27-03-2015, 01:01 AM
Hello Clara,
However, there is also responsibility for the consequences of one's actions.
If a party knowingly enters into a relationship which results in children, under a persona different from their true one, (even if for the best of reasons), then that party, in my opinion, is under a greater obligation to compromise to the injured party's wishes, at least to the extent that the symptoms of GD are eased.
So, the injured party gets to be in the driving seat.
If the wife is on board with it in totality, then that's fine. If she is only willing to compromise to an extent that makes the sufferer's GD tolerable but not to present as a female then that should be respected.
Clearly she will have to compromise if the husband is suffering, but as she is on the moral high ground, she should not be expected, as the authoress of the article appeared to be, to just sit and watch the whirlwind of transformation or divorce; those two alternatives are just not acceptable.
I'm not convinced that it is necessary to go through a full transition to ease the symptoms of GD significantly. From my own experience, the right level of E takes the worst of it away. I don't believe forcing the issue with an unwilling wife will lead to anything but divorce, which I equate with the same level of selfishness as a mistress.
People have to understand that actions have consequences, and the consequences of taking the best years of a wife's life under false pretences is that she gets to be in charge of what happens next. My contention is that to do otherwise is to treat her as less than she deserves, and certainly not what would be expected from someone asserting themself to be a female in a man's body.
As I say, these are my opinions, for what they are worth; it's how I've played it with my wife despite telling her in advance of marriage of what I then thought was a cross-dressing fetish.
I know I have repeated this position at several points in this thread, but it's up to 3 pages now, and I don't know how rigorously new readers read all the postings. As the thread originator I feel obliged to keep "the other perspective" defended.
B.
Quote:Of course coming out to one's spouse as a transgender person is going to be a traumatic event, especially if the condition was well-hidden for many years. This woman's story is not at all unusual.
Attempting to assign blame is counter productive, however, unless the intent is to dissolve the marriage and divide the couple's assets.
However, there is also responsibility for the consequences of one's actions.
If a party knowingly enters into a relationship which results in children, under a persona different from their true one, (even if for the best of reasons), then that party, in my opinion, is under a greater obligation to compromise to the injured party's wishes, at least to the extent that the symptoms of GD are eased.
So, the injured party gets to be in the driving seat.
If the wife is on board with it in totality, then that's fine. If she is only willing to compromise to an extent that makes the sufferer's GD tolerable but not to present as a female then that should be respected.
Clearly she will have to compromise if the husband is suffering, but as she is on the moral high ground, she should not be expected, as the authoress of the article appeared to be, to just sit and watch the whirlwind of transformation or divorce; those two alternatives are just not acceptable.
I'm not convinced that it is necessary to go through a full transition to ease the symptoms of GD significantly. From my own experience, the right level of E takes the worst of it away. I don't believe forcing the issue with an unwilling wife will lead to anything but divorce, which I equate with the same level of selfishness as a mistress.
People have to understand that actions have consequences, and the consequences of taking the best years of a wife's life under false pretences is that she gets to be in charge of what happens next. My contention is that to do otherwise is to treat her as less than she deserves, and certainly not what would be expected from someone asserting themself to be a female in a man's body.
As I say, these are my opinions, for what they are worth; it's how I've played it with my wife despite telling her in advance of marriage of what I then thought was a cross-dressing fetish.
I know I have repeated this position at several points in this thread, but it's up to 3 pages now, and I don't know how rigorously new readers read all the postings. As the thread originator I feel obliged to keep "the other perspective" defended.
B.