Discussion UsefulNotes / VictimBlaming

It's not sexual assault to withhold that you're transgender when you have sex with someone anymore than it's sexual assault to disclose that you're Irish or Jewish.

Gender identity or presentation is nobody's business but the person in the body.

Having sex under false pretenses is rape. I'm only attracted to people who were assigned female at birth, and if you trick me into having sex with you anyways, I'm calling the police.

Can we agree that knowingly exposing someone to HIV/AIDS is wrong though?

I can agree that not disclosing an STI you know of is at the very least terrible, but not disclosing you're transgender isn't sexual assault.

Like personally, I think it's a bad sign (at least in terms of forming a long-term relationship) you'd be hooking up with someone you're not comfortable disclosing that to, but as ^^ points out, not disclosing your entire background to someone is hardly assault.

EDIT: Okay, see, here's the thing. In this case, clearly this hypothetical person is not "only attracted to those assigned female at birth." They're attracted to a transgender person and, while also bigoted, still are attracted to them.

It's no more rape than a white-passing person of color hooking up with a virulent racist.

Or hell, going "I'm only attracted to those who prefer the Nintendo Switch" and being aghast to eventually learn that they prefer the PS 5.

I guess it wouldn't be rape if the trans person just said nothing about it, but if they claim that they're cisgender to entice you, then that's seriously wrong.

Well enjoy your completely made-up scenario then.

Honestly, if it matters that much to you, go ahead and ask all potential sexual partners whether they were assigned female at birth. I'm fairly certain that it would, at the very least, eliminate those pesky transgender people from tricking their way into your bed for several reasons.

Transgender people are under no obligation to inform you of their AAB gender, and for most, they would be risking their lives to do so anyway.

"I'm only attracted to people who were assigned female at birth" is blatantly untrue if you want to have sex with a person and then find out they're trans.

It's like claiming "I'm only attracted to a natural redhead", eagerly having sex with someone with red hair, and then finding out that they're a blonde with dyed hair.

You're free to prefer whatever you want, but you're either attracted to someone or you're not. The myth about trans people "tricking you" is one of the worst stereotypes about trans people.

Fine, we'll keep that in the example. But we should definitely remove the part about HIV. If you infect someone without good healthcare you could effectively be murdering them.

I'm not willing to offer my thoughts on the transgender part, but I certainly agree with deleting the part about HIV.

Yeah, honestly the fact that the entry basically treats being transgender as equivalent to having a serious STI is rife with Unfortunate Implications.

I removed that part.

“If someone walks at night through a bad part of town on a dark alley, is it "blaming the victim" if somebody points out being killed was partially their own fault, WITHOUT (most importantly) lifting blame from the murderer?”

Yes.

By this logic, there is no moment at any point in time that a person should reasonably expect to feel safe or to do anything that prevents every form of foreseeable harm.

The person that chose to walk in that part of town at that time of day was fully within their rights to do so. The sole element of fault is the perpetrator that chose to prey upon them.

I mean... that's kinda the definition of victim blaming. You're illustrating the concept perfectly.

I don't mind if my comments end up as an illustration of being wrong... but I'd like to understand first.

There is a difference between "being within someone's rights" and "being a good idea". Shooting yourself in the foot is perfectly within your rights, but if you do and get hurt, YOU are the only one to blame, right? And the presense of someone OTHER who carries MOST of the blame, doesn't mean anybody else is perfectly blameless.

As was emphasized here, someone who warns others that some area is unsafe is not engaging in victim blaming — so, why does it become victim blaming AFTER someone already got hurt?

And no, I'm talking about CHANCES, about shades of grey, not about black and white. It's reasonable to feel safe when the chances of you being hurt are quite low. In a similar vein, it's totally outrageous to place ALL blame on the victim, and placing ALL blame on the perpetrator would be better... but are those the only options?

Comparing shooting yourself in the foot and going for a walk outside is incredibly dishonest. A person who shoots themselves in the foot is doing so with the INTENT of harming themselves, while someone walking in an unsafe area to get from Point A to B still intends to get from Point A to B. The only way it's comparable is if they DELIBERATELY seek out unsavory predators to invite harm.

This entire problem creates the issue of accepting problems that exist as inevitable. What you just said is that someone who does something which is perfectly within their rights and gets attacked is moral gray area. As Larkman said, you are demonstrating why this attitude does not work. The victim did nothing immoral—they are a victim. You cannot assign a moral value on someone who performed a blameless action just because outside elements preyed upon them.

Not to mention the inherent contradiction of saying there shouldn't be only two options, when your argument itself only facilitates two options: "if the person did this action, then they were morally wrong".

Ok, first point is true, but even if you shoot yourself in the foot accidentally, it's still you who would get the blame — for, say, being careless with the gun. Even if you just wanted to move it from point A to point B.

I agree that accepting problems as inevitable is wrong. That's actually my point — problems are not guaranteed, but some precautions can be — and, arguably, should be taken.

Perhaps now I understand the reason for this disagreement: I do not claim that the victim did anything immoral; quite the contrary. I, however, do claim that being responsible for something bad (especially something bad that happened to yourself) is not the same thing as being immoral. If I get a terrible hangover, it's my fault that I drank too much last night; but it's not immoral by itself.

Depends on the type of accident. If it was a mishap that anyone could have made without fault, then no one can blame you. If you were juggling the gun like a rodeo clown, then you were being deliberately negligent. The first is comparable to walking in a dangerous area at night; the second isn't. The second is treating a criminal as being the same as an objective, inevitable fact.

The issue is that precautions are based on context, freedom and hindsight. If someone is out jogging in broad daylight and get mugged, you can say they should have been paying attention, that they should have armed themselves, that they should have studied self defense, that they shouldn't have carried money, that they shouldn't have been that area, that they shouldn't have been outside in the first place...and on and on and on.

The argument against victim-blaming maintains that people should deserve to have safety and security in any situation in which they are simply living normally. Blaming people for not taking steps to prevent being victimized makes an argument (intended or not) that comfortable living is a privilege.

And that's some of my initial confusion here. Everyone has their own standarts: for someone not having a gun is stupid negligence, for another walking slowly in the dark on an uneven terrain means cowardice.

But I think you made an excellent point in the previous comment about morality. Victim blaming starts with saying or implying that the victim was morally wrong, not just wrong. That she deserved what happened (or even a part of it).

You are correct. The subjectivity is exactly the issue.

For instance, I've long maintained that women deserve to feel safe no matter where they are, who they were with, or what they were doing. I'm not saying that they need to feel coddled or hand-held, but we know that predators target us specifically. Saying that a woman shouldn't have done something (walked alone, drank with friends, or whatever else) has the unfortunate problem of reinforcing the idea that we can't feel safe anywhere. Especially since everyone has their own subjective idea of what we should do to feel safe.

"Belief in victim blaming stems from a desire for comfort and hope"

I don't see that this is always the case. It often can be, and maybe it usually is, but it's possible for someone who isn't trying to comfort themselves to still believe this.

I rewrote the whole thing a few days ago because I thought the same thing. It is a lot better now.

That rewrite has been brought up on Ask The Tropers.

I see that a moderator reversed your edit without giving any reason...