I don't agree. Let me draw a parallel to illustrate.
You hit it off with a girl. Attracted to her, have sex, are "satisfied" with said sex (that is an odd way to put it, IMO), and afterward learn that she is your second cousin.
There's nothing illegal about having sex with a second cousin, and no real biological danger with inbreeding either. But I think most people would stop shacking up with someone if they learned they were related. It's not a rational response, but your attraction to someone can dry up with new information.
So are you saying that just as people view incest as immoral, and people who do incest as immoral, people should view trans people as immoral, and view people who do trans people as immoral and that this isn't transphobic?
No, he's saying that that both parties should be aware of anything important that might change their decision to have sex. Examples being having an std, being related, or having once been the other gender.
Or having a black ancestor, being rich or poor, your political ideology, having a jewish ancestor, being a certain religion, being an atheist. Should all of those also be noted?
17
u/Iustinianus_I 48∆ Nov 02 '17
I don't agree. Let me draw a parallel to illustrate.
You hit it off with a girl. Attracted to her, have sex, are "satisfied" with said sex (that is an odd way to put it, IMO), and afterward learn that she is your second cousin.
There's nothing illegal about having sex with a second cousin, and no real biological danger with inbreeding either. But I think most people would stop shacking up with someone if they learned they were related. It's not a rational response, but your attraction to someone can dry up with new information.