[bryony]

Those whom I do criticise are those who, having allowed a wife to think of them as an ordinary male for decades, bore his children and quite rightly expected them to grow old together, gets blown out of the water by someone who decides that now is the time for him to "find his inner woman", like it or not, giving the wife no choice but to "deal with it" or divorce.

This, to me, is exactly on a par with someone saying "I love you dear, but you just don't turn me on any more, so I want a divorce" and goes off with the bimbo he's been having an affair with.

It's a different kind of misogynistic faithlessness.

B.

That's not exactly as cut and dry as you make it sound. I hardly feel as though I duped my wife into some kind of false pretense about who I am.

Well firstly, you are taking this as having been written specifically at you - why? I was making a general point, (and I disagree with sfem's assertion that generalisations are usually wrong. It always depends on the generalisation.)

Can I remind you that in the "pictures" area you stated that "She's aware of my "condition" now....She was more angry at me for keeping it from her all the years I did than the actual truth. "

I don't mean to be combative, but that kind of sounds like a lie of omission - duping. With no false pretence why would she be angry that you kept it from her?

I'm the same person... I love her just as much now, if not more, than when we were first married.

You are missing the point. Love is a two-way street based on total honesty. You may be the same person to you - but not to her anymore. Now she has to deal with the fact that she has discovered that you are someone other than what she has perceived all these years. Look at it from her point of view.

You may not have seen my earlier response to Flame, but imagine how you would deal with her wanting to take testosterone, have a mastectomy, get phalloplasty. Imagine her with a beard and a deep voice. Can you honestly say that it would not affect your relationship one little bit?

I'm just finally not as terrified to allow myself to present on the outside as I've felt on the inside my entire life. Some of us didn't have the strength or confidence to unearth our deepest darkest secret at the infancy of our relationship.

That's fine, as long as you both agree that it is the right thing to do. If you go off and take hormones and have all sorts of feminising things done without her express permission, it won't end well.

I get the point you're trying to make; but is it necessary to shove salt in an open wound for some of us? To me, to compare this to an affair is a slap in the face.

Then you don't get the point I'm trying to make at all.

If you love her just as much now, if not more, than when you were married, then you will do nothing without her knowledge and buy-in, because to do otherwise is exactly like having an affair.

Ask yourself this: why do men have affairs? Clearly because the mating urge is extremely powerful. In people with sexual disorders it get diverted, but in the standard heterosexual Alpha male it results in the desire to inseminate as many different women as possible, in order to spread ones genes far and wide. That's how evolution works. As time and familiarity do their work, the chemical parts of sexual attraction dies off. There is no longer sufficient "thrill" in lovemaking, so the Alpha starts to notice other, perhaps younger, women.

A very "male" male has as much trouble fighting off this urge, as someone with gender dysphoria has fighting off the urge to secretly feminise.

In both cases, giving in to these urges, both of which are destructive to the marriage relationship, are variations of unfaithfulness, because both involve some form of deceit and betrayal.

In this way, I believe, the two offences are parallel.

However, whereas it is unlikely that a wife would agree to her husband having affairs with other women, they can be persuaded to help with the genuine pain of dysphoria, if you are fortunate - and it sounds like are.

B.

[bryony]

This is an old argument of bryony's.
Please don't take too much from it as blindly applicable to you. Read between the lines. There is a lot of suppressed pain behind the words. The point B makes is too reduced to be broadly applicable. To put it another way, generalities are usually wrong.

Ironic, then, that you are making a generalisation. What is this "suppressed pain"? Do you mean the article writer or me?

Not everyone who has gender issues even admits them to themselves, and rarely do they themselves know the extent of them, or how they can change over the course of decades. B's point is based on the idea that you knew it all before you met your spouse, and then deliberately hid it for your own selfish purposes, and then spring it on your spouse when she has no cards left to play.

NO. B's point is not that at all. Try reading what I wrote, which was NOT aimed at Robyngurl but the absolutely totally selfish husband of the Salon article author and people who do the same thing.

No kidding such an individual would have something to feel ashamed about. But it is only a characterization, not a reality for most of us.

Sounds like a generalisation to me. The author of the article certainly experienced it.

Read through the past few years of postings on just this forum, never mind the others. Take a look at the long term progress and changes in both bodies and minds even among the participants here, never mind the minds of those they associate with. You will perhaps realize people change. And sometimes those changes can be adapted to, rolled with, accepted. And sometimes they can't.
Writings like the Salon article always make me very skeptical. I don't judge people based solely on the feelings of others about them. So I don't judge that woman's husband based on just her view of him.

I think all this shows is that I can empathise with the wives more than you can.

What does your wife think about it?

I also would suggest that even her comments about what he told her are actually only her understanding of what he said, probably coloured by her feelings about her understanding.

And I would suggest that you are saying that because it is what you want to believe.

Don't assume you are a bad person just because someone else says you are.

Nobody HAS said that. Robyngurl chose to interpret my remarks on a personal basis.

Find your own way. Exercise empathy.

Empathy for the women in the relationship is what I exercise all the time.

Find joy. Together if possible.

What does this mean? Apart if not? That's the kind of advice I find worrying.

I see nothing misogynistic about what we are doing.

Even if it is without the knowledge of the spouse?

If we have any gender based hate in our ranks, I suspect it is directed more at male culture than female.

Certainly.... and a big part of that culture is being unable to empathise with the wife.

B.

[bryony]

Robyngurl,

I agree with sfem. Bryony has long since held the belief that everyone should be very transparent about NBE with their significant other.

Sfem,

I like your point about not judging people based strictly on the perceptions of others. I wonder if there are many articles that allow both parties to express their views regarding the transitioning process?

Flame,

I find it almost unfathomable that you can think the perceptions of both parties are equivalent and that there is a concept of "very" transparent distinct from "transparent".

The whole point is that the marriage [in the article] is based on a lie. The wife is the injured party. Therefore it is incumbent on the husband to make amends, by agreeing any way forward with the wife, and not just going ahead with it come what may.

I understand it would be hard to grasp by someone who hasn't been married though.

B.

[robyngurl]

And I wasn't taking anything personally. I was making generalizations just like you were, but pulling from my limited experience.

My wife is okay with me gaining a little boobage. She is not okay with me going into full transition. I'm fine with that. They reality is my body type is not ever going to be very feminine.

As for the role reversal and if she wanted to transition into a man, I personally would be okay with that. It might take some getting used to as far as the physical aspects of it but she's been wearing the pants in our relationship for years...

-Robyn

[flamesabers]

The whole point is that the marriage [in the article] is based on a lie. The wife is the injured party. Therefore it is incumbent on the husband to make amends, by agreeing any way forward with the wife, and not just going ahead with it come what may.

I understand it would be hard to grasp by someone who hasn't been married though.

B.

How should the husband make amends? Even if he presents as male, the wife may still be unhappy that he's taking hormones or whatnot.

I agree the husband isn't the man the wife married. The genie can't be put back into the bottle. I think now it's up to the wife now as to what she wants to do going forward. I think I said as much in my initial response:

In her situation I think she has two choices: leave her husband if this is too overwhelming for her, or come to accept the situation and make the best of it

I don't think the wife having to make a decision absolves the husband of culpability. The way I see it, regardless of what the husband does and does not do, she bears ownership of whether or not she wants to remain married to him. Yes, it's a unfortunate situation for her, but it's still something she must decide on regardless.

I'm curious to gauge your response in a different type of situation. Let's say hypothetically instead of transitioning, the husband has depression. He may or may not have depressive episodes prior to being married. He gets treatment, to include medication and therapy. However, the catch is the medication drastically reduces his libidio. He's feeling better but his wife is unhappy because he's showing little sexual interest in her. He's tried going off the medication, but the depression returns not to long after.

Does the husband have a duty to sacrifice his own well-being to keep his wife sexually satisfied? I would say no. Maybe there is a solution that will ensure both parties are happy, or maybe the wife will have to decide whether a sexless marriage is something she can live with. If not, she has the option to get a divorce and find a man she is happy with.

Yes, being a lifelong bachelor very likely has a material influence on marriage. The way I see it, people change for better or for worse. I think sometimes marriages can be improved or saved with adequate effort. Other times, it may be more sensible and practical to end it and have both parties go on their own paths. Do all friendships or cohabiting relationships thrive and last for a lifetime? No. Why would it be any different for marriages? I don't think marriage vows guarantees a relationship will be happy and long lasting anymore than exercising regularly guarantees one will have a healthy and long life.

[bryony]

And I wasn't taking anything personally. I was making generalizations just like you were, but pulling from my limited experience.

My wife is okay with me gaining a little boobage. She is not okay with me going into full transition. I'm fine with that. They reality is my body type is not ever going to be very feminine.

As for the role reversal and if she wanted to transition into a man, I personally would be okay with that. It might take some getting used to as far as the physical aspects of it but she's been wearing the pants in our relationship for years...

-Robyn

Ok, sounds very similar to my situation. The main point is that you are working it out together as a team, which is great.

B.

[bryony]

The whole point is that the marriage [in the article] is based on a lie. The wife is the injured party. Therefore it is incumbent on the husband to make amends, by agreeing any way forward with the wife, and not just going ahead with it come what may.

I understand it would be hard to grasp by someone who hasn't been married though.

B.

How should the husband make amends? Even if he presents as male, the wife may still be unhappy that he's taking hormones or whatnot.

Well, I did actually say:
"..incumbent on the husband to make amends, by agreeing any way forward with the wife, and not just going ahead with it come what may."

The whole problem is caused by the intital dishonesty. If and when you enter into a permanent relationship, you would not want to find years down the line that it was based on a lie, would you? That the person was an ex-criminal, with a false name, who maybe murdered someone? An extreme example, to get you going.

Given that he kept this from her, he must agree any future steps with her to save the relationship. But compromise is the basis of a relationship.

My example: my wife does not like me needing to take medication for my mental balance that has the side effect of growing breasts, but she accepts it because of the obvious benefits. She has made it perfectly clear that she would not be happy if I were to make their presence known with flimsy tight fitting shirts, bras, or cross-dressing, and I have assured her that I would not do anything that she did not agree to.

My sincere belief is that sufficient treatment with an estrogen-like substance or even estrogen itself removes the pressing drive, if not the deep-down desire, to present as a female. This is borne out by the experiences of many contributors to this forum.

For a husband taking sufficient hormones to suppress the dysphoria to then continue on with a programme of total feminisation without regard to his wife's feelings is, to me, unconscionable.

I agree the husband isn't the man the wife married. The genie can't be put back into the bottle. I think now it's up to the wife now as to what she wants to do going forward. I think I said as much in my initial response:

In her situation I think she has two choices: leave her husband if this is too overwhelming for her, or come to accept the situation and make the best of it

See my response above. The 3rd alternative is for the husband to take hormones like I do and continue to present as a male. Compromise. Your two alternatives seem to take the husband's transition as a given... it should not be.

I don't think the wife having to make a decision absolves the husband of culpability. The way I see it, regardless of what the husband does and does not do, she bears ownership of whether or not she wants to remain married to him. Yes, it's a unfortunate situation for her, but it's still something she must decide on regardless.

Well, that's kind of obvious, but he can make the decision easier by letting her have control of the situation. If he is a total misogynistic bastard, who is letting his desire to transition act in exactly the same way as a normal man having an affair, then of course she should leave him, and screw him for every penny she can.

But that is the nub of the discussion isn't it? It is how the deceitful male should behave, and make amends as I outlined above, rather than how the poor wife has to deal with it.

I'm curious to gauge your response in a different type of situation. Let's say hypothetically instead of transitioning, the husband has depression. He may or may not have depressive episodes prior to being married. He gets treatment, to include medication and therapy. However, the catch is the medication drastically reduces his libido. He's feeling better but his wife is unhappy because he's showing little sexual interest in her. He's tried going off the medication, but the depression returns not to long after.

Does the husband have a duty to sacrifice his own well-being to keep his wife sexually satisfied? I would say no.

Some of this presents a false hypothesis. Knowing personally the effects of dysphoria include depression, getting rid of that is precisely why I have to take the herbs that reduce my libido.

However, a reduced libido does not prevent you having sex at the drop of a hat.
Women, compared to men, have a much reduced libido during the weeks of the month that they are not fertile. It does not stop them being available to satisfy their husbands.... this is know as "consideration".

Yes, the man in your hypothesis may not be able to achieve erection, but that does not stop him satisfying his wife, does it? I have no interest in doing the washing up, but I still do it from time to time as it is a responsibility and a consideration.

Also it's quite possible that he would be able to take Viagra to accommodate her if she wished for natural penetration. This incidentally is the answer to your...

Maybe there is a solution that will ensure both parties are happy, or maybe the wife will have to decide whether a sexless marriage is something she can live with.

But then you say...

If not, she has the option to get a divorce and find a man she is happy with.

You seem awfully keen on this solution. We are talking about people with children, hence now related by blood who have been together for perhaps decades. Why are your sympathies so much with someone who, let's not forget, was absolutely derelict in not warning the author of the article that he had this problem before she agreed to marry him and have his children?

The person in your example wasn't hiding the fact that he had depression before he got married - that's why it is a false analogy.

Now, in the instance where he was unaware of the specifics of what was wrong, and thought he would "grow out of it", the answer is the same. Talk to the wife. Explain that with age, the depression and anxiety have got worse. The only answer is estrogen medication which will grow breasts.

This is not so very different from the outcome of treatment for prostate cancer, and no decent wife would leave a husband who grew breasts to avoid cancer.

Equally no decent wife would leave someone suffering from depression caused by gender dysphoria who could be treated by estrogen. However such treatment does not mandate that the sufferer HAS to pantomime a woman if it disturbs his wife greatly. That's my point.

Yes, being a lifelong bachelor very likely has a material influence on marriage. The way I see it, people change for better or for worse. I think sometimes marriages can be improved or saved with adequate effort. Other times, it may be more sensible and practical to end it and have both parties go on their own paths. Do all friendships or cohabiting relationships thrive and last for a lifetime? No. Why would it be any different for marriages? I don't think marriage vows guarantees a relationship will be happy and long lasting anymore than exercising regularly guarantees one will have a healthy and long life.

That is a very sad and cynical, and all too accurate assessment of modern society.
If you really feel that way Flame, then I think your decision for permanent bachelorhood is well made.

Mine is the first generation in my country (not certain about others) with no real perspective of what life is really about. Although I heard from my parents the tales of death and destruction that they experienced on a daily basis when the Germans bombarded London, I never, (until recent years when friends and relatives of comparable age started dying,) truly felt that life can end at any minute.

Such awareness does tend to concentrate your mind on the things that are important in life.

People feel so entitled now: "You only have one shot at happiness"; "I'm not getting enough out of this marriage"; "I don't love you anymore".

Phrases such as these are generally uttered by people who look at such rituals as marriage as rather like buying a new car. A reason to show off how lavish a wedding you can have; exhibiting a trophy wife who will be discarded when a newer model with stronger suspension comes along, or a trophy husband who will last until someone with a bigger bank account comes along.

Here is my benchmark for a man considering marriage: If you had an accident which made you permanently impotent, would you still take a bullet for this woman to save her life? If the answer is no, then you do not love her and you should not marry her. You certainly should not be inseminating her.

B.

[flamesabers]

Yes, being a lifelong bachelor very likely has a material influence on marriage. The way I see it, people change for better or for worse. I think sometimes marriages can be improved or saved with adequate effort. Other times, it may be more sensible and practical to end it and have both parties go on their own paths. Do all friendships or cohabiting relationships thrive and last for a lifetime? No. Why would it be any different for marriages? I don't think marriage vows guarantees a relationship will be happy and long lasting anymore than exercising regularly guarantees one will have a healthy and long life.

That is a very sad and cynical, and all too accurate assessment of modern society.
If you really feel that way Flame, then I think your decision for permanent bachelorhood is well made.

Bryony, I find that's a very interesting assessment of what I wrote. I think you're right about my decision for permanent bachelorhood.

Part of it I think is living in a society where divorce is very commonplace. Another factor is I very much value independence and individuality. While I regard the commitments I make very seriously, I strive to have a life of my own so to speak. I perceive this as a necessity to keep my life balanced and stable.

I think I understand where you're coming from and I do agree with parts of what you're saying. Dishonesty in a relationship is bound to be problematic. In regards to compromise, what if the author of the article wouldn't allow him to do what you're doing? Do you think then it would be better for the couple to end the marriage? When I reviewed the article, the author didn't strike me as being one who is open to compromise. I think that's a big reason why I didn't put any consideration as to compromising being one of her options.

Lastly, I don't see myself as sympathizing with the husband so much as not wanting to condemn the man before hearing his side of the story. When hearing people talk about their difficult or failed relationships, I find it much more common for people to place the blame solely on the other person. For all we know, she may have intentionally or unintentionally failed to mention aspects of the story that would change everything.

[Sofia Bunny]

I have been working on this off and on all day today, during which time two new responses have come out. So I figured I should share my thoughts before I fall further behind. I do play on adding more later and sharing from my particular point of view of my particular situation. Perhaps it will clear some things up, or perhaps it will just muddy the waters further. I guess we will have to wait and see.

I have debated for quite sometime on commenting in this thread, my last attempt took me to a dark and downward spiral. I was lucky in that someone just so happened to contact me at that precise moment and helped me to recover.

So here I go again. I'm sorry, but there are two sides to every argument and without knowing the other side of the story it isn't fair to cast any judgements one way or another. The world isn't black and white, as much as we would like it to be to make decisions and the like easier it just isn't.

For the most part many of us will try and paint ourselves in the best of light, perhaps to gain the greatest amount of support or sympathy. We also can tend to be very one sided and highly persuaded towards our our point of views and perspectives. Thus creating a tunnel vision of how we perceive the world and those around us.

Perhaps her side is the complete and whole truth, perhaps little bits and pieces were missed, we really don't know. Just seeing her side I can understand the heartache and trauma she is possibly going through, but it wouldn't be fair of me to say it is all his fault and she had no part in it.

I seriously doubt that EVERYONE is completely open and upfront about themselves with their significant other. If everything was 100% known, I would think it could make things a bit mundane at times. As I mentioned many people will try and present themselves in the best possible light and that goes for trying to attract a significant other as well Who wants to be with someone with issues right up front? No one would take the time to look beyond that. I am not saying it's right or wrong, I am saying people do what they do at the time in what they believe is right at the time. That does not necessarily make it right.

Love is supposed to be unconditional is it not? You are supposed to accept the good and the bad. What is it, in good times and in bad, sickness and health etc etc. For now I will share these thoughts so far, and I will share my story later on.

[bryony]

Bryony, I find that's a very interesting assessment of what I wrote. I think you're right about my decision for permanent bachelorhood.

Part of it I think is living in a society where divorce is very commonplace. Another factor is I very much value independence and individuality. While I regard the commitments I make very seriously, I strive to have a life of my own so to speak. I perceive this as a necessity to keep my life balanced and stable.

Bachelorhood is a perfectly respectable way to live. It is no joke being responsible for other peoples' lives, and the results of bad decisions are immense.

I think I understand where you're coming from and I do agree with parts of what you're saying. Dishonesty in a relationship is bound to be problematic. In regards to compromise, what if the author of the article wouldn't allow him to do what you're doing? Do you think then it would be better for the couple to end the marriage?

That is a separate issue, but worth exploring. The main thing is recognising the the husband has a serious mental illness/disorder/syndrome/whatever-PC-word which has become worse over time.

The mitigating circumstance would have been that he thought he could cope and did not want to worry her.

Assuming a hypothetical situation where:
he had given her the facts;
apologised for deceiving her, but with the best of intentions;
explained that the very least that is needed to cope is sufficient estrogen(-like) medication that will as a side-effect cause breast growth (which admittedly he isn't unhappy about);
explain that there are plenty of much worse medical problems that result in gynecomastia (eg. heart problems, prostate cancer);
and, finally would continue to present as a man if she required it:
THEN, at that point, I would be surprised if a loving, reasonable wife would refuse to accommodate his needs.

Anyone not willing to do so would not, by my definition, be loving and reasonable, and under those circumstances I would expect the marriage to fail, just as the present situation looks doomed and the husband rushes headlong into his feminisation at all costs project.

When I reviewed the article, the author didn't strike me as being one who is open to compromise. I think that's a big reason why I didn't put any consideration as to compromising being one of her options.

My reading of it was that she did not get the opportunity to compromise as the whole package was presented as a fait d'accomplit.

Let's look at an extract again:
"Then one night, about 15 months ago, my husband sat me down to tell me something that would shatter my entire existence. He felt like he was meant to be a woman. He confessed to dressing up in his mother’s and sister’s clothes in high school when they weren’t home. He said he’d always known something wasn’t quite right, but it was only recently he’d been able to put his finger on it. After months of soul searching, he decided his only option was to transition."

Ok? "Months of soul searching" on his OWN, not in joint discussion.
"HE decided" without consultation "HIS only option" not THEIRS "was to transition" NOT explore any other alternative scenarios WITH her buy-in.

Lastly, I don't see myself as sympathizing with the husband so much as not wanting to condemn the man before hearing his side of the story. When hearing people talk about their difficult or failed relationships, I find it much more common for people to place the blame solely on the other person. For all we know, she may have intentionally or unintentionally failed to mention aspects of the story that would change everything.

I'm sorry Flame, if you are going to take the attitude that you cannot comment on someone's personal experience without launching an investigation to all the parameters that may or may not be germaine to how she feels now, you will got lost in a morass of moral relativism.

The only key points of merit are these:

1) He knew, before proposal of marriage, that he had a serious psychosexual disorder that would give any cisgendered woman pause for thought before accepting the proposal, which he kept from her.

2) the only possible reason for witholding this information is fear of the proposal being refused.

At this point he has effectively committed fraud. He presented himself as a standard-gendered heterosexual man, not a transgendered lesbian woman. The woman should at least have been given the chance to say "I love you come what may and we will deal with it" or "I'm sorry my dear, but I just cannot cope with the idea of living with a man who wants to be a woman"

He further compounds this by fathering several children again under the false flag of normality.

From this point on, it does not matter one jot what the pros and cons her reasonableness after the fact.

Lastly to add insult to injury, he decides, without any discussion, to transition.

If it makes it any easier, take it as an hypothetical case. Let's say it is presented as fact in every detail in a university course, say "Complications in cross-gendered Marital Relationships 101". Then you don't have to worry about possible inaccuracies in the article.

My case is that: assuming the points, as stated, are all factual, he is wrong, the way he broke it to her is wrong, and the way he is following through is wrong. Wrong in every way.

The defence rests.

B.