Quote from: Wynternight on November 24, 2014, 04:15:21 PM
Is exclusionary detailing a legal concept? If so could it apply in this case if it were signed into law?
If you merely omit information it'd have to be something that would have a tangible effect on the transaction had the other party known about.
An example I've given (several times) on here is if an employer asks for other names you've been known by. Because of anti-discrimination laws (not just with regards to transpeople - other examples would be someone who immigrated and chose a new name to help assimilate, or someone who publishes content on a legally protected subject such as religion under a different name) the only reason they need to know names you've formerly used is to properly check records they have a legal interest in (some high-security jobs that are exempt from the usual set of "illegal" questions may be different). For example, if they run a criminal background check and you don't tell them all the names or aliases your history is under, and not all of it shows up when run under your current legal name, you can get in trouble for trying to conceal your criminal history. If a former school or employer they want to contact to verify only knows you by a name different from the one you're using now you'll probably get a false negative saying you never attended classes or worked there (meaning the employer will probably think you're lying about your credentials). On the other hand, if nothing the employer could check is under the alternate name (such as child/teen transitioners, or outside our community
for example those adopted as a child or those who used a pseudonym for a purpose beyond the scope of your relevant background), then they don't have a reason to know (in a case like that, my recommendation rather than saying nothing is to say something like "none that any relevant records are under" if you want to CYA).
Using another example with a car salesperson analogy: If they failed to disclose for example that a previous owner was a smoker (assuming that fact was known) then the buyer would have a tangible reason for recourse, since that makes a difference on the quality (i.e. smell) of the interior. If the salesperson failed to disclose for example that the previous owner was black then the buyer couldn't challenge the dealer since that's not considered a valid reason for the car's quality to be diminished (if the buyer asked it may be different, but even then the salesperson could say that he/she does not wish to disclose information of that nature).
I don't know how the case of not telling a sexual partner that you're trans* would be handled. A case where there would be a tangible ground would be if the other partner expected to have future children in the relationship since being a post-op transperson means you're infertile (unless you saved sperm or eggs prior to the operation, but even then it'd be the "wrong" kind of gamete). Another example is that if your constructed sex organs function significantly different than a cisperson's affecting intercourse (if I understand correctly that with FTMs the penis sometimes have limited function depending on the operation done).
