Obsidian accused of transmisogyny in Pillars of Eternity

[Redryhno]

, but we don't DO discussions here. We just yell about social media and demonstrate our disdain for "social justice" by talking about it every fucking second of every fucking day.

Pillars of Eternity gaming topic? Couldn't even stay on the front page. Pillars of Eternity drama topic? 5 pages and counting. Woop. Carry on, warriors.

If anyone wants to talk about the GAME I'm down for that. That's what everyone wanted, right? Less "politics", more games talk? WHOOPS, my eyes rolled right out of my head.

Yeah, I don't get it either. The people who wanted less politics in their games media, also often seem to be the very same people who talk about politics all day. (And yes, 'gender politics' is still politics)

Anyway, I really shouldn't be posting here. Posting in this thread feels like I'm surrounded by a whirlwind of Tasmanian Devils, spinning all around me.

To be fair, Pillars of Eternity gaming discussion has a $40 barrier to entry, and still apparently has a huge amount of game-breaking bugs to be patched out that isn't going to be getting a new influx of people in it(whoo-hoo, the Obsidian ineptitude/curse continues after twenty odd years still...), this is text anyone can see on the community page of in-game screenshots.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Ya know...it really doesn't matter whether or not you understand it. If someone is just uncomfortable sleeping with a transexual, that's their prerogative.

I wasn't saying that it's not okay because I can't understand it, I was saying I can't understand it.

Eh, fair enough.

Apologies for misconstruing your position.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

snip

Ok...so you don't have an answer and only made the last response as a catch-22? People aren't allowed to be uncomfortable with someone that spent a substantial part of their life as one gender wishing to be another and the rest as the gender they want wanting to bone them and having second thoughts about the boning on account of personal reasons? You said to let them down easy, and I asked how with something that was supposed to be taken as a funny and you then go and say that it shouldn't matter? Which is it buddy?

I'm well aware that your response wasn't supposed to be a serious portrayal of how you'd let someone down easy. I was just saying that of course there's no way to ensure somebody's not going to feel shitty after you strip down to nothing and you realize you're not attracted to them. That doesn't mean that there aren't ways to let them down that will make them feel slightly less shitty.

What that response would be? I have no idea, I've never been in a situation like that and I'd probably fail horribly. However, a good place to start would involve not telling them you don't want to sleep with them because they're really a man.

As for your question, I don't know exactly. I think there's a number of men in the world that are handsome, doesn't mean I want to bump uglies with them, and I certainly don't want to go to bed with a woman to find out she's got the same floppy bit of nerves and skin that I do. And even without floppy appendage, being told is going to have an effect because one of the things that's always gonna be in the back of your mind is that you're technically having sex with a guy at some point(forget the physical characteristics, and even rarer conditions you went to the trouble of making a big deal out of), you're sleeping with somebody that has a genetic makeup even more similar to you than normal, and I just find the idea unsettling, for the same reason I find sex with a gay guy unsettling, I'm not going to complain about them liking it, but I don't find the idea appealing in the slightest.

People can be fine with it and enjoy it, that's fine, but I don't really care for it. Especially if I wasn't told beforehand.

Okay, now I'm curious about the flip side, would it also bother you having sex with a female to male transsexual who had underwent no surgery or hormone therapy?

Someone who's mentally a man, but is "technically a woman"?

I'm just trying to understand, because you seem to put a lot of credence on genetic material that you will never see.

EDIT:

Eh, fair enough.

Apologies for misconstruing your position.

No worries, I probably could have made a point of clarifying that in the post.

 

[Sleepy Sol]

Meh. It's really not that big of a deal. Anything to get some sort of outrage (and consequently some form of counter-outrage) brigade started. And are we really going to start a debate on this? That poem itself isn't a comment on transpeople. You could even interpret it as a negative statement towards the guy, since he friggin' killed himself over almost sleeping/sleeping with a transperson. That said, people who aren't comfortable with sleeping with a transperson does not equal them being afraid of or hating them. And I'd think and hope when and if a transwoman or man wants to sleep with their partner or have a fling with somebody, they'd be comfortable enough with revealing the situation to their partner. I guess people are moreso creating a negative perception of the poem in-game because they feel it reinforces the image of a transperson being a scheming "trap." But I'm wondering how many people actually feel that that's an accurate image of a transperson. I'd say most just aren't very familiar with the concept in the first place.

Obsidian accepted his money. They made that the incentive for backing with that much money. Presumably they didn't specify 'non-offensive' content, though it's not like you can say much of anything slightly contentious without being deemed offensive in some manner on the internet these days. Let it stay.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

Lol. Anyone who got offended over that little poem should give Eazy's 'Nobody Move' a listen. Then the veins will truly burst from rage!!!

But yeah, more silliness over something meagre. I fully support trans rights, but getting all pissy over a petty joke is just.. it's idiocy.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

...sigh. More pretty twitter bullshit.

Anyway, people are 100℅ justified to politely point out thing's they dislike in the game, the devs are justified to look into it and politely respond to these concerns in a matter they see fit. Meanwhile, people can politely discuss said concerns while respecting the people making them.

And when everyone inevitably violates the "be polite" rules, well we all lose.

 

[The Lunatic]

Oh look. Once again the usual suspects are getting offended silly things that are completely irrelevant.

Perhaps we'll get at least one big release in which the outrage culture won't get their panties/briefs in a bunch about.

It's a game where you find people being hung for no reason, "Hollowborn" children who are put to death and various other things in a fantasy world.

But, no, there's not offensive! Briefly mentioning a poem about a character who is presumed to be sleeping with a trans person is apparently the most offensive thing.

It's a fantasy game, so, let's explore other fantasy scenarios that could entirely be the case, because fuck it, it's fantasy.

The "Man" was actually just a man, using a potion of change appearance to prank the guy!

It's entirely possible, and in this wording, the "Man" would be a correct terminology.

The "Woman" he woo'd was actually a guy all along and didn't identity as transgender.

The game allows you to take the voices of both male and females, regardless of your character's sex.



Also, the person who made that twitter post is the most pathetic creature I've ever seen. They go on snivelling about "Retweet this so we can try and get some pressure on this".

How awful of a person do you have to be to willingly indulge in this and try to get something so trivial and minor removed from a game, because of how you've interpreted it.

 

[kael013]

[quote/]So once again it's on the non-trans to find out if the person they're hitting on is trans. [i/]Why can't they just tell the person!?[/i]

Because its irrelevant to them?[/quote]
Yet it may be relevant to their partner. There are several things I find irrelevant: political affiliation, skin color, religion, etc. Yet many people do care about that stuff when it comes to sexual and romantic partners. Being upfront at the start means less conflicts down the road.

[quote/]Because its generally irrelevant to how they perceive themselves? Do you tell people that you court in explicit terms that you are cisgender?[/quote]
Yep, along with everything else they ask about. It's called decency. They have their own preferences, just like I do.

You have no right to inflict your sexual preferences in the bedroom on somebody else. If they find it objectionable when you try, they'll say no, which is their right. Bringing up BDSM is just getting your sexual perferences out of the way early so that it doesn't cause any interruptions in the bedroom where your partner may object. Get things out of the way early. For some people, if their partner isn't into BDSM, the relationship is a no-go for them. I see no reason why the same shouldn't apply to trans disclosure.

You literally just said the same thing I have been for two posts. I tell them about my kinks. If they don't like them and don't want to indulge we have two choices: either find something else we both enjoy to do or forget getting together. I feel the same should go for trans disclosure. The trans should tell they're trans. If their partner doesn't like that they can end it before things get too far. That's all I've been saying: that when getting into a relationship trans people should be upfront about it from the start.

Also, it helps set a good foundation for the relationship since you're being open and honest.

[quote/]But being trans isn't a fetish. Or an orientation. Having an aversion to trans people, however, is an orientation.[/quote]
Where have I said being trans is a fetish? All I've said is that, like with fetishes, talking about it before hitting the bedroom is good. Imagine a couple gets all the way to the bedroom. There one partner surprises the other by being trans or being engrossed in a fetish the other doesn't like. The second partner then rejects the trans/fetishizer. This hurts both parties as the trans/fetishizer has to deal with the rejection while their partner is hurt because by not telling them the trans/fetishizer showed a lack of trust in them. Disclosure at the start of the relationship would mean this never happened.

How is it on the onus to disclose something that they consider an unimportant part and have no way of knowing if their partner is concerned about it? What if their partner doesn't want to start a relationship with somebody who is infertile - its not their job to be a mind-reader. The person with the hang-up should bring it up themselves if its such an issue.

Yet why would you bring up a hang-up when you thought it didn't apply? "I don't like fucking people with dicks, but that's OK because I'm dating a girl." Why would the person in that situation bring their hang-up, well, up? As far as they know it doesn't apply - will never apply - to that relationship, so there's no reason to talk about it.

Well if my partner never says that they object to something, and then it comes up some time later and they object to it, then that's on them. I'm not a psychic.

Difference of opinion. I think it's on both of you as you should have brought it up before it comes up.

And how am I going to know their preferences if they don't tell me about them?

By asking them? "Hey, I'm trans. [i/]Is that gonna be a problem[/i]? Yes? Alright, see ya."

There is no lie of omission if you don't disclosure that you're trans - unless of course you're going to say that its a lie of omission if you don't disclose that you're cis.

Alright, this is gonna sound patronizing since you're trans, but please bear with me. Transsexuals are people who lack certain sexual characteristics of their chosen gender, yet look, act, and all-around [i/]are[/i] their chosen gender. Other people will view them as their chosen gender and thus, for example, people attracted to women can be attracted to a transwoman thinking she's a cisgender woman. If the transwoman allows them to keep thinking that after getting into a relationship with them - knowing they are attracted to women - the transwoman is keeping her partner in the dark. He'll think that she's a cisgendered woman and this will make the inevitable revelation hurt more by adding in the fact that the transwoman didn't trust her partner enough to tell that fact. How is that not a lie by omission when the very definition is "leaving an important fact out in order to foster a misconception"?

Also, yes you're right. Not telling you're cisgendered is also a lie of omission. An, in my opinion, unlikely one as most people who see a man or a woman assume they're a man or a woman, respectively, but it's still one nonetheless.

 

[The Lunatic]

Yet it may be relevant to their partner. There are several things I find irrelevant: political affiliation, skin color, religion, etc. Yet many people do care about that stuff when it comes to sexual and romantic partners. Being upfront at the start means less conflicts down the road.

Oh, don't you know? Given I'm homosexual, it's up to every girl who shows interest in me to ask if I'm gay rather than up to me to tell them.

Withholding information that may affect consent basically makes such consent invalid.

I'm not sure why this is such a difficult notion for people to get their head about, but, that's simply how it is.

"It's not physically hurting anyone" is not a valid defence.

 

[Redryhno]

Okay, now I'm curious about the flip side, would it also bother you having sex with a female to male transsexual who had underwent no surgery or hormone therapy?

Someone who's mentally a man, but is "technically a woman"?

I'm just trying to understand, because you seem to put a lot of credence on genetic material that you will never see.

Yes, but for a slightly different reason, I'm a straight guy, as I said in the post, I can find other men good looking, but I don't really want to see them naked, and I certainly don't want to weiner-boop with them. A beatiful transwoman may have always been mentally that, but their body was(or is depending on how you think about it) still a man. A strapping transman may be just that, but they also were a woman at one point and that's somewhat weird to think about.

Being involved with a trans person means you are involved with both sides of the gender/sex/whatever the correct wording is gap. At least that's how I'm seeing it, I mean, outside of like two trans individuals on the internet, I haven't really been able to ask questions without them getting offended that I have a mindset that's got alot of ignorance in it, so I don't know a huge amount. Doesn't really help the pursuit of understanding/knowledge/etc when the subject is so easily offended and distrustful of being asked questions that they claim only they can answer.

I don't claim to understand much of it beyond a primal level, but it just doesn't help much when you're not allowed to ask questions or question reasonings.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Because there are significantly more people who are not okay with. If you have to make an assumption, why assume the least likely option?

In my own personal experience, making that assumption cuts out a huge segment of the population.

Making an assumption doesn't mean you have to commit to it one hundred percent, and stick by it in the face of further evidence. But, if you are going to start from a base assumption, why pick the least likely option?

Oh good, another race comparison. Well, if it's worth saying, it's worth saying twice I guess.

The difference between these two is the fact that very very few people don't care even in the slightest about eight generations of genealogy (and most wouldn't know it anyway), whereas, a very sizable proportion (mostly probably the majority) of cisgener people do care about the birth sex of the person they are with.

I pointed out earlier in this thread that this an instance of argumentum ad populum, an appeal to popularity. I'm not going to waste time digging through seven pages when I'm already going to have at least three more responses by the time I'm finished responding to you, so have this link.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

If you're not going to "waste time" arguing the point, then I don't see any reason to "waste time" responding to you. But whatever, I guess I'll waste my time.

You made a comparison to race, and so I addressed it. In a way, your response is borderline argumentum ad logicam, since you have done nothing but throw links at me and not contest my point. Besides, I dispute the idea that demographic sizes are irrelevant to this discussion.
And I stand by my point that without reasonable suspicion that anyone would care about eight generations of genealogy, there is no reason to disclose it. Yet, with very reasonable suspicion that people will care about your sex at birth, then you should. It's not an argumentum ad populum when popularity is a valid factor into the debate.

I'm not advocating for legal action, but simply from a moral stand point that you should disclose this information if you have a reasonable suspicion that the person you are with would not consent to sex if they knew the truth. And yes, math does have everything to do with whether or not you have reasonable suspicion.

Gonna have to disagree. If its such a big concern to them, they should bring it up themselves. You're also saying that there are less people who would contest a relationship with somebody who has a heritage of mixed races, but I assure you its still a numericially abundant amount. Should they have to disclose? What about people who are sterile? Some people won't want to be in a relationship with somebody who is sterile, is it on the onus of sterile people to read the minds of their potential partners?

I assure you it isn't nearly abundant enough to compare to the number of people who wouldn't be okay with sleeping with someone who is transgender. It really depends on the number of generations, but I doubt even the white supremacists would care more than 4 or 5 generations back, and most people are not white supremacists! I doubt the majority of people would care more than one generation back, if that. And that's not to mention that virtually everyone has some degree of racial mixing in their close ancestry.

Do you see why they are essentially the inverse here?
With race, there is only a tiny minority who care about mixed race, and a massive majority of people who are mixed race. In this case, it's safest to assume that mixed race is the default, and not caring is the default, therefore, the onus is on those who care.

With transgender, there is a majority who care about sex at birth, and a tiny minority of people who are transgender. In this case, it's safest to assume that cisgender is the default, and caring about sex at birth is the default, therefor, the onus is on those are transgender.

As for whether or not people should disclose other aspects, such as, whether or not they are sterile. It really depends on what you're in it for. If it's a one night stand, you have no reason to suspect that anyone would care. If it's marriage to a person you and have a reasonable suspicion (yes I know how much you hate argumentum ad populum, despite how relevant it is) that they desire to have children with you, then yes, you should probably tell you partner you're sterile. The inalienability to procreate is a significant thing for many people.

Yeah, you're right, fuck those cis women.

The reason they would feel insulted is because asking each date/causal partner whether someone is transgender is rather rare, as such, if some where to ask them there would have to be something about them that gave this suspicion. They would probably assume the person asking the question thinks they have manly features, or something that would make them seem likely to be male at birth.

This still fails to be a problem of trans people. Its a contradiction of priorities among some cis people. They're willing to dump them if they're trans, and they'd not want to get far in the relationship only to find out that they're trans, but they're wholly unwilling to ask about it because they're afraid that if they do, the relationship might not go anywhere. Its ludicrous and their own fault if they fall into a situation where further down the line they find out that their partner is trans because they were reluctant to ask an important question. They didn't ask enough questions about something they feel strongly about because they never bothered to ask.

So this is just a case of cisgender, don't care.

I've already made my point about whose responsibility it should be to ask/tell, this is really just a continuation of that.

Although, I will add something that will probably have everyone screaming "victim blaming".
If you aren't going to consider this from a basic curtsey position, perhaps you should consider it from a more pragmatic standpoint regarding personal safety. Concerning all the people who violently beat transgender people for not being upfront about it, would that not be a good reason to be the one who tells, rather than relying on others to ask and simply hoping they aren't some violent psychopath? Yes, I know, it's heresy to suggest people adapt to a violent and intolerant world rather than stick their fingers in their ears and pretend they're in utopia, but it seems transgender have even more to lose here.

So I ask you, what exactly to trans people have to gain by relying on others to ask? A greater chance of getting a partner, and a greater chance to be fucking murdered by that partner? It just seems like a lose-lose situation for both cis and trans.

Because whether or not they consider it unimportant, others do, and would not consent if they knew the truth.

Some other people find it important and some wouldn't engage in a relationship if they knew. And again, appeal to popularity. Just because the majority of people like it, doesn't mean they're obliged to it,and vice versa for a majority who dislike it. I know a woman who can't have sex using her vagina, but she manages to get by. She's not obliged to say "hey, my vagina? you're not getting in there", as nobody is obliged to vaginal sex. There's also the fact that there's plenty of alternatives, alternatives that people actually prefer.

For the ten billionth time, whether or not you should disclose this information is dependent upon how rare the occurrence is, and how often and how much people are likely to care. I've not heard of anyone who would feel violated to find out that they've bedded a woman whose vagina is unsuitable for sex, so no, she has no real reason to disclose that. Hypothetically, if this was something that a significant number of people had a very large problem with (up to and including, becoming so distraught that they consider murder), then yes, she should probably disclose that.

Besides, when has someone considering something unimportant been ... important? A lot of people consider transgender right to be unimportant.

Right, and a fair enough opinion to be had. After all, it doesn't really affect a lot of people. They just don't get to dictate how trans people should feel about things.

Okay, and you should trying to dictate how cis people feel about sexuality.

 

[Jux]

To be honest, I didn't get the transmisogyny vibe from the poem, but then again, I'm not trans. I don't know their experiences or what they are going through. If they say this poem makes them uncomfortable, it's not my place to tell them to shut up or get over it. Sometimes, things affect people in different ways. Things we don't care about are deeply offensive to others or are making them uncomfortable by reminding them of unpleasant things in their lives. Unlike a joke, a transgender person is an actual living person, so I don't really feel sorry for several words grouped together for an attempted comedic effect, while I might feel sorry for a living person. I will hope that people will one day learn that compassion towards others trumps their divine right to say whatever jokes or shit they want without facing any repercussions.

It's nice to see people that don't automatically assume that their own experiences should be the default position and that any empathy should only be doled out if one can directly relate to the issues at hand. There is a lot in this thread I want to address, but it'll have to wait for a bit till the site let's me quote people properly again. This though was worth typing out the post number by hand to respond to.

 

[kael013]

Yet it may be relevant to their partner. There are several things I find irrelevant: political affiliation, skin color, religion, etc. Yet many people do care about that stuff when it comes to sexual and romantic partners. Being upfront at the start means less conflicts down the road.

Oh, don't you know? Given I'm homosexual, it's up to every girl who shows interest in me to ask if I'm gay rather than up to me to tell them.

What? No, it's up to you to tell them you're homosexual before it gets too out of hand. If an interested woman has doubts about certain things about you (gender, orientation, etc.), [i/]then[/i] it's up to her to ask instead of relying on you to read her mind.
EDIT: If you're being sarcastic, sorry, but when I'm in debate mode I don't register sarcasm easily and, well, it's nigh impossible for text to convey it.

[quote/]Withholding information that may affect consent basically makes such consent invalid.

I'm not sure why this is such a difficult notion for people to get their head about, but, that's simply how it is.

"It's not physically hurting anyone" is not a valid defence.[/quote]
^This. This is exactly what I've been saying.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Yet it may be relevant to their partner. There are several things I find irrelevant: political affiliation, skin color, religion, etc. Yet many people do care about that stuff when it comes to sexual and romantic partners. Being upfront at the start means less conflicts down the road.

Oh, don't you know? Given I'm homosexual, it's up to every girl who shows interest in me to ask if I'm gay rather than up to me to tell them.

What? No, it's up to you to tell them you're homosexual before it gets too out of hand. If an interested woman has doubts about certain things about you (gender, orientation, etc.), [i/]then[/i] it's up to her to ask instead of relying on you to read her mind.
EDIT: <color=red>If you're being sarcastic, sorry, but when I'm in debate mode I don't register sarcasm easily and, well, it's nigh impossible for text to convey it.

[quote/]Withholding information that may affect consent basically makes such consent invalid.

I'm not sure why this is such a difficult notion for people to get their head about, but, that's simply how it is.

"It's not physically hurting anyone" is not a valid defence.

^This. This is exactly what I've been saying.[/quote]

I'm not sure there's much doubt about that.

 

[camazotz]

I spent the weekend at a friend's birthday party telling his ridiculous family members what a bunch of idiots they are for supporting the Indiana Freedom of Religion Bill over the weekend. But, as a guy, while I can completely get how a transgendered individual might be upset at that poem I am conflicted, because I know that a big, deep part of the acceptance problem transgendered people face is that straight men and women are often deeply disturbed by the thought of an individual who faces gender identity issues, and moreso if they are seeking corrective surgery to fix the problem. So part of me says, "sure, that poem isn't actually part of the game, so it's not representing any internal story element or bit, and therefore doesn't really serve much purpose." Another part of me says, "it's funny because there's an uncomfortable truth hidden behind it." But that truth is not about transgendered women tricking men, but about the discomfort (and and sometimes outright transphobia) that I would bet a fair majority of straight men and women feel when thinking on the subject. Not least of which is because there does seem to be a fundamental psychological disconnect between those who have dealt with gender identity issues (they're indellibly wrapped up in the very essence of what it means to be one thing physically but to feel like something else mentally) and the way a straight gender-aligned person feels about it (which is that the notion of being on thing while feeling another way is almost inconceivable and deeply disconcerting).

So I guess what I'm saying is I'll be buying and playing Pillars of Eternity, and I wouldn't object if Obsidian removed that poem since it serves no real purpose. However, the real problem with the poem is much deeper than just mischaracterizing transgendered people; it's expressing a fear among the majority cisgender population that isn't readily going to go away anytime soon, and the question of whether humor can help lighten the load of such worries or not is an entirely different issue.....but in the interim this lymeric serves no real purpose (within the context of the game) so why keep it?

 

[Atmos Duality]

OT: Some idiot gets offended at something that has no real bearing on their life (or really shouldn't), goes onto Twitter to make a big stink about it, drags all related conversation into the mud with them.

Yet another SJW rain dance
Calling for a great shitstorm
To whine over naught

I mean, you could use the poem as a conversation piece for a discussion about trans-panic, which is a real thing and kind of terrible for transgendered people, but we don't DO discussions here. We just yell about social media and demonstrate our disdain for "social justice" by talking about it every fucking second of every fucking day.

Pillars of Eternity gaming topic? Couldn't even stay on the front page. Pillars of Eternity drama topic? 5 pages and counting. Woop. Carry on, warriors.

If anyone wants to talk about the GAME I'm down for that. That's what everyone wanted, right? Less "politics", more games talk? WHOOPS, my eyes rolled right out of my head.

^This guy. Biggest voice of reason in the thread.

While there's a time and place for discussing the social-political stuff behind games, the degree of emphasis they receive is stunning; nay, smothering. A game that doesn't have some sort of outrage attached to it is barely worthy of discussion at all now.

I stopped trying to create topics in Game Discussion for that reason, and why I virtually stopped visiting Game Discussion entirely. There's no fucking point because threads dry up almost immediately as is, but it's even worse when some Hugbox zealot goes after a given game because that's where ALL the discussion will filter into.

"Oh, you wanted to discuss Bayonetta 2? Too bad, because Sarkeesian whined about it on Twitter."

I'm honestly finding more legitimate conversations about video games on STEAM COMMUNITIES AND WIKIAS now than the Game Discussion forums here.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

So, going back to the incest example (yeah, I'm bringing incest into a debate about trangenderism, fucking sue me).

Let's say there's Bob and Alice, both siblings. Bob has no sexual interest in Alice, but she does not know this for sure. In fact, she knows nothing about his opinions on the matter, only assumptions based on the fact that people wouldn't be okay with it. Alice on the other hand, has an interest in Bob.
One day, Alice disguises herself as another woman, seduces him, and proceeds to have kinky sex with her brother Bob. They use protection (so there is no chance of inbreeding) and neither of them has any STIs. They both enjoy it, until afterward, when Bob finds out what has happened.

Just like in the trans examples, no physical harm has come to Bob, only emotional distress.

So, it was Bobs fault? Should Bob have asked every single woman he intended to bed "hey, you're not my sister in disguise, right?" (ruining his chance with whatever woman he is talking to in the process)
Or, was it fine to assume not, since the other option is a rare occurrence?
Alice didn't know he would be upset over it, but it could be assumed by the fact that the majority of people (argumentum ad populum! Argumentum ad populum!) would have a problem with being deceive in this manner.

Would the morality here change if Bob never found out?

What exactly is the difference here from Bob's perspective, aside from the fact that your sibling pulling this kind of shit is even rarer? If so, why can the line be drawn at "asking every single person if they are related to you before sex is stupid, since it's so uncommon" and not "asking every single person if they are transgender before sex is stupid, since it's so uncommon"?

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Being involved with a trans person means you are involved with both sides of the gender/sex/whatever the correct wording is gap. At least that's how I'm seeing it, I mean, outside of like two trans individuals on the internet, I haven't really been able to ask questions without them getting offended that I have a mindset that's got alot of ignorance in it, so I don't know a huge amount. Doesn't really help the pursuit of understanding/knowledge/etc when the subject is so easily offended and distrustful of being asked questions that they claim only they can answer.

I don't claim to understand much of it beyond a primal level, but it just doesn't help much when you're not allowed to ask questions or question reasonings.

From all the people I've talked to, a lot of it comes from just getting accustomed to hostility for it. Doesn't help when there really isn't that much (accurate) information going around about trans people, and a large portion of the information you do see floating around comes from people complaining about them. Simply because there's a lot more people who think that transsexuality is a joke ("Oh look! I'm mentally a pony! See, I can do it too") than there are actual trans people. And it's way easier to mock someone you don't understand than to actually understand them.

In any case, there's a lot of people on this site who could answer questions you have, and from what I've seen in any of the threads dedicated to that, they have been pretty damn tolerant and understanding even in the face of some really tactless comments. Even just skimming some threads in the past might help you out if you wanted more information. Seriously, from all my time here there's some very nice people on this site if you're sincere in wanting to know more

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

So, going back to the incest example (yeah, I'm bringing incest into a debate about trangenderism, fucking sue me).

Let's say there's Bob and Alice, both siblings. Bob has no sexual interest in Alice, but she does not know this for sure. In fact, she knows nothing about his opinions on the matter, only assumptions based on the fact that people wouldn't be okay with it. Alice on the other hand, has an interest in Bob.
One day, Alice disguises herself as another woman, seduces him, and proceeds to have kinky sex with her brother Bob. They use protection (so there is no chance of inbreeding) and neither of them has any STIs. They both enjoy it, until afterward, when Bob finds out what has happened.

Just like in the trans examples, no physical harm has come to Bob, only emotional distress.

So, it was Bobs fault? Should Bob have asked every single woman he intended to bed "hey, you're not my sister in disguise, right?" (ruining his chance with whatever woman he is talking to in the process)
Or, was it fine to assume not, since the other option is a rare occurrence?
Alice didn't know he would be upset over it, but it could be assumed by the fact that the majority of people (argumentum ad populum! Argumentum ad populum!) would have a problem with being deceive in this manner.

Would the morality here change if Bob never found out?

What exactly is the difference here from Bob's perspective, aside from the fact that your sibling pulling this kind of shit is even rarer? If so, why can the line be drawn at "asking every single person if they are related to you before sex is stupid, since it's so uncommon" and not "asking every single person if they are transgender before sex is stupid, since it's so uncommon"?

Not applicable. A trans-woman isn't a guy pretending to be a woman to have sex with men, while Alice is pretending to be someone else to sleep with Bob.

 

[joshuaayt]

The poem is kinda gross. Casual jokes like that add up, you know.
If it served some sorta purpose, if it went towards characterising some relevant aspect of the world... but, no, it's just a dumb gag.
Hee hee, trans people exist, how hilarious is that?

More importantly, it reinforces the idea of trans folk as manipulators, men hiding amongst "normal" women or vice versa, waiting to ensnare an innocent, unsuspecting partner.

People are all having the argument about whether or not it's moral to hide the fact that you're trans before sex, but that's the fucking point- trans people don't need random wacky jokes interspersed through media that paint them as tricksters out to con people.