Michael Phelps' girlfriend comes out as a transsexual

I get the overall thrust, which is why I say the whole thing is a catch 22 but I don't like the analogy so much. Being infertile inevitably would be a point of disclosure before you got to that stage. You might refrain from saying WHY but you'd pretty much have had to stated the reality, unless your partner had adamantly stated he wanted no kids in which case the non-disclosure choice goes to relevance.

and how can we be sure folk put the line in the same place

My answer: Wherever the hell I want to put it.

You can't have one line for everyone because not everyone obviously is the same.

when you reach the point where you are being honest in ALL things - BOTH partners - THEN disclosure it ethically mandatory...a point that's not in any dispute.

The question is whether or not that point comes before any sexual intimacy, which in our culture is not really a practical demand IMO.

I agree he hasn't said that. But he also hasn't satisfactorily explained why this is different from other things you might wait to tell before achieving a certain level of intimacy, or indeed where that level is.

You don't get to wiggle out of this so easily. You're discussing when it is not all right for a person to break up with their partner. Whatever strawman you want to build has to meet that standard, so: Are you saying that you consider it a break of trust and commitment when you don't continue a relationship, even though you've... wanted a second date? Or are you just being silly?

Again, we're discussing whether a person should be criticized for breaking up with their partner. If the relationship isn't built on far-reaching openness and honesty, I don't see any strong commitment there in the first place.

That's not what I'M discussing. If you misunderstood, I'm perfectly respectful of one's right to walk away upon findingg out. My point of disagreement is whether that person leaves because of issues of attraction - that they just can't see past it - or whether one leaves because they feel deceived and "tricked"

As long as it's ONE factor among all others on both sides, fine. No disagreement there.

Go back and read what I wrote, start with post 2 if you'd like. I've never remotely suggested that people don't have the right to end a relationship. I'm saying that before people have achieved a certain level of trust, there are many things they will withhold from disclosing. That is reasonable for a variety of matters, including transgender or intersex status. To be honest, I don't know that it ever needs to be disclosed. My understanding of the issue is that a person is not who they appeared to be pre-transition. So why would that information even have to come in to play?

Well you need to stay within the bounds of the discussion instead of going on these ridiculous long-winded tangents.

as log as its no more or less relevant than any other bit of personal history.

"I was married before"
"I father a child that I support"
"I have a criminal record"

Whatever.

Well, those seem to be two very different points of view; or at least, the former wouldn't be relevant if the latter applied.

There seem to be at least two more differences between our views: I seem to expect more shared information before I'd consider a relationship committed, and more commitment before I'd go for any serious intimacy. And I don't think that a person's history is or should be of no interest to their partner. Our history is a part of us.

And I frankly find it somewhat derogatory -- self-derogatory, in @Nova's case -- to assume that that history is necessarily merely a negative or a "less than". The closest I've ever got to a relationship with a transsexual was flirting with an incredibly cute trans girl in her mid-20s, not that long ago in fact; and one of the greatest attractions for me was the strength of character with which she both openly spoke about, and had faced down the challenge of finding herself in a body she didn't agree with. It made every aspect of her femininity more deliberate, conscious, and thus a part of one stunning whole. Sexy.

Turning that history into a dark secret that needs to either be hidden or shared only as some awful burden that hopefully won't break a relationship does both of the people in that relationship a disservice. And I would guess that carrying it along as a secret limits the degree to which the trans partner can really open herself up to that commitment; she'll never find out whether her partner would be accepting of this important part of her personal history. That seems unnecessarily sad to me.

being intimate? No. It's not relevant. If you are attracted to her enough to have sex with her, the only relevant point is whether she threatens your safety, either via STD or she has a jealous significant other.

Omission is deception only if you have a credible claim to the information.
You do not have a right for me to de-legitimize myself in your eyes, or to require me to reinforce a mindset i find ethically unacceptable. It might be argued that a good reason to disclose is because I wouldn't want to be intimate with someone who woulds reject me for being trans, but that's my internal discussion.

As previously discussed, IF the relationship has reached the point of a mutual expectation of trust in all things then OF COURSE disclosure is ethical and that point is not in dispute.

Damn skippy it's derogatory. It's not the world I wish it to be, its the world that IS.


It's well and good for a man who doesn't see it as a negative to say "spit it right out, no one ought to care" but they are the distinct minority and the VAST majority of men DO look at you as "less than"and I can't imagine you could be blissfully unaware of this.

I could post a pic of Camen Carrera and say "Hit it or not?"

And almost every man would say "oh HELL YEAH!" - then in the next post i say "she is a transsexual" and far more than half of those same men (at least in the general pop.) would revise their reply to

But you have no right to have sex with men who feel that way about having sex with you, and frankly, I don't see why you'd ever, in a million years, want to.

no on has a "right" to sex with anyone they aren't married to

Fare enough, but bI think we are coming at this from different angles. My point is that it's like anything else -- only as important as the extent that it forms who the person is. Yes, when open trust is established, share it and everything else, but it I get the sense from your posts (could certainly be wrong) that you are saying this one issue needs earlier disclosure than some other things, such as views on having children, etc., etc., etc.

the pic...... really? At least put it behind a spoiler tag

Looks like we lost the OP...

Disregarding whether it's "icky" to have sex with a person who is transgender because they used to have different genitalia, how about the question of whether it's "icky" to have sex with a person whose genitals have been crafted by plastic surgeons rather than nature?

Or anyone they are married to, really...

Where's @FiddleForks?

Bollocks. My wife has the right to my body any time she wants it.

in the M2F, the parts relevant to where you put your penis are pretty much indistinguishable at this point in the field. There's one alternate technique with might give a fella pause but it's increasingly rare.

Mostly I meant as a general case (regardless of quality), but I suppose that's good to know?

Well, male and female genitalia are structurally similar, so it doesn't seem too difficult to make one the other.

Even in a F2M surgery? I mean, where does five to eight extra inches of muscle come from?

Probably the clitoris and surrounding muscle tissue, which is larger and more extensive than most people think.

much poorer results, half assed erections at best - and for twice the price. But with the growing research in lab-grown organs, things will probably be insanely better in 40-50 years for both sexes

True enough, but probably genetic/mental tinkering will get better, too. This came up in another thread some months ago, but I think we'll have a bigger issue over the ethics of fucking with a kid's brain to have them accept the gender they were born into than the tech for correcting the defects ("defects" being changing the peen to a vajayjay and vice versa).

Don't you mean that it might give some...men...a pause?