Susan's Place Transgender Resources

its number 51483131 and 09/09/2009 at 1:21pm by Anonymous - love - I agree, your life sucks : 34192 - you totally deserved it : 2362  (YLS and YTDI) will change

it reads "Today, I found out why my husband had wanted to wait until marriage to get it on. Last night was the first night of our honeymoon, and he informed me that he wasn't always Ben, but used to be Brenda. His 'penis' doesn't work and he had wanted to know I "truly loved him" before he had let me know. FML"

discuss

I confess to being very skeptical about the authenticity of FML entries.  If true, then this Ben needs a vigorous slapping.  That's a crappy thing to do to someone.

I agree with finewine on this one.

i think it was a VERY BAD idea to do this to his fiance/wife.  thats just nutters.  on the comments, a lot of people are like "if you love him, you'll stay married", but theyre assuming that the OP has a problem with trans people, but in reality, its about the HUUUGE lie and trapping her in a legal contract without disclosing details relevant to such contract.

a lot of other people on there are "defending" trans people but theyre completely ignorant about it, which bothers me even more than the people who are just hating to be hating.

i think her problem is less than she married a transman, but more that she married some dude who couldn't even be honest with her before they got married. what a jerk  :eusa_naughty:

I saw this, he's a jackass xD

Quote from: Josh on September 10, 2009, 11:27:38 AM
i think it was a VERY BAD idea to do this to his fiance/wife.  thats just nutters.  on the comments, a lot of people are like "if you love him, you'll stay married", but theyre assuming that the OP has a problem with trans people, but in reality, its about the HUUUGE lie and trapping her in a legal contract without disclosing details relevant to such contract.

Not disclosing your status is not the same as lying.  He is male, period.

Quote from: Mister on September 10, 2009, 02:43:10 PM
Not disclosing your status is not the same as lying.  He is male, period.

I have to respectfully disagree in this particular scenario because (a) I find it unlikely that the topic of sex before marriage didn't crop up and hence he would have lied about the reason for waiting and (b) a "lie of omission"* is still a lie.

* (deliberately concealing important and relevant information so as to leave someone with a false impression)

Quote from: finewine on September 10, 2009, 03:10:31 PM
I have to respectfully disagree in this particular scenario because (a) I find it unlikely that the topic of sex before marriage didn't crop up and hence he would have lied about the reason for waiting and (b) a "lie of omission"* is still a lie.

* (deliberately concealing important and relevant information so as to leave someone with a false impression)

As for the sex, maybe they're born again and saving themselves.  Who knows.

As for the rest, I'm quite surprised that you, as a partner of a transperson, are taking this stance.  Your definition of omission seems to be used to make the argument that while the guy-in-question lives as male, is male bodied, more than likely is male on his legal documentation and is known to his wife as nothing but male, is somehow not truly a man.  Perhaps you're having a moment of 'manlier-than-thou' or something, but your opinion is pretty transphobic.

My son and I were discussing this yesterday. We both agreed that this was beyond an unacceptable thing to do to somebody. While I personally believe that having to disclose our trans past is just totally unfair (a discussion for another thread), I realize that it is expected, else you get the "lie of omission" thrown at you. I agree that this person is a man, but he hid the fact he was unable to perform sexually, which was something expected of him. This fact must be disclosed before marriage, and certainly should have been early on in the relationship (along with his trans history.)

Personally, I would have immediately filed for an annulment, and likely have received one easily. Marriage under false pretenses. Not the trans issue - but the sex one.

Quote from: Rebecca Liz on September 10, 2009, 03:42:50 PMI agree that this person is a man, but he hid the fact he was unable to perform sexually, which was something expected of him

So if my wife fails to orgasm, I should be able to get an annulment?

Personally, I don't consider it to be as big a deal as it is made out to be.

I would disclose to a potential partner, but nobody else unless they're medical personnel, esp. if I've had lower surgery.  IMO a life partner needs to know.  I would hate for her to find out after the fact from someone else, and it would allow her to bow out gracefully from the relationship.

That said, I'm highly doubtful I'll ever get that far with a lady, so it's likely a moot point anyhow.

Jay

Let me rephrase, and then I'm going to back out of this thread. I tire of the nitpicking, sorry.

If I was being denied sex for the duration of a relationship, because it was being saved for marriage, and I was not told that the genitals being withheld were the expected ones for the presented gender, only to find out after marriage that they were not a) the expected ones, b) the ones I prefer and c) incapable of being used the way I wanted... Well, yes, I would most likely be extremely pissed, and would likely want out. Mostly because of the lie, not because of the genitals. This should have definitely been discussed before entering into a marriage contract.

And yes, I'm postop MTF, so I have a very personal interest in these situations. I hate that I have to disclose, but that's life. But with me, the only issue will be that of acceptance, as I'm very capable of performing as expected.

Lots of men can't "sexually perform" as is expected of them.  Lots of men don't necessarily look the way a partner would want them to look.  It's made to be an issue because people perceive transitioned or transitioning men as "female" rather than "male", not because of the condition of their genitals.  The lie is taken as much more dramatic than it would be if the man were born simply infertile, or not capable of sexual function.  If that were the case, it would be seen as cold-hearted to divorce the person.  It's an issue they can't control.  To withhold information is almost predictable.  I can imagine any "biological man" would be quick to cover up any issue that related to his sexual performance or lack thereof.

Its part of the legal definition of marriage, if you can't, or will not sexually perform at the time of the marriage - then you have legal and valid grounds to have it annulled.  In this case, she might well have a good shot at a lawsuit against him for misrepresentation and making false promises, and breech of promise.

Seems like a pretty rotten thing to do to someone you love.

Ok, so by not telling her outright, he's acknowledging his underpants status could be a potential dealbreaker for her.

So he deliberately hid that fact until they were bound in a legal contract.

I wouldn't say he lied to her directly, but moves like that are more commonly associated with used car salesmen.


Truth be told, I do agree somewhat with both points of view.

He's a man just like any other man, and he shouldn't have to keep bringing up the past if he chooses not to.

But on the other hand, hiding a potential dealbreaker from the person you're about to share your life with in order to trap them into a legal contract is a pretty gutless move (does he think she'll be less likely to leave after the marriage papers are signed or something?).


Would we expect a cisman with a non-working / absent / mangled penis to disclose it to his girlfriend before she became his wife?

If it were a cisman with a problem instead of an FTM in this situation, would we be having the same reaction?

Quote from: Teknoir on September 10, 2009, 10:01:19 PM
I wouldn't say he lied to her directly, but moves like that are more commonly associated with used car salesmen.

I love how you phrased that.  :laugh:

I also agree somewhat with both points. On the one hand, his medical history is his business and both men and women often leave out less flattering aspects of their history, such as number of partners, abortions, etc. But on the other hand, if he's not post-op, it's pretty messed up not to disclose he's got a hole. If he's post-op though, the issue muddies. His trans condition is a thing of the past.

Yeah I think he should've told her. What's in his pants does matter, especially when sex is involved. Used car salesman indeed. I'm sure his wife expected a functional penis and he knew it.

SilverFang

Quote from: Nero on September 10, 2009, 10:18:21 PM
I love how you phrased that.  :laugh:

I also agree somewhat with both points. On the one hand, his medical history is his business and both men and women often leave out less flattering aspects of their history, such as number of partners, abortions, etc. But on the other hand, if he's not post-op, it's pretty messed up not to disclose he's got a hole. If he's post-op though, the issue muddies. His trans condition is a thing of the past.

Note that the wife said his "penis", "doesn't work".
So obviously he doesn't have classical "female anatomy".  He probably is post-op.  Sounds like it could be either a meta or phalloplasty she is talking about.  So, then, how does that change the argument?

You are all assuming he is pre-op.  What if he has a realistic looking and functioning penis, sans ejaculate? 

Quote from: Mister on September 10, 2009, 10:37:09 PM
You are all assuming he is pre-op.  What if he has a realistic looking and functioning penis, sans ejaculate?

There likely aren't many of those. I assume he's in the majority. If that is the case, then I see it differently. She didn't disclose enough information for me to think he's out of the majority, only that he said his penis "didn't work."

SilverFang

Alright, I wasn't going to get involved, but we're now advocating illegal activities.

The essence of the axiom of human volition is the capacity to react in a non-deterministic form to information by evaluating that information on the basis of one's values, and the initial and irreducible decision in this is the choice of one's values: Man chooses his morals, which is to say that he selects the basis on which he will make his decisions and the cognitive processes by which he will evaluate options.  From this, we establish the principle of voluntary social interaction, which is informed consent: Each party makes clear their values by a combination of assumption and direct disclosure, then discloses to the other party all information which pertains to the other's stated values, and the action proceeds when both parties agree.

Assuming that this story is true, it is unreasonable to expect that he believed that this information would not factor into her decision to marry; no one consents to marry an individual without a clear (by their own assesment) evaluation of the identity of that individual.  Therefore, by deliberately offering a marriage contract while refusing to disclose information which she would take into account in the decision to accept, he has entered into a relationship under false pretenses.  A similar decision is the sale of a parcel of real estate which the seller values at a certain price, but which the buyer cannot use, without informing the buyer of that detail.  This is referred to, in both cases, as fraud, and is subject to litigation in every society that I can think of.

The common protest is, of course, that 'he is male, period' by his own assessment and therefore this action does not constitute concealment.  Implicit in this is that her judgment and assessment of her future and values (the basis on which she will decide) are invalid in her own decision with regard to her future.  By interfering with her capacity for informed consent, he has essentially denied her volition and therefore her freedom.

People are not property, and their decisions are not subject to your ideals, but rather to their own.  If you do not respect their values and autonomy, on what basis do you expect them to respect yours?

- N

QuoteThe common protest is, of course, that 'he is male, period' by his own assessment and therefore this action does not constitute concealment.

By his own assessment?  Try by the assessments of the mental health community, his surgeon(s) and the government.

Quote from: Mister on September 10, 2009, 11:01:41 PM
By his own assessment?  Try by the assessments of the mental health community, his surgeon(s) and the government.

There are two flaws with this defense.  In the first matter, the mental health community, his surgeon(s), and the government are now in the position of determining, for this woman, the values and bases upon which she will plan her future and her marriage, and the reality remains that she has been removed from the process of a considered decision on her own future.  In the second matter, none of the aforementioned parties have chosen to condone deception or manipulation of a woman in her own life, nor have any of these parties encoded in the law an exception to the statues of fraud.

The distinction is therefore immaterial: She has been denied personal responsibility and personal liberty.

- N

Edit: Excess use of the verb 'to be'.

So, are you going to address your failed point or...?

Quote from: Mister on September 10, 2009, 11:10:40 PM
So, are you going to address your failed point or...?

I have given my argument and have received, rather than a response or even a coherent acknowledgment, an unsupported assumption.  Due to the lack of an argument in your refutation, I'm afraid that I'll have to consider the argument concluded.

I'd like to hear others' opinions on my argument.  To what degree is informed consent in adult relationships lawfully and ethically overridden by the right of personal privacy during voluntary relationships?  In short, if a women contemplates marriage, what right has she to decide the matter on her own values, and to expect that those values will be respected by her suitor?

- N

I think if the woman wants to divorce him, she has the freedom to do so.  I don't see why it should be more complicated than this.  As far as I see it, it's a personal affair and shouldn't go beyond that at this point.

Quote from: Nimetön on September 10, 2009, 10:45:56 PM
Alright, I wasn't going to get involved, but we're now advocating illegal activities.

It may not compile cleanly with some people's code, but would it really be illegal?

Heh, if they start jailing every guy who embellished his bedroom skills to impress a girl, we'd have a very... divided  society  :laugh:  :police:.


I still think it's less about "he has a transsexual history" and more about "he didn't disclose he doesn't have a working penis. If she had known about his lack of dancing pants cobra, she may have made a different decision".

He went about it all wrong. All he has to do is say "On the plus side, my wang size is customizable..." (or "It'll never go down half way through...") and she might not be so against the idea of being married to a man that needs to use a little extra hardware in bed ;).

Quote from: Nimetön on September 11, 2009, 12:01:33 AM
I'd like to hear others' opinions on my argument.  To what degree is informed consent in adult relationships lawfully and ethically overridden by the right of personal privacy during voluntary relationships?  In short, if a women contemplates marriage, what right has she to decide the matter on her own values, and to expect that those values will be respected by her suitor?

- N

Don't know the legalities. But values vary so much. Ideally, a prospective marriage partner would disclose his life story. But in absense of that level of honesty, how do we decide what must be disclosed? What if a man neglected to inform his wife he had once been intimate with another man? What if that would have been a deal breaker for her (I know a few for whom it would be)? But since that was in his past and he no longer has any interest in being with men, he didn't find it relevant.
What if he neglected to inform her he was one quarter Black/Hispanic/Indian? And god forbid, that was a deal breaker for her?
What if he'd spent one single night in jail and that turned out to be against her personal values?
Other than the obvious sterility/failure to perform aspect, where is the line drawn regarding one's past?

Quote from: Mister on September 10, 2009, 03:34:07 PM
As for the sex, maybe they're born again and saving themselves.  Who knows.

As for the rest, I'm quite surprised that you, as a partner of a transperson, are taking this stance.  Your definition of omission seems to be used to make the argument that while the guy-in-question lives as male, is male bodied, more than likely is male on his legal documentation and is known to his wife as nothing but male, is somehow not truly a man.  Perhaps you're having a moment of 'manlier-than-thou' or something, but your opinion is pretty transphobic.

Dude, I'm not talking about his gender!  I'm talking about her expectations about his copulatory faculties being deliberately deceived.  I realize we don't have all the facts but it seems implicit from the quote that she was expecting to have a sex life and further, that he knew this could be a problem.  Hence why he said he withheld the truth until after they were married on the lame excuse that he wanted to verify her love for him.

I can assure you that my comment would be the same if it was a cisgendered male because it wouldn't be any less wrong for a cis either.  The gender isn't the point.

The unaddressed question is, as I see it, not the matter of what to disclose, but the basis upon which to make the decision.

Please allow me to explain my question by means of an allegory.  Feel free to take this scenario without loss of generality, i.e. feel free to change or ignore the ages, sexes, and circumstances as you like in order to better reveal the underlying conflict.

You are of the age of thirty-five, and have been married happily for three years.  You wish to purchase a car, your funds are well in order, and your spouse agrees.  Two vehicles are available, one with better gas mileage than the other, and one with a new traction control breaking system.  The former is the finest in terms of it's fuel efficiency, and the latter in terms of it's control, and both of you can agree that these are the only two options which are of interest.

You wish to purchase a particular vehicle based on it's gas mileage despite the fact that it lacks a new traction-control system which your wife considers to be safer.  She would gladly sacrifice gas mileage to obtain the car with this system, and you conclude ahead of time (and have very good reason to conclude) that this system will not provide extra safety, and therefore the better decision is yours.  You also know your wife well, and you know that she will not easily concede the point, or that she may not concede the point at all.  You may even consider her intransigence to be irrational.

You are aware of the option of the second vehicle, but your wife does not realize that it is a possible choice for your new car.  Do you tell her, and so open the matter to an argument, or do you conceal from your wife the manner in which your shared funds will be used?

The essential question: Do you respect your wife's free and informed judgment despite disagreeing with her specific priorities, or will you conceal information from her in order to render her priorities invalid in favor of your own, believing with good reason that your own values are superior?

- N (with advice from K)

Is he obligated to tell her that he's FTM, ever? Absolutely not.

Is he obligated to tell her that he cannot perform sexually and that he cannot create children with her, BEFORE marrying her? Absolutely yes. Famiy and sex are what drive most of our motives after survival needs.

It's a wife or husband's right to divorce at any time for any reason, I believe that's how our legal system works.

I think they made a big mistake not having sex BEFORE marriage. And not getting it clear that he can't sire children.

And as far as that goes, if you can't give your wife orgasms, you're on your way out fellas.

Quote from: Nimetön on September 11, 2009, 12:45:15 AM
The unaddressed question is, as I see it, not the matter of what to disclose, but the basis upon which to make the decision.

Please allow me to explain my question by means of an allegory.  Feel free to take this scenario without loss of generality, i.e. feel free to change or ignore the ages, sexes, and circumstances as you like in order to better reveal the underlying conflict.

You are of the age of thirty-five, and have been married happily for three years.  You wish to purchase a car, your funds are well in order, and your spouse agrees.  Two vehicles are available, one with better gas mileage than the other, and one with a new traction control breaking system.  The former is the finest in terms of it's fuel efficiency, and the latter in terms of it's control, and both of you can agree that these are the only two options which are of interest.

You wish to purchase a particular vehicle based on it's gas mileage despite the fact that it lacks a new traction-control system which your wife considers to be safer.  She would gladly sacrifice gas mileage to obtain the car with this system, and you conclude ahead of time (and have very good reason to conclude) that this system will not provide extra safety, and therefore the better decision is yours.  You also know your wife well, and you know that she will not easily concede the point, or that she may not concede the point at all.  You may even consider her intransigence to be irrational.

You are aware of the option of the second vehicle, but your wife does not realize that it is a possible choice for your new car.  Do you tell her, and so open the matter to an argument, or do you conceal from your wife the manner in which your shared funds will be used?

The essential question: Do you respect your wife's free and informed judgment despite disagreeing with her specific priorities, or will you conceal information from her in order to render her priorities invalid in favor of your own, believing with good reason that your own values are superior?

- N (with advice from K)

Oh, I agree. I don't personally agree with what he did. I just don't agree with the notion that transpeople should be held to special standards of disclosure. I'm not suggesting anyone here has said that, but it's what's usually objected to in cases like this. That he has some obligation to inform her he's not a 'genuine' man.

Sex before marriage = good. Test drive that car!

I get the impression that some people think I implied that this man is not a man. That is completely not the case!!! I would never say that! The issue here is completely one of genitals, and what was implied to be in his pants at the time of marriage. And yes, if this was a cis-man, with sexual issues, I would expect that to be disclosed before marriage as well. Although rare these days, some people do still "save themselves" for marriage. Personally, that would be a deal-breaker for me in itself, but it's not unheard of, and so isn't an automatic red flag for an issue. Sterility, inability to perform, STDs, even just major illnesses... these should be disclosed as well, imo. Yes, our history shouldn't have to be disclosed, but sadly that's just not very realistic. Believe me, I wish that weren't the case. That's not the issue in question here, though. In this case, that "history" is literally in his pants, rather than just in the past, and should have been disclosed early on.

Quote from: Rebecca Liz on September 11, 2009, 02:12:48 AM
I get the impression that some people think I implied that this man is not a man. That is completely not the case!!! I would never say that! The issue here is completely one of genitals, and what was implied to be in his pants at the time of marriage. And yes, if this was a cis-man, with sexual issues, I would expect that to be disclosed before marriage as well. Although rare these days, some people do still "save themselves" for marriage. Personally, that would be a deal-breaker for me in itself, but it's not unheard of, and so isn't an automatic red flag for an issue. Sterility, inability to perform, STDs, even just major illnesses... these should be disclosed as well, imo. Yes, our history shouldn't have to be disclosed, but sadly that's just not very realistic. Believe me, I wish that weren't the case. That's not the issue in question here, though. In this case, that "history" is literally in his pants, rather than just in the past, and should have been disclosed early on.

Hi Rebecca, if this was in response to my last post, I wasn't referring to you or really anything specific anyone here has said. This is just one of those recurring issues and one that is a hot topic for both us and cis people alike. There are two different issues going on with the situation in question - said man's ability to perform and his transness.

QuoteIn this case, that "history" is literally in his pants, rather than just in the past, and should have been disclosed early on.

If he were post-op and could perform normally though? Or in that case would it be analoguous to whether a woman disclosed her breast implants?  :laugh:

No, Nero, it wasn't in response to anything anybody in particular said. And perhaps the lateness of the hour affected my brain a bit as well lol.

As for if he was postop and functioned properly? Personally, I would be just fine with that then. That's actually where I stand too (postop and function properly.) But I do understand why the majority of people would still want to know. I personally wouldn't care, as long as it all worked.

Quote from: Nero on September 11, 2009, 02:37:11 AM
[...]
If he were post-op and could perform normally though? Or in that case would it be analoguous to whether a woman disclosed her breast implants?  :laugh:

Well clearly that's a different scenario and this is where we need to be careful not to alter the original premise just to secure a point of outrage.  (Not that I'm saying you're doing this, Nero).

Quote from: finewine on September 11, 2009, 04:14:16 AM
Well clearly that's a different scenario and this is where we need to be careful not to alter the original premise just to secure a point of outrage.  (Not that I'm saying you're doing this, Nero).

I don't think anyone's outraged. Just wonder if people's objections to his actions is because he can't perform or because he's trans, or both.

Quote from: Nero on September 11, 2009, 04:33:29 AM
I don't think anyone's outraged. Just wonder if people's objections to his actions is because he can't perform or because he's trans, or both.

Indeed sir - and on that latter point, if you're referring to people here, I don't believe it is just because he's trans.  That may be what precipitated his deception but I don't think anyone is trying to assert that his trans-ness is inherently deceptive.  Certainly my criticism is around his behaviour, not his gender.

I'm only really speaking up on this because our sensitivities sometimes skew our perceptions :)

Oh, I wasn't thinking that. I was thinking is it about genitals or his past? But, ah it's late and I'm probably tangling this with prior arguments on the general subject.  :P

Quote from: Nero on September 11, 2009, 05:08:02 AM
Oh, I wasn't thinking that. I was thinking is it about genitals or his past? But, ah it's late and I'm probably tangling this with prior arguments on the general subject.  :P

Your point does still tackle a valid concern, old bean. :)  In a way, there's going to be some overlap...I mean, how could he talk about his genitals without it leading to his past?  As soon as he says he can't perform/impregnate/whatever, her immediate question is going to be "oh - why not?"

Then again, if you're that serious with someone that you're going to marry them, does it really seem rational to withhold materially relevant information?

I agree he should have said something! Whether it be to bring up that he can't father children biologically or that he has a condition with his dick when asked why, if he really has just put his past waaaaayyyy behind him to never be mentioned again, burned all photos etc, could he not have said something like he was born intersex? Or that he was in an accident or something along those lines to explain the function (or lack thereof)?
If he truly felt that saying he 'used to be a "girl"', is a FtM transsexual, transgender whatever, was just so traumatizing saying ANYTHING else could have breached that gap and still given his now wife a chance to love him for who he really is as he wanted. Telling her nothing was not the answer. And as has been said before, if he trusted her enough to propose and want to spend the rest of his life with her - he should have said something. But I would be interested to know the full extent of the conversation like did they discuss kids and even sex etc to a lesser extent? Did he make promises he was never going to be able to keep?
Maybe thats why she is so pissed??? Just my 2c fellas...
Cheers
Jay

He told her that he would give her something he couldn't give.
He told her he "wanted to wait until marriage to get it on".

It doesn't make him less of a man, it makes him a liar.

If an infertile man would tell a woman "I want to wait until we're married to have a baby", he too would be a liar.

Legally - and this goes back into almost pre-history - a marriage has to be consummated (you have to get it on) for it to be valid in the first place.  Though that law has changed a bit, a non-consummated marriage does not need a divorce, but can simply be annulled.

Nero you make a good point, plenty of cis people get head over heels in love and then after the marriage it's "Darling, I didn't tell you but .... I'm a felon" etc.

Quote from: Miniar on September 11, 2009, 06:15:57 AM
He told her that he would give her something he couldn't give.
He told her he "wanted to wait until marriage to get it on".

It doesn't make him less of a man, it makes him a liar.

If an infertile man would tell a woman "I want to wait until we're married to have a baby", he too would be a liar.

Well said.

Quote from: SilverFang on September 10, 2009, 10:28:23 PM
Yeah I think he should've told her. What's in his pants does matter, especially when sex is involved. Used car salesman indeed. I'm sure his wife expected a functional penis and he knew it.

SilverFang

I agree.

Jay

Quote from: Teknoir on September 11, 2009, 12:23:30 AM
dancing pants cobra

Lol, that's a new one to me.

SilverFang

Haha that must be the metrosexual cousin of the one-eyed trouser snake.

Most guys wait at least a year before becoming a total disappointment to their wife.