I would not necessarily say "revolted", but I would say that in this day and age most straight people in Western culture might not be turned on by, or might not want to have sex with, a trans person. It's an upsetting view, but I certainly think it's a realistic one as the culture currently stands. Do you disagree?
Let's take a look at it from the point of blondes and brunettes, right? You may have some guys that prefer natural blondes, but very very rarely will you have a guy that absolutely, positively refuses to sleep with a brunette, and if he learns you were born a brunette but you dye your hair he will kick you out of his bed (I actually know one of those guys, but I have to assume that he's the extreme exception). So in that case, the blonde has very little onus to check to make sure he's aware she's a bottle blonde, and the responsibility is much more with the guy, who knows that a lot of women dye their hair in our current beauty culture. Now if the woman in that scenario knows the guy's got such restrictions, I feel like the onus shifts.
But what if a guy is married to a woman's sister, but she doesn't know it? In that case, there's only one guy on the planet married to her sister, so all other things being equal she's got very little reason to assume that this guy might be that one human. Further, any reasonable adult male will know that a woman may have serious second thoughts about sleeping with her sister's husband. In that case, the onus is all on him -- in that circumstance, he knows that she'd want to know, and she's got no real reason to ask. If he's reasonably certain that she wouldn't give a damn either way, in that case he's home free -- but what are the odds of that?
The Jew/Arab thing is tricky because it's hard to know on what side of that threshhold the situation fell. Did he know she had a serious, serious problem with Arabs? Should she have had a reasonable suspicion that could be an Arab? I mean, if she met him in synagogue, wearing a yarmulka, maybe not. If she met him on the street in an ethnically mixed town, perhaps she should have been more diligent.
The thing with transpeople is that there aren't enough of them yet that it becomes something that most people would want to check for. If there was a one in five chance (for sake of example, and I'm not saying 20% is a threshhold figure) that your potential sexual partner would be a transperson, then maybe you could say that the onus is not upon the transperson to volunteer -- the "if you want to know you should have asked" defense holds water in that case. But that isn't the case. It's not a common enough scenario that most people would think to ask. Further, I think it's reasonable to assume that most people would weigh whether their partner is a transperson in their decision whether or not to have sex. Consequently, I don't think that it falls under the blondes-and-brunettes scenario.
no subject
Let's take a look at it from the point of blondes and brunettes, right? You may have some guys that prefer natural blondes, but very very rarely will you have a guy that absolutely, positively refuses to sleep with a brunette, and if he learns you were born a brunette but you dye your hair he will kick you out of his bed (I actually know one of those guys, but I have to assume that he's the extreme exception). So in that case, the blonde has very little onus to check to make sure he's aware she's a bottle blonde, and the responsibility is much more with the guy, who knows that a lot of women dye their hair in our current beauty culture. Now if the woman in that scenario knows the guy's got such restrictions, I feel like the onus shifts.
But what if a guy is married to a woman's sister, but she doesn't know it? In that case, there's only one guy on the planet married to her sister, so all other things being equal she's got very little reason to assume that this guy might be that one human. Further, any reasonable adult male will know that a woman may have serious second thoughts about sleeping with her sister's husband. In that case, the onus is all on him -- in that circumstance, he knows that she'd want to know, and she's got no real reason to ask. If he's reasonably certain that she wouldn't give a damn either way, in that case he's home free -- but what are the odds of that?
The Jew/Arab thing is tricky because it's hard to know on what side of that threshhold the situation fell. Did he know she had a serious, serious problem with Arabs? Should she have had a reasonable suspicion that could be an Arab? I mean, if she met him in synagogue, wearing a yarmulka, maybe not. If she met him on the street in an ethnically mixed town, perhaps she should have been more diligent.
The thing with transpeople is that there aren't enough of them yet that it becomes something that most people would want to check for. If there was a one in five chance (for sake of example, and I'm not saying 20% is a threshhold figure) that your potential sexual partner would be a transperson, then maybe you could say that the onus is not upon the transperson to volunteer -- the "if you want to know you should have asked" defense holds water in that case. But that isn't the case. It's not a common enough scenario that most people would think to ask. Further, I think it's reasonable to assume that most people would weigh whether their partner is a transperson in their decision whether or not to have sex. Consequently, I don't think that it falls under the blondes-and-brunettes scenario.