The conventional wisdom, for several thousand years now, is that if the words men and women were used, then it's cis men and cis women being talked of.
If I were Internet dating and ticked looking for a man, and a trans man responded, I'd be mighty displeased when I learnt the truth. But I'd just walk away.
Might not go so smoothly if a cis man was looking for a cis woman, and a trans woman responded.
For their own safety, I feel trans men and trans women need to self identify, upfront.

Ms Phile - It's not an upper limit for pattern recognition so much as an acknowledgment that increased proficiency past a certain point is more than counterbalanced by being further removed from the norm. If you're comparing relationships of two people of about the same IQ to another of two people ten or twenty points higher, you may well be right. I was just referring to the greater difficulties posed by increased disparity of mind (which, for Ms Cute, recalls Captain Wentworth's opinion of the match between Captain Benwick and Louisa Musgrove).

@213 "For their own safety, I feel trans men and trans women need to self identify, upfront."

Bull-fucking-shit.

If this had anything to do with actually caring about actual transgender folks and their actual quality of life, you wouldn't fucking tell them how to behave so much. What you're really saying is that it is acceptable to beat someone up if they hide the fact that for 18 years of their infancy and childhood they had a male body, even if for thirty years after that their body has been indistinguishable from a female body. Which is just awful.

Phrases like "might not go so smoothly" are fucking oppressive, the same way it is when people tell women "just don't go out without a man to protect you -- you can't be surprised if you go to a bar by yourself and get raped, especially wearing that outfit."

People with a trans background get to fucking decide for themselves when to reveal, and your own fucking preferences about not learning anything new and especially not learning to empathize with someone who has had a difficult life lest you grow a heart that is one fucking size larger than the one you have currently -- well, I don't give a flying fuck about your fucking preferences, LavaGirl.

Ricardo, @208, thank you.

What is your problem?

Hello. I empathize with people's difficulties.
Doesn't mean I would be interested in a romantic relationship with them.
My preference is to have a relationship with a man, a cis man. Has nothing to do with my empathy for trans people.
Not sure what planet you are on Erica. But in my world, one has romantic connections, originating from sexual attractions.

Fuck you, LG.

If you weren't attracted to the transperson, then you wouldn't be considering flirting and kissing them. The sexual attraction is not the FUCKING problem.

Okay, here's an offensive analogy but maybe it will help. If this were the 1940s, and you were interested in a nice young man, and you went on a couple of dates, and kissed, and then he told you that he had a black mother, even though he looked white.

And you were horrified, and stopped seeing him, and said self-righteously that just because he could pass as white didn't mean that he had any right to pass as white; of course you wouldn't want to date someone who was black, once he had admitted his secret...

It's like that. But in our own time, with our own hatred at work.

Fuck you fuck you fuck you.

"of course you wouldn't want to date someone who was black, "

Not just that, but he didn't have any right to waste your time on a single date to get to know each other and should have fucking told you about his racial background "up front, straight away, before any dates." (@187) Fucking idiocy.

Like you go around telling prospective partners, "Oh, by the way I'm a blithering idiot on the internet. Maybe you prefer not to date blithering idiots, so you should know that right up front, straight away, before we go on a date," so you don't waste their time. No, you fucking don't say that up front, do you.

@181 Marcellina: You've said before that you're non-penetrative and not GGG. Do you think that falls into the category of "kink" for purposes of disclosure?

Not that there's anything wrong with that. You go girl, fly that flag and find someone who loves you for it!

There are only two things that would make it wrong IMO:

1. Generalizing from your preferences to what "All Women" or "All Men" should like.

2. Not disclosing, and in fact pretending to be GGG until you've "caught" someone, then pulling the bait-and-switch.

Erica. Take a breath. Breathe. That's it.
Now all that rage you directing at me, it's not appropriate, ok?
So, you'd be more willing to put trans people at risk? That's how much empathy you really have.

lolololololol

fuck you, LG, and the idea that you get to tell me what's appropriate. In this space, the only people who get to do that are DS and his Tech-Savvy, At-Risk Youth, because they can ban me or delete my posts. Ask me if I'm scared that they'll ban me for putting trans people at risk with my posts. Just fucking ask me.

Fuck you fuck you fuck you.

Gay people are safer because many gay people were brave and took real risks to come out.

Trans people will be safer after more trans people take real risks and come out.

But in the meantime, while people still get beat up and fired and evicted and killed for being trans, it's not up to you or anyone else to tell trans people that it would be safer for them if they were out. They get to judge what risks are worth taking, and what's safer, not you. Not me, either, but I'm the one saying that it's up to them to come out or not, and I don't judge people for keeping their medical history to themselves until they feel safe.

Erica, you are not listening.
If people misrepresent themselves, say on a dating site, they could get hurt.
Some cis men would not take kindly to that. You are advocating trans people putting themselves at risk.

Yeah, and if I go out without a male companion, someone might rape me. So if I say that women should feel free to go out without male companions, I'm advocating women putting themselves at risk.

No, I'm the one saying women should decide for themselves how to live their lives, and the police should go after anyone (male or female) who rapes anyone (male or female).

And I'm the one saying trans people should decide for themselves how to live their lives, and if they choose not to reveal their medical history until after you've grown attached to them, that doesn't mean they have done anything wrong to you.

And the police should go after anyone who assaults a trans person.

Oh, forgot the most important part: Fuck you fuck you fuck you.

And, nocutename, if you are drafting a post to try to reason with me, please don't. I wouldn't want you to waste your time.

Erica. Well I'm sure trans people are real happy someone is charged AFTER they are attacked.
And that's how you acknowledge that you may be in the wrong here?
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you?
Please. With your ability to reason a case, don't go study law.

@ EricaP: Please do calm down. Even though I agree with your point, I find your aggressiveness today rather unsettling. It's really not like you, as you're always thoughtful and open-minded. I've been reading your comments for many years now, and I've never seen you act like this. I just hope you're alright.

Now, here's a piece of advice, do with it what you will: whenever I get that frustrated with another poster that I want to write an endless string of fuck yous, I just stop reading and answering their posts. If I start thinking that they don't deserve to live (my go-to, half-joking sentence for people who show themselves to be complete morons), I basically treat them as if they didn't. Giving them the cold treatment is a better option for my own mental and physical health than trying to ram some sense into a head that just can't absorb it, I find.

Goodness me, the blossoms are just so pretty this time of year.

So thanks, Chairman @ 149 for responding to my post. I am not trying to come up with a universal timeline that would apply to everyone for disclosure of various characteristics that might end a date/sexytime/relationship if disclosed "too late."

I am still struggling with the whole concept of disclosure for personal reasons, because I learned a few things about my current squeeze "too late." In other words, if I had known them before I became emotionally invested, I would likely have chosen not to go forward with the relationship. Or at least, I would have chosen to date without getting naked for much longer, to have time to process the information in the context of knowing the person better. The things I learned fall into the relationship status and health status categories - if they'd been part of an online profile, I would probably have just kept scrolling.

However, as we got naked and fell in love, and as our feelings for each other have grown, I am Very Happy with my honey in all other respects, and have been happy for more than a year. I feel that he is for the most part an honest person, and although I would have been more clear and upfront at an earlier stage about those things, had they pertained to me, I understand why he was not - anxiety. No one is perfect, including me, and dating in your forties can have many complications - history, children, career - that dating in your twenties does not.

I do not feel bad about the likelihood that I'd never have gone on a first date if I'd known about those "dealbreakers." I feel bad that I didn't get the chance to learn more before taking the plunge. I didn't have the chance to consider the potentially long-term negative emotional and health consequences versus the positive consequences of becoming involved. I would not go so far as to say I feel that I was manipulated, but it was close. I have mostly forgiven him in my own mind - after all, our relationship is already a fait accompli at this point - but perhaps I still have not put a wrap on it.

Disclosure, please, people!

Lucky you, Late. Hardly get any blossoms here, during autumn.
Just four variations of sub tropical weather.
Quiet afternoon here. Peaceful.
Except for that ringing in my ears. What could be causing that.

@232 lol

@231, being reasonable wasn't getting me anywhere and this was quite a bit more satisfying.

@230 fuck you

@ 236 - I completely understand. I also hate talking to a wall... but I'd rather just stop talking then (I must be getting old).

That said, I know that everyone needs this sort of release sometimes, and I've always felt that of all the equivalent expressions I'm familiar with in different languages, "fuck you" is by far the most efficient (and universal) way to get it. So don't hold back lol.

Of course Late, I got it wrong. We're in Autumn you're in Spring.
Shows how little change happens here. Can't even remember which season blossoms are supposed to occur.

Oh Ricardo, so if I'm feeling like releasing a bit of tension, You're my go to guy for the fuck yous? Good to know.
And Erica. Any time you feel like apologizing for that disgraceful display of bile, I'm all ears.

@240, fuck you. I can keep this up a while.

@Erica: please, let it go. I totally agree with you, but I can see LG's point, though expressed inarticulately. LG is perhaps behind the curve of acceptance, but she is not being malicious here. Safety IS a concern with trans people; though I disagree that this obligates trans people who are 100% living as the other gender, including below the belt, to disclose before any contact at all. What I would do, if trans, is possibly ask some leading questions or make offhand references to transgender to gauge the reaction of my date. Any hint of transphobia, I am out of there. And yes, if what's below the belt isn't what you'd expect, definitely state that before getting naked. I've been on the other side of a Crying Game reveal, and while being bisexual, it was still not a pleasant surprise.

Hugs to you Erica and a virtual nice cup of tea.

@222: I agree that not wanting to be penetrated should be disclosed before sexytimes. That would fall into the category of "not what you'd expect below the belt" for me.

@242, thank you, BiDanFan, for the virtual hugs & tea. Much appreciated.

What curve of acceptance, Fan?
And exactly where was I inarticulate- and no word to Erica re her offensive, abusive words to me?
I accept trans people. I accept that they have a hard, very hard time in life.
It could be dangerous to not disclose,
and people have the right to know if a person is cis or trans, before engaging in any romantic entanglements.

@Hunter - Considering how many CIS women I know now whom are deeply sad and unhappy with their bodies irrespective as to whether they were happy children, I find your analysis odd in that regard. Otherwise, I like it.

While town has a substantial trans population, I've never been close to one as a friend or anything else. Just hasn't happened for lack of opportunity. Thus, I admit that I am ignorant to many of the issues. My thoughts on disclosure are this:

Not immediately out the door. After a few dates, though, enough to know whether or not you are with someone who is not going to wig out and beat you for the reveal or run their mouths. If you think they are that kind, I'd imagine you'd want to dump them anyway. I think once you are confident of that, then you make the reveal even if you are uncertain as to whether they'd stay or go. I dislike this - "well maybe I can get them to really really like me, be emotionally invested in me, and then reveal a very big bit of news." Many people do this with news that might be dealbreakers (see Still Thinking) and can feel very manipulative.

Personally, although I am bi, I prefer my man to have the expected male equipment, and my women to have the expected female equipment. i want the breasts and the vag and the broad shoulders and the member. I'd consider dating a trans, but not if that person deliberately waited for me to be substantially emotionally involved for the big reveal. I'd feel the same way if it was your traditional CIS man hiding the fact he had children.

Seems to me that the safest way to disclose something truly startling would be over the phone, maybe when setting up a 2nd or 3rd date. "I'd love to see you again too, but there's something I should tell you….". That way if they totally freak out you're not in danger, and if it's a minor freakout they're not embarrassed in public and have time to calm down and think it through.

There's definitely no point in disclosing until it's clear that there's some mutual interest in proceeding further.

@Venn - I see and agree. Greater differences make mutual understanding more difficult. Although I think courtesy goes a long way toward bridging differences. I think it depends on the individuals.

@212 Cynara - How would everyone's advice be different if someone had to disclose having nonstandard equipment for other reasons? Say a man who had no penis due to botched circumcision or a woman born without a vagina.
I think we are talking about a woman born without a vagina or man born without a penis. I'm with the rest it seems, don't surprise people in bed unless you have some good reason to think they'll like it. It's rude and can look manipulative.

Rising - I dislike this - "well maybe I can get them to really really like me, be emotionally invested in me, and then reveal a very big bit of news." Many people do this with news that might be dealbreakers (see Still Thinking) and can feel very manipulative.
If you know another definition of manipulative besides "hiding your actions or status from others for your own benefit", I'm all ears. I don't think it can just feel manipulative, I think it's the definition of manipulative. It can be forgiven like most bad behavior when their life is on the line.

I understand that dating is dangerous for trans people. I understand that they want to date anyway and can empathize. I understand they fear murder. That does seem worse than my fear of being raped. I'm not sure whether it's more likely that I'm raped on a date or a trans person is murdered on their date. I don't think trans people get a separate set of dating rules because murder is worse than rape. Instead I think they should be reasonably cautious in the usual way. No surprises in bed, take it slow if you can't vocalize what you need to yet. Use your words.

@EricaP: Additional virtual hugs if desired. I go back and forth, myself, on Ricardo's advice--sometimes it's better to take a few days off, and sometimes that's just not satisfying enough.

FWIW, I think there are some is/ought discrepancies going on between different people in this thread, and it's a shame we're not in a convenient position to clarify it.

Lava - i believe you are owed an apology too. Erica- it seems reasonable to me that if someone is going to throw insults at another commenter...they at least include their re-hashed argument in the post... When you just throw out FU's all by themselves...the whole system breaks down.... ;)

As to the "reveal" question... for me, it would be similar to any other kind of deception (intentional or not) in the dating realm. I.e. someone is poly and does't tell me about it until emotionally invested... open relationship, separated, kids, only dates me on weekend furlough, lives in another state, etc. I'm not trans. I don't have any close friends who are.... I can't imagine how difficult it would be to grapple with the disclosure question...as trans (unlike any of my other examples) is not a choice. But if expectations and delivery are different.... it isn't entirely fair to the other party. I am well aware that fairness and questions of gender/sexuality/etc don't always neatly align...

It is the responsibility of progressive people (such as many of us claim to be) to be inclusive, to attempt empathy, understanding, etc.. it is NOT their responsibility to be in romantic relationships to help bridge the understanding gap. Not wanting to do so does not make anyone a bigot, does it? Its by no means a clear-cut question or answer....

EricaP- i don't really see where all the FU's are coming from..... lava has a more old fashioned view of this than you do. That doesnt make her evil incarnate... nor does it even make her wrong (she is stating an opinion...as are you). You do realize that someday.... the generation that is currently 4 years old is going to look at your generation as horribly out of date....they might even consider the term trans to be a slur. Lets hope they don't berate you with F-bombs when you fail to grasp that they know better than you do.

@242 BiDanFan and @252 ChairmanOfTheBored: Agreed.
Uh. Wow. Erica---are you having a bad week? I honestly don't think LavaGirl was
lashing out at you personally, from the comments I read.
Okayyy....I'm shutting up now.

Back to Kinky boys and Hunter's Weekly Wrap Up.

The Fuck you's are because she hasn't backed down from her assertion that someone with a trans background has an ethical obligation to disclose their trans background BEFORE THE FIRST DATE. An ethical obligation, not merely a practical consideration as to the best timing for both parties.

As I said @206, that's not how it works. Generally, people are not under an ethical obligation to reveal their baggage (medical, familial, fertility, career, addictions, whatever), before the first kiss. And if you can't deal with that, don't kiss people before you've talked about all these issues.

If my children's generation calls me out for my shit, I'll try to be grateful that they're taking the time to educate me, instead of writing me off and waiting for my generation to die, which is the normal way social change happens.

This shit is real. It's real people's lives. There are many complicated ethical issues when one is trans and one wants to date & marry & find someone to grow old with, but the ones LG obsesses about are not among them.

Thank you, Still Thinking, for posting your thoughtful words @233. That sounds, wow... very hard to live with. From the pain in your words, I would encourage you to step back and really think about whether you'll be able to get past this and trust your partner in the long run. No relationship is perfect, but you're only a year in, and you could walk if you choose to.

Erica - "If my children's generation calls me out for my shit, I'll try to be grateful that they're taking the time to educate me, instead of writing me off and waiting for my generation to die, which is the normal way social change happens."

I think you might be shoving her toward the cliff right now... but i dont see that option listed...

in fairness...you did say "TRY to be grateful"... that is my intention too.... of course... i probably won't be able to resist telling the little shits they don't know what they are talking about.

Wow. You step away from the computer for a while and Stuff Happens.

Still Thinking@ 233, I understand you completely. I just embarked on a new relationship, one with a promise of bringing real happiness, and found out only a few weeks in, but long after nakedness and intimacy, both physical and emotional, had occurred (this relationship is moving fast) something which, had it been in a profile or had I heard it before the first date or by that date's end, I would have decided made the guy off limirts for me. That I am still here is because feelings were established. In other words, I got emotionally invested and attached and I was willing therefore to look past something which out of context would have been a deal breaker for me.

So yes, I see firsthand how that works. And my heart goes out to anyone who has anything in his/her life--be it disease, financial trouble, a felony conviction, a mental health disorder, infertility or the existence of children, addiction, a current (open) relationship, a history of sex work, an uncommon fetish or kink, or yes, is trans--that makes dating difficult and fraught with the risk of more than rejection, or more than the mere rejection we all risk every time we try to date. I sympathize with them. I face rejection and have been rejected for things I cannot change or for things I think shouldn't matter so much when placed against all the points of compatibility that I have established with someone. I can imagine how much trepidation a person who has one of the conditions I mentioned above has about going into the dating world. It seems wrong that something one can't help should be a barrier to finding love and companionship. I can't imagine fearing for my physical safety by disclosing a basic fact about myself, and that is horrible and wrong. Nor is it okay that some people have to worry about losing their jobs or homes if a potential date doesn't like the truth about them. Naturally I and everyone else here believes that "the police should go after anyone who assaults a transperson" (@227). I haven't heard anyone here advocating for assault or excusing it.

And yet.

@233, Still Thinking, and @250, Philophile really hit the nail on the head. It is fundamentally unfair to mislead someone, to leave them in the dark, because you think that if they knew the truth they wouldn't want to date you or to have sex with you and wait and hope that by the time you reveal your truth they will have developed strong enough feelings to overlook something which they initially would have rejected you for. Even if things work out okay, even if the "best case scenario" happens, and they decide that your thing is not the barrier they thought it was beforehand, even if your keeping it secret allows you to "teach" something, it isn't right, it's fundamentally morally wrong to withhold information that someone should have access to so he or she can make an informed decision. The fact that I have fallen for this guy and am not going to break up with him for his secret doesn't mean that it was right for him to have failed to disclose it sooner. Again, this doesn't mean anyone has the right to assault someone who has what others may consider an undate-able prior condition.

And yet, when and how is another big question. And there is no doubt but that some people will over-react to what, logically speaking, should be a non-issue (see my post @17 and the response @181 for an example). But it is still their right to make an informed decision.

EricaP, it seems that this topic has touched a nerve for you. I don't think you've read LavaGirl as she intended to be read. I get that you are not able to be rational about this issue and that it is a highly emotional one for you. We all have our emotionally-triggering issues. I'm sending you a virtual hug. But I also think you owe LG an apology.

nocutename, if a black person (by the definitions of a racist society) passed as white and revealed their background on the third date, before sex -- you would feel it was "fundamentally morally wrong" for them to have passed as white until that point, rather than revealed what would have been a dealbreaker in a racist society?

"it's fundamentally morally wrong to withhold information that someone should have access to so he or she can make an informed decision."

When exactly is it one's obligation to tell other people information that is likely to make them back away from you? Do you need to tell your friends every bad thing you've ever done, because they're entitled to make an informed decision about whether to be your friend? Do you tell your lovers every thought that passes through your head, every porn site you visit because they deserve to make an informed decision about whether to date someone who has those thoughts and visits those porn sites?

People owe certain information when it becomes relevant. But relevance is not a black and white issue. Let’s take your current situation, for instance. You're not chained to your new partner with bonds of economic dependence. You have all the information you wanted, and yet you stay. If you don't want to stay, don't stay.

The world doesn’t owe you or anyone an existence without difficult choices or emotional pain. You don't necessarily get all the information you want on a timeline that is maximally convenient for you. You got it before you had made a serious commitment: marriage, children, shared mortgage. Your partner treated you ethically. That doesn't mean you have to stay, now, if you're not happy. But I don't see any ethical breach on the part of your partner.

@259 "I haven't heard anyone here advocating for assault or excusing it."

If someone says: "Women shouldn't go out at night alone because they are likely to get attacked." Do you see that as simply helpful advice, which women should probably follow?

@nocutename: it's fundamentally morally wrong to withhold information that someone should have access to so he or she can make an informed decision

So you think your decision to stay with him now is lesser informed than the decision you would have made to dump him without getting to know him had he disclosed up front? It seems to me the reverse is true.

When you're judging someone, of course you want all the bad traits laid out for you up front. But let's not confuse self-interest with morality.

EricaP: I'm not going to respond to all of your posts partly because I've made the points I want to make, partly because I have to get actual work done and don't have the time, partly because I don't think you're reading anyone whose position doesn't dovetail exactly with yours correctly in the spirit in which they're writing, and partly because I don't feel like being told "fuck you fuck you fuck you" and I have a feeling that that's where you're going to end up.

I will only say this in reference to you post @262: When people say "Women shouldn't go out at night alone because they are likely to get attacked" it doesn't necessarily follow that they don't think rapists should be prosecuted. Yes, there have been and continue to be those who victim blame for sexual assault and who don't believe in punishing the rapist if they believe that the victim did anything at all that this third party deems "asking for it." But that doesn't mean that all people who give that advice, which they see as helpful don't also want to see rapists prosecuted.

Obviously, women should be able to go out where and when they please, alone or in company, dressed however they want. But telling women to be aware of their surroundings isn't apologizing for rapists or excusing sexual assault. Likewise, LavaGirl and I, while not dispensing advice that you agree with, weren't advocating attacks on trans people, regardless of how they handle the issue of disclosure or for any other reason. I may send my daughters different messages regarding rape than my mother did (hers were more along the lines of "don't go out at night alone"), but both my mother and I want our daughters to move through the world unmolested and neither of us would ever say that anyone deserved assault or that she should have expected it or that the rapist couldn't help himself or that boys will be boys or that he shouldn't be prosecuted.

As for your racist analogy, I don't think it holds, but if I had a secret that I knew would bring on the virulent hatred and disgust of a man I met, I wouldn't want to be with that man. I certainly wouldn't think to keep my background a secret and get into a relationship with him. I understand that one can't always know beforehand how strongly someone will react but if you have good reason to think that you will be treated violently should your truth be known I don't know why you'd want to be with that person. And anyone who would react that violently is probably not likely to soften up sufficiently to have a real relationship with no matter when it is disclosed.

"I get that you are not able to be rational about this issue and that it is a highly emotional one for you"

Pulling this comment out to note the offensive baggage packed in there.

If I choose to use crude language, and I choose not to apologize for it, that does not make me less rational. I am able to speak rationally with those, like you, who seem able to engage productively in conversation. People (including me) have explained over and over and over to LG how offensive her comments about trans issues are. She does not listen; she does not learn.

There's a good video going around, called This Video Will Make You Angry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHk…

Starting around the 3 minute mark, it explains how emotions like anger can help ideas spread. Do you see how expressing serious anger when someone seems determined not to learn in any other way is not exactly an irrational response?

@264 "As for your racist analogy, I don't think it holds,"

You don't engage seriously with my analogy, which makes me think that it does hold, and you just don't want to admit that you're wrong.

"if I had a secret that I knew would bring on the virulent hatred and disgust of a man I met, I wouldn't want to be with that man."

Yes, but it's not about that. It's about a secret which is almost always a dealbreaker when you don't know the person well, but which may NOT be a dealbreaker once you've gotten attached to the person and/or learned something about the issue in question.

I don't think you were being rational, either with LavaGirl or in general. And I wasn't trying to be offensive. I understand that there are issues that I can't be rational about, and see trans issues as ones you are so emotionally invested in that you go beyond rational response. I offered you a virtual hug because obviously this upsets you a lot. Doing the written equivalent of repeatedly screaming obscenities at someone isn't using anger to help ideas spread; it's spreading incivility and spewing discord. Clearly LavaGirl pissed you off; she's pissed me off many a time, too. If she got your goat and you lashed out, that's one thing. Sometimes we all do that. But continuing to lash out is another. Refusing to apologize is childish and rude; justifying childish and rude behavior by thinking that insulting someone is going to result in educating them or others is delusional.

Chairman, old fashioned? To want to only have a sexual and romantic relationship
With a cis man, and be upfront about that?
Trans people suffer enough rejection. Enough inner conflict, enough pain. Best they be in their truth and offer up that truth proudly.

@260: While I agree with you on the "fundamentally wrong" part, on a different level I think it would be terrible advice to recommend a black man put on whiteface and go looking for dates at a Klan rally. While the Klan shouldn't exist, in a world where it does, I recommend that people take reasonable steps to avoid interacting with it. If I thought that taking a man along was the only way to avoid being raped, I would recommend that women not leave the house without a man.

But in both cases I'd be similarly pissed off at anyone who seemed to be suggesting that this was the way things should be.

FWIW, I think we're conflating the trans person who took puberty blockers, transitioned at 18, got all the surgery, can pass for cis while naked, and has been living of their gender for 20 years with the person who is going to be revealing a very important and very unwanted surprise the first time stuff gets naked. For one of them, transness is an irrelevant tidbit of medical history. For the other, it's not, and should be disclosed at about the same time as, for example, the time when a cis man who's lost his penis in an accident should disclose. I'm not sure when that is, but it seems similar.

I'm pulled in both ways here, because it's the kind of situation described in that quote about the right to swing an arm ending where someone else's nose begins... and everyone is the nose. And the arm.

Further FWIW, I think both mixed-race people and hardcore racists should disclose as soon as they can find a way to bring it up. They both have good reasons not to want to accidentally date each other. I don't see this as a moral imperative, just a pragmatic one.

It becomes obvious pretty quickly, talking with people Mr E, what their attitudes are. Where they stand on the humanity spectrum.

nocutename @267, I'm sorry you choose to spend your time trying to wring an apology out of me. It won't be forthcoming.

I wish you would instead spend your time addressing the actual issue, which you can find expressed for your convenience @266.

@Eudaemonic, while I agree with your pragmatic advice to mixed-race people and hardcore racists, that's not what I'm going on about. This is about a mixed-race person believing that another person, who is a creature of racist times, might nevertheless have the potential to see past race if they get to really know the person first.

And as nocutename and Still Thinking's stories show us, this happens All the Time. There are many things that are deal-breakers when we don't know the person, and then after a few dates might not be a deal-breaker any more.

And it's ridiculous to claim that everyone has a moral obligation to admit all such deal-breakers before the first date.

I'm not trying to wring an apology out of you EricaP. I know better. I'm expressing my opinion. I believe I did address the actual issue, many many times. That I don't agree with you doesn't mean I didn't address it.

nocutename, why not address it again, then, since I can't find the post where you've addressed it? Or point me to that post, please?

Do you think it's "fundamentally morally wrong" for a black person to pass as white until date #3, instead of revealing what would have been a dealbreaker in a racist society?

Agree with Eudaemonic when he said: "FWIW, I think we're conflating the trans person who took puberty blockers, transitioned at 18, got all the surgery, can pass for cis while naked, and has been living of their gender for 20 years with the person who is going to be revealing a very important and very unwanted surprise the first time stuff gets naked. For one of them, transness is an irrelevant tidbit of medical history. For the other, it's not, and should be disclosed at about the same time as, for example, the time when a cis man who's lost his penis in an accident should disclose. I'm not sure when that is, but it seems similar."

Or, to speak without the analogy:
Do you think it's "fundamentally morally wrong" for a transwoman (whose body is indistinguishable from an infertile ciswoman, and who has lived as a woman for 20 years) to pass as a ciswoman until date #3, instead of revealing before the first date what would be a dealbreaker to many in our transphobic society?

EricaP: The letter this week started out about someone disclosing--or not--his past as a kink performer. It quickly became about disclosing a kink or fetish. That led to disclosure about being trans, which is a big stretch. It seemed vaguely related in that it had to do with sex insofar as a surprise once the clothes come off. You are now trying to push it to race, which is a whole other can of worms. I stand by my earlier stated opinions. You can find all of them by looking for my little avatar and rereading them.

EricaP: If you look back at my post @202, you'll see that I don't think it's necessary to disclose right away if the conditions you're talking about exist. I've never felt that way; I've never suggested that someone who took puberty blockers and can pass 100% as a person of the opposite gender they were assigned at birth needs to disclose early. In such cases, I agree (and agreed) that the conditions of their birth amount to a private medical condition, though the corresponding infertility should be addressed before things get too serious, in case that is a deal-breaking obstacle.

I'm talking and have been talking about a very different situation, and either you didn't read me carefully, or you want to put everyone who doesn't agree 100% with you into the same camp. But for what it's worth, there are and likely will continue to be many trans people who don't fit your repeatedly-stated example. Whose original gender or sex, in other words, is detectable. You keep writing as if your example of the "transwoman (whose body is indistinguishable from an infertile ciswoman, and who has lived as a woman for 20 years)" is completely representative of all trans people. And you're therefore being disingenuous.

nocutename, your post @276 is very clear, actually, and agrees far more with my position (a transperson is not ethically obligated to reveal their trans status before the first date) than it does with LG's position, which claims that there is such an obligation.

Oh, and if LG posts to say that she never meant to assert such an obligation, then I'll apologize for misunderstanding her previous posts.

@275, see my post @ 202

I wrote a whole long, thoughtful reply to your two most recent posts, EricaP. And the fucking-stupid new format fucking lost it because I accidentally clicked on the wrong thing and then frustratedly trying to refresh, I closed the tab. Fucking new fucking format.
I'm out of time and patience--not with you; with the site. But seriously out of time: I teach in 55 minutes and need to both prepare and decompress. I never meant the "transwoman (whose body is indistinguishable from an infertile ciswoman, and who has lived as a woman for 20 years."

269 - hey lava.... yeah.... old fashioned. I know that probably sounds condescending...but it isn't meant to.... i have plenty of it in me too.... which really just amounts to confusion of the younger generation.

What i mean is... the day is coming where we will not be able to make any assumptions about the nature of other people's gender or sexuality without being considered old fashioned. It used to be that we could look at external characteristics (whether physical or decorative. Now we have to consider all kinds of other clues (before we outright ask).. We are already at a point where we are better off asking people who they are and what they want....instead of making an incorrect guess.

and IF we are all making no assumptions... then it will be impossible for you to accidentally go on a date with a transman...because you and he wouldve already openly talked about this stuff in advance....because.... wait for it.... he didn't want to waste his time.

so... old fashioned..

but... you are on the SL board week after week learning about the current generation... so to me, you can put your foot in your mouth any time you want....(you guys are misunderstanding each other by my estimation...nothing more) because you are AT the table.... listening and learning all the time... so i think you deserve better than you got this week.

@277: "Do you think it's "fundamentally morally wrong" for a transwoman (whose body is indistinguishable from an infertile ciswoman, and who has lived as a woman for 20 years) to pass as a ciswoman until date #3, instead of revealing before the first date what would be a dealbreaker to many in our transphobic society?"

Morally wrong? No. For that transwoman, it's largely irrelevant; "20 years ago I went from 'boy' to woman, rather than from boy to man," isn't very important, since the only relevant issue is the infertility (which is its own can of worms). But that's not, I think, the central example of trans-ness for most of us. The transwoman who can pass, naked, and so is basically indistinguishable (from the outside) from an infertile cis woman, doesn't seem to have much in common (from a dating perspective) with a cis woman who has a penis. What works for one isn't going to be what works for the other, and I think different rules apply to each.

For the latter, it seems more like the difference between opera tickets and tickets to an MMA match. While there are people who would be fine with being invited to one but actually taken to another, it's probably important to make the invite match the event, since there are plenty of people who are fine with going to one but not the other.

I wouldn't say it's fundamentally morally wrong to invite someone to the opera when I was actually taking them to see an MMA fight, or vice versa, but it would definitely be rude and inconsiderate, not to mention being a really disastrously poor way to plan a date.

A white-looking person with some black ancestors isn't the same as a black person wearing a lot of foundation, even if they both identify as black.

I think LG is placing more weight on the feelings of the person who gets invited to one show and taken to another, than on the feelings of someone who has a medical condition that's also an extremely common dealbreaker, and not necessarily justifiably so. I understand the rage. It's easy to tell someone that their right to swing their arms ends where other people's noses begins, but this is one of the situations where everyone involved is getting punched and there's no way around it.

Mercury must really be in retrograde this week: I agree with everything Eudaemonic is saying @283. I tried to say much the same thing earlier, but failed to do as good a job as his eloquent posts.

Best motto for living a strong life. Don't lie.

Please nobody tell me this place is turning into a hugbox.

I am going to try out the system Mr Vidal used in Myron and substitute the names of Supreme Court judges for various words I don't say.

I spent much of the weekend looking for a thread elsewhere from a couple of years back in which one trans woman lawyer (whose mind seems to work similarly to Ms Cute's) was advocating that the onus be on (probably almost always cis) partners to disclose that trans is a dealbreaker. I was not entirely convinced (people would have to be extremely firm on their own dealbreakers and there would have to be no social penalty for the disclosure, etc.), but it did have the advantage that the risk of disclosing would not be the onus of the vulnerable partner. I did not find that thread. I did find a thread attached to a column in which a woman whose boyfriend had violated their monogamous agreement argued that his cheating on her without her knowledge rendered her consent uninformed and voided it, and the law should be changed so that she should be able to prosecute him for assault, if not rape. The idea was generally opposed, mostly on the basis that it would be used against trans people. The woman who reminds me of Ms Cute posted that she would be vulnerable to a rape charge if she waited to disclose until after having sex. The general tone of the thread was that disclosing after the first Alito rather than before (I am not going to speculate about whether the presence or lack of a Ginsburg or a Scalia might or might not have rendered the point fairly moot; after all, perhaps it was "just" Kagan or Breyer) was certainly something the trans people there considered, if not a first choice, at least normal and plausible.

I don't think Ms Cute's counterpart would disagree with much of what Ms Cute has posted, at least in the sense that she'd probably say that's what trans women want. I'm reminded of a post written by an Irish woman about why not to tell pregnant woman who are going to have an abortion that they should discuss the abortion with their partners. What I've seen from trans women feels similar. They want to disclose early, most of them do, most of the ones who don't wish they could, and they'd just call being told they should be out by relationship point X or bonding event Y to be unhelpful, putting a negative focus on the people for whom disclosing wouldn't be safe instead of on the people or institutions creating that lack of safety.

I'm very sorry I couldn't find the thread I wanted, as I think Ms Cute and her counterpart are extremely close to strong agreement.

Well thanks Chairman, except the old fashioned bit.
Not at all sure where the old fashioned comes in, in wanting to know if someone is cis or trans.
May not be politically correct on Erica's planet- but
Old fashioned?
As skilful as some surgeons may have become, I'd only be interested in a romantic and sexual liaison with a man that nature created.
I know my comments about any trans issues sends people into the land of how dare she say that- and in a country where free speech is so honoured- but I just say it as I perceive it.
Trans people don't need to put themselves in any position where they may be rejected, they have had enough of those feelings.

Well that last comment was lost to the ether for like, years.
I had problems with signing in. The tech guys must have some how retrieved it when I contacted them. Obviously a boomerang comment.
Excuse my repetition.

I didnt mean old fashioned as a negative...just the way of the world.... old thoughts are replaced with new ones. I guess i meant more "out-dated"...or soon to be obsolete. I don't see anything you said as inflammatory. And i think Erica is doing a disservice to those she means to champion by forcing anyone to change their views or be dismissed as a "blithering idiot"... much like i thought alisoncummins was doing a disservice to the LGBT cause in general when she so openly talked about choosing when to be lesbian in her life and when to not...(the idea here being that CHOICE is an actual part of the narrative for you not wanting to partner with a transperson OR for gays, lesbians, and trans people around the world). We can't help who we want to partner with...its just the way of it.... I'm probably leaving this comment open to some kind of rebuke that will make perfect sense once i hear it... but... so be it.

Sorry to hear the goods were not quite as advertised, nocute. Goddamn used car salesmen, gotta watch em like a hawk.

Chairman, stop. Bigger grave there are you digging. Much bigger and wider.
I doubt my take on this situation will ever be obsolete.

What nocute? haven't read thru everything. Enough of my brain scorched.
Has this guy turned into a jerk? I'd say something here about the reliabity of men , or the ability for intimacy as a woman needs it, but I wont. One bum
Fight a thread, enough for me.
Cuddles sister, cuddles.

LateBloomer & LavaGirl: No worries: the guy's neither a jerk nor a used car salesman. Just a guy who has something in his pocket that he chose to keep hidden until after I fell for him (and he for me). We're still together. Things are just much more complicated than I'm used to or than I'd like.

Oh, okay. No worries is good. Not a jerk is good. Carry on.

Nocute, yes well, disclosure.
We could write a whole column about that.
Hope it works out, then.

Re 292; of course I should have said some, in front of the men.

Could we please reserve the hugboxes for cases of severe distress? I'll give anyone a pass this time for thinking that to be the case with Ms Erica, who was acting out of character. In general, though, hugboxes belong in (Overly?) Safe Spaces, and excessive hugboxing creates Echo Chambers.

Which reminds me - Ms Cute, as an educator, what did you make of the recent debate at Brown about campus sexual assault between Jessica Valenti and Wendy McElroy? On learning that Ms McElroy was likely to criticize the term "rape culture" (I must admit that I have not personally attended any debates where I never heard a viewpoint dissenting from my own), various measures were taken. A member of faculty feared that allowing such a view to be aired might be damaging, an administrator arranged a competing talk to provide "research and facts", and a student group arranged a safe space. I can more or less see the point in a safe space (or a trigger warning for the event, or ought that to be self-evident for a debate?), but this one [The room was equipped with cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies, as well as students and staff members trained to deal with trauma.] seems to have gone a little overboard (the quote is from a NY Times article from 3/22 by Judith Shulevitz), though I thought your opinion would be worth having.

@291 lava - fwiw, i don't think your desire to be with a cis male or know if the person you are dating was born male will ever be obsolete.... i mean: the onus will not be on the transperson...it will be on the person who needs to know.

can't ya see me at the bottom of this hole? hahaha. That was good advice... i'll shut up now...

Chairman, I sure hope not.
By implication, knowing about STDs, onus also on the person who wants to know?

Oh. Ok Venn. Request re hug boxes registered.

Ms Lava - Thank you much. Seeing Mr Monic's offering of virtual hugs (perhaps *the* most feminist gesture in existence, although we'll have to wait and see what becomes of the substitution of jazz hands for applause) earlier in the thread was quite sufficiently looking-glass for one week.

Really any information, Chairman, that could/ may serve as a deal breaker, the onus is on the person who wants to know?
Extreme kinks, say.
I could get on line, stating I'm a 25 yr old, fake photo, engage in conversations with men, keep it going as long as possible until a meeting is finally insisted on. I could only hope my engaging online personality, will blind them to the fact I am a good more years older?

I see your point. Im not really sure where i am going with mine... i can't seem to figure out a way to explain what is in my head...

ambiguity will be the new normal? ...eventually....

also- re 302 - i had no intention of implying i thought it would be acceptable to deceive at any time (like the age gap example you use). I hope that is never the norm

@286: "Please nobody tell me this place is turning into a hugbox."

That seems ...unlikely.

@305: I don't know, Eudaemonic. I came the closest to wanting to hug you than I have before . . .

Hunter @297

Your idiotic mewlings about second class trans people or about plastic surgery or about "perfect transitions" -- in quotes because you feel like just making quotes up out of whole cloth? Is that how you think quotes work? -- have nothing to do with anything I posted about this week. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. No hugbox here, Mr. Venn.

For anyone confused: Of course people get to like what they like and date who they like. The discussion is about when people need to reveal something which may be a deal-breaker if revealed early on, but might not be a deal-breaker if revealed after attachment has formed. My argument is that there is very little that has to be revealed before a first date, and a great deal that has to be revealed before the two people agree to be exclusive.

@306: Given the number of "fuck yous" in this thread, though, I find myself awfully curious about the places Mr. Venn doesn't think are at risk of descending into hugboxery.

Thunderdome?

@298: Mr.Ven, I confess that when I first read that column, I eye-rolled pretty heavily, though I also have to confess that until then I'd never heard of Wendy McElroy and had to google her.
My take on trigger warnings is that if there is no reason to expect potentially trauma-inducing material, and particularly if reading, hearing, or seeing it is mandatory, it is a considerate thing to do. So for example, if I am teaching a text about rape in a class where such a text isn't expected and where you can't tell from the title that it will be about rape and everyone is required to read it, it can be a gesture I wish to make (I'm actually on the fence right now about just that scenario, because I want to be sensitive, but I also don't want to spoil the reveal in the plot of the YA book, Speak, I've assigned for next week's class in my Children's Literature class).

But the point of a DEBATE is that opposing opinions will be aired, and by their nature some of those opinions will not be shared or will even be disturbing to people attending in the audience. And student attendance at the debates weren't mandatory, I don't believe. In which case, I think Brown seriously over-reacted. College is supposed to be a place where you learn to be an adult, among other things. Part of being an adult is being able to handle hearing disturbing things without having to resort to puppy petting in order to take the bad feelings away.

@309: Grrr: wasn't obviously, not "weren't."

Safety note for LavaGirl @300:

If you plan to be sexually active and prefer not to have sex with someone who has HIV, herpes, or other STIs -- I highly recommend that you start by going to have a full set of tests done on yourself, and then have a serious conversation with any possible partner where you say something like "This is when I was tested, and these were my results. When were you tested and what were the results?"

Because it's all very well to say that ethical people would tell you upfront, but in fact many people in my experience believe that if Person A doesn't ask about X disease (particularly herpes, but probably not exclusively so), then that's because A has X and doesn't want to talk about it. So Person B feels free not bringing it up, because they apparently both have it. Or at least it's convenient for Person B (who has X) to act as if they believe that.

Most people, in my direct experience, won't lie about their test results. But, again in my direct experience, many people will not disclose if you don't ask the questions directly.

@Venn - offering of virtual hugs (perhaps *the* most feminist gesture in existence
I hope you meant feminine. Feminist makes no sense in this context. Also, your ideas of femininity are not mine. And if this is not a typo, your ideas of feminism are not mine either.

@EricaP - I'm getting that you're upset to the point of violent FUs and I probably shouldn't talk to you. I like when you rely on reason more than emotional appeal, you're usually quite proficient. But anyway. I don't think your argument is clear in 307. I think that the majority of posts on this topic have been about the line between using discretion to approach sensitive topics and using deception to develop an attachment. I think that everyone agrees that trans people shouldn't be attacked or discriminated against. I'd also agree that being attracted to cis, or to a particular gender even, is as nonsensical as being attracted to natural boobs or testicles. Attractions don't make sense. But you don't seem to acknowledge the harm that can result from being a pretender.
"What if I say I’m not like the others
What if I say I’m not just another one of your plays
You’re the pretender
What if I say I will never surrender".

@312 Can you tell me how to identify the line between using discretion to approach sensitive topics and using deception to develop an attachment? All I'm saying is that acting as if the line is BEFORE the first date is stupid, and that for a cis-person to tell a trans person that they have an ethical duty to disclose their trans background BEFORE the first date is an offensive display of cis-privilege with no empathy for the difficult situation that trans people are in. See Eudaemonic's posts for an example of how to approach the issue with sensitivity rather than selfishness.

And I'll repeat my offer from 280, that if LavaGirl says she never meant that trans people are ethically obligated to reveal their trans status BEFORE the first date, then I will apologize for misunderstanding her posts.

I THINK that if i were a transperson, i would prefer to know before the first date if i was accepted by this other person or not.... i just wouldnt want to deal with that kind of secret. To that end, i would probably enlist friends where possible to test the waters for me. And if the particular context of knowing the person did not include any overlapping friends, i'd probably be upfront and rather blunt about it.... admittedly more as a defense mechanism than anything else.... but, i have no frame of reference to make such a claim... my own self-perceived dealbreakers are impossible to disguise.... so i've never had to fess up... i'm 5'8"... and you probably won't be amazed to hear that most dating profiles list 6ft and up as "necessary".... but... if i am actually ON a 4th or 5th date with someone... i have absolutely no need to say "you realize i am only 5'8", right?".... I'm saying i don't know what its like to have an external and internal mismatch... my book can (more or less) be judged by its cover

@315: This is a convenient analogy, actually. Your dating pool would be much larger if it included women who got to know you before finding out how tall you are. If most dates were conducted over the internet--and I suspect this will be the case, within my lifetime--how much time should pass before you mention that you're not tall?

What we think we're okay with is a much narrower range than what we're actually okay with once we've gotten to know someone.

That, in turn, is much narrower than the range of things we'd tolerate once we were emotionally committed.

For people working with certain handicaps (in the dating-market sense), it must be incredibly tempting to exploit this particular loophole in human psychology.

A world in which people aren't allowed to exploit this discrepancy at all is undesirable, but so is a world in which there are no ethical limits to how much people are allowed to exploit this; no one wants a world in which asexuals are allowed to promise that they'll start having enthusiastic sex any day now, just as soon as their cold clears up, and then as soon as they're not so busy, and then as soon as you lose a little weight, and then as soon as you've started dressing nicer, and then as soon as they've had a good vacation, and then... it's been ten years.

I think the exchange of "I love you's" is probably too late. Just spitballing here, but I'd say between 4-6 hours--by the sixth total hour you've spent on dates with someone, things like "I'll never be interested in sex," or "I'll never be monogamous," or "My genitals are totally different from what you're expecting," or "I have terminal cancer," or "I'm married and will never want more than an FWB arrangement with you" should definitely have come out.

"Total hours" meaning the total amount of time you've spent with the person, on a date-like activity, not "six hours passed since we met." If we go on half-hour mini-dates, by the twelfth one, I should let you know what kind of relationship is available if I have reason to believe it's not what you're assuming. Two-hour dates, that info should probably be available by the end of the third.

The exact number of hours is a weakly-held belief; maybe it should be 3, or 12, or 8, whatever. But I think it's somewhere in that range. Certainly before we're spending whole weekends together, or planning trips out of the country together, everyone deserves to have been corrected if their partner has probable cause to believe that they're making incorrect-but-common assumptions about what kind of relationship is on offer.

Not sure you're allowed hugs/ cuddles, unless a real disaster afoot, nocute.
Venn, you know. He has given an edict.
Though my preference, always, is to have lots of cuddles/ hugs to store up courage to deal with disasters.

@316 - see.... the thing is... i would prefer to weed out the women who need me to be taller. I have no interest in spending a significant amount of time with someone who wishes i was "just a bit different".... "he's almost perfect...if only he were 4 inches taller"..... and i feel NO need whatsoever to educate any women on the virtue of shorter men. So its not an analogy that really holds up.... i brought it up only to illustrate that my own potential shortcomings (pun intended) are not internal or hidden... they are right out in the open... lol....

I agree with the rest of what you wrote... i just think if i were trans... i would probably get it over with very early on... like before the first date....