[QUOTE="Espada12"]
[QUOTE="m0zart"]
For me this isn't just any old thing that someone may choose not to disclose -- it isn't like refusing to disclose who you voted for in the last election, your political views, or your financial goals in life. Like it or not, it isn't just the gender of a potential partner that is important for many individual entering into a relationship, but also the biological sex that the individual was born with.
Informed consent is rather critical in any situation where someone is entering into a relationship especially where gender and sex are concerned, and I can't reconcile withholding this important information without some strong legal ramifications against the individual who did the withholding.
worlock77
There are legal ramifications. I remember a UK case where a man withheld the fact he had HIV and had sex with two women. They granted consent but said had they know he had HIV, they would not have consented. His defense was that he asked if they wanted to use a condom and since they said no he assumed that they accepted all the risk that comes with unprotected sex (this was an ingenious defense and that lawyer should get a clap) but he was still convicted anyway.
Fact is, replace Aids with transgendered and you would have the same scenario and I assume you could be brought to court for rape by deception.
It's not quite the same thing. HIV is a serious, potentially deadly, affliction that can be spread from person to person via sex. Being transgendered is not.
The point isn't about the deadliness about HIV, it's about gaining consent by omitting details about yourself. Omission can be deception and had the other person known you were a transsexual, and would not have granted consent based on those grounds, you would be deceiving them especially since you know that many people won't grant consent based on that (much like HIV).
Log in to comment