[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.