening remarks, the initial question and answer ran thus:
When Sarah Owen pointed out that she hadn't answered the question, and asked again whether the EHRC were going to do anything to improve the situation, Baroness Falkner replied by saying that the EHRC conducts surveys of public opinion, and that their approval rating had gone from 35% in her first year of service to 81% (currently). She said that she had a whole lot of other figures that she would share, and then repeated that she didn't recognise the characterisation of the question.
I've no idea how their survey was conducted, but if your remit includes protecting minorities, I wonder if it's that straightforward to interpret a figure that suggests a majority of people approve of what you're doing.
Good summary.
I wanted to provide the link without commentary in the first instance.
I have two strong feelings here;
1. Utter despair and distain that the EHRC is behaving this way.
2. Encouraged that the Select Committee (or rather some members) are calling this out.
Oh and on the subject of that survey. I maintain significant scepticism...