Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Bear in mind that in NJ, crime equals felony.

This is also why disclosure and being truthful is important.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/rape_by_fraud_nj_lawmaker_introduces_bill_to_make_it_a_crime.html

So anyone who ever lied about age, income/job, marital status, health, religion, background, number of partners, etc. in order to get laid could be incarcerated and branded a felon for life?   That's like half of New Jersey right there.

Freedom of speech includes lies.  That's probably a good thing considering every politician we've ever had.

Quote from: Jill F on November 24, 2014, 03:00:33 PM
So anyone who ever lied about age, income/job, marital status, health, religion, background, number of partners, etc. in order to get laid could be incarcerated and branded a felon for life?   That's like half of New Jersey right there.

Freedom of speech includes lies.  That's probably a good thing considering every politician we've ever had.

Like all laws in this state this one is a bit overreaching. I don't agree with it and I think Christie will veto it. But at the same time it has like maybe 1% lesson learned component.

I think this is too broad to pass and likely wouldn't pass constitional muster if it came to that but, it would have a chilling effect on stealth folks. What if someone doesn't disclose their post-op status to a partner and the partner finds out? The postop individual is suddenly faced with prison and being a registered sex offender.

Wow! Just Wow!

New Jersey to become the sex offender state ?

So much wrong with this proposal.

I am literally speechless on this one...! How in the world does he think this would ever pass. As if we don't have enough overcrowding in prisons now this is a big WTF moment for me. By the definition of what I've read in the article even a bit of an exaggeration. Could you land you in prison and be registered as a sex offender, absolutely unbelievable...!

This'll fall under the void for vagueness doctrine and get tossed out via an appellate court if it does indeed get made into law. Laws can't be so extensive that they would lead to arbitrary prosecutions.

Quote from: Wynternight on November 24, 2014, 03:10:04 PM
I think this is too broad to pass and likely wouldn't pass constitional muster if it came to that but, it would have a chilling effect on stealth folks. What if someone doesn't disclose their post-op status to a partner and the partner finds out? The postop individual is suddenly faced with prison and being a registered sex offender.

If your partner-to-be doesn't ask if you're transgender there is no consequence for remaining silent. Even if asked you have the right to say that you're not answering the question. The crimes are for giving out false information, not for giving out no information.

Quote from: tgchar21 on November 24, 2014, 03:55:13 PM
If your partner-to-be doesn't ask if you're transgender there is no consequence for remaining silent. Even if asked you have the right to say that you're not answering the question. The crimes are for giving out false information, not for giving out no information.

Is exclusionary detailing a legal concept? If so could it apply in this case if it were signed into law?

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 (http://www.askamanager.org/2013/03/short-answer-sunday-7-short-answers-to-7-short-questions-32.html) 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).

Good information to know, thank you.

Sadly I'll always have to disclose my former name once I complete a legal name change since my educational records for nursing school and all prior experience as a nurse will be under my old name. Nursing is a field in which detailed background checks are a matter of course.

I just thought of an instance where exclusionary detailing might come into play: the trans panic defense. We've seen that argument made before. Person A finds out their partner (person B) is trans and never disclosed that status so person A beats up person B and makes a trans panic claim in their defense. Could the victim of the assault suddenly find themself facing prosection under this statute?

So far the only state that bans trans panic as a defense is California.

Quote from: tgchar21 on November 24, 2014, 04:59:28 PM
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. 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 another name than 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 (http://www.askamanager.org/2013/03/short-answer-sunday-7-short-answers-to-7-short-questions-32.html) 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 think this bill will even pass committee, if it is even brought up. That said, NJ has some weird laws regarding family, marriage and children.

Speaking of name, I think I'll go get a new diploma with my new name when I change my name. I went to NYU for my undergrad and they seem to be LGBT friendly, I think.

On NJ 101.5 this morning they were saying 5 other states have a similar law.

Quote from: Wynternight on November 24, 2014, 03:10:04 PM
I think this is too broad to pass and likely wouldn't pass constitional muster if it came to that but, it would have a chilling effect on stealth folks. What if someone doesn't disclose their post-op status to a partner and the partner finds out? The postop individual is suddenly faced with prison and being a registered sex offender.

Personally I think that being stealth to your married or long term partner is wrong and immoral but I don't think the state should hold a gun to your head to get you to disclose.

OMG!

"...Fraud invalidates sexual consent just as much as rape does..."

The man is an insensitive idiot, too.

Quote from: ImagineKate on November 25, 2014, 08:24:59 AM
Personally I think that being stealth to your married or long term partner is wrong and immoral but I don't think the state should hold a gun to your head to get you to disclose.

Kate, I'll go one step beyond this.

I think we should have a LEGAL RIGHT to decide when, where, how, and to whom we disclose ANY PART of our medical history, including heart problems, cancer, gender transition, broken bones, psychiatric illness, childhood acne, or any other situation that isn't contagious.

Don't want to get too political here, but Jill nailed it. Got me thinking this should apply to politicians FIRST. They misrepresent (LIE) to get elected and then screw us.

I don't see much difference.

Wow could you imagine the false accusatios n the bribery, what a dumb idea for a law, it would be like pointing n calling witch all over again  :laugh: lol

Quote from: Clhoe G on November 25, 2014, 08:52:08 AM
Wow could you imagine the false accusatios n the bribery, what a dumb idea for a law, it would be like pointing n calling witch all over again  :laugh: lol

Can we put a carrot nose on him, and weigh him against a duck? ;)

Quote from: Beth Andrea on November 25, 2014, 09:25:53 AM
Can we put a carrot nose on him, and weigh him against a duck? ;)

Who are you who is so wise n the ways of science?

Quote from: suzifrommd on November 25, 2014, 08:34:33 AM
Kate, I'll go one step beyond this.

I think we should have a LEGAL RIGHT to decide when, where, how, and to whom we disclose ANY PART of our medical history, including heart problems, cancer, gender transition, broken bones, psychiatric illness, childhood acne, or any other situation that isn't contagious.

I lean libertarian so I believe that people should decide on their own without Government force.

That said, before my wife and I got married, we both got tested for VDs including HIV. We agreed to this and it was the responsible thing to do.

She also fully disclosed her reproductive issues and we went to fertility specialists to figure out how to work around it. (That's when we also found out about me and my problems producing viable sperm.)

That said, I wish I had disclosed the trans thing because it would have made life so much easier...

But the moral here is that it's common sense to be up front with a partner. The fact that the legislature is even considering a bill is that maybe more than one person complained to authority somewhere. I am not saying they should be given the right to screw up then complain to mommy Government, but maybe it's happening more than we'd like to admit. Anyway everyone should be responsible for themselves...

Quote from: ImagineKate on November 25, 2014, 08:23:25 AMSpeaking of name, I think I'll go get a new diploma with my new name when I change my name. I went to NYU for my undergrad and they seem to be LGBT friendly, I think.

If they would issue a replacement diploma for other kinds of name changes they should for a gender-transition-related one.