Biological sex should be shared with potential relationships/ONS/dates.

You can see from the photographs that he/she is not particularly feminine looking. Similarly it states in other articles that his lawyers used the defence of him/her sounding masculine. You may be able to blame the filters for not realising over social media but the filters weren’t there in the bar or at his/her house.

The filter is so filtered you could be fooled. But the filter wasn't there when the man dressed as a woman walked into the bar irl and started chatting to the man who actually was a man. The convicted person isn't attractive either as a man or a 'woman' so I'm surprised there was any sex at all.

If one person hides important information about themselves (for example, gender or sexual characteristics), and the other agrees to sex, this can be considered sexual assault due to lack of fully informed consent. More details: prostitutki.almaty-girls.com/

jeansgenie

I think you mean "You can't ask that"

It is up to a potential sex partner to disclose the sex they are because it is them who is saying that their identity does not match the material reality of their body. Why the fuck should someone who has little understanding of someone's identity, one that is only based on their 'understanding' of themselves that doesn't reflect material reality, have to ask someone if they are really the sex they present themselves as?

That is a recipe for harming that potential sex partner right there. Placing the onus on someone who doesn't have the knowledge to ask, is giving the person who is not being upfront the power to harm. It is removing the consent of a person who doesn't understand that they have to be asking a direct question.

The onus has to be on the person who has that knowledge that there is something that potentially negates the potential sex partner's consent, surely. That is the ethical approach, I would think.

@ClassicalQueen it has played out in court. Watkins was found guilty

If you watch the doc You Can't Say That on Netflix they have a trans episode. All of the women who became men said they would always disclose, as it wasn't fair to the person they were dating. All of the men who became women said they would conceal it. It's why so many people don't have issues with women transitioning but are very wary of men who do.

Which agenda would that be? Respecting the law?

"Watkin's lawyers said she saw and presented herself as female but was "visibly and audibly" male, so it would have been "blindingly obvious" to the man that Watkin was not biologically female."

From the BBC article.

The dissonance is very clear.

We have been told as a society, and our children taught, that acceptance with no exception is the only acceptable way to treat someone who says they are opposite sex to what they are. Plus we are told 'to believe that someone is who they say they are.'

And yet, recently there has been this contradiction where we are seeing the very same people telling us that any male person who states that he has 'an understanding' (to use what we are told is the correct language) that they are experiencing life where they understand they are female has to be treated as if they were female. Even though it is true that logically that 'understanding' is not a female one.

But then we get these court cases. Including the nazi convicted in Germany.

Those same people who tell us all about these male people's understanding, then will arbitrate who is and isn't 'really' transgender according to political expediency, in my opinion. Watkin's has maintained that they are female since they were 13 years old. So, for 7 years!

How is it that it becomes expedient in court to declare that Watkin's is a woman yet that the victim should have known that this woman was biologically male because of appearance and voice?

It is like foundations of shifting sands.

This is one fuckton of harm coming to light about the destruction of other's boundaries. This victim potentially has been taught to believe these lies and therefore had non-existent boundaries. And yet, there are people crowing on threads that this generation is the 'most inclusive' and 'most tolerant' without an inkling of understanding as to what this means for this generation's boundaries.

I use that term 'crowing' very deliberately because it is quite something to see those claims and the belittling that comes from those people towards the people who are pointing out the safeguarding issues.

So... apparently now our children and teens are to be taught that is someone says that they are a girl or women, that they 'can't' judge on appearance, but that they really should have the skills to judge what sex someone is (while telling those children and teens that 'no one can tell'). How is this robust safeguarding? The contradiction and inconsistency is a head fuck.

It was 3 years ago, so would have been two 18 year olds, who may not have had much experience, and the defendant may have looked different 3 years ago.

Surely it's the person with the issue who needs to be doing the legwork?

Surely it's the person doing the deceiving who needs to do the legwork and be honest

Didn't take long for your actual agenda to appear. Never does.

I think it’s faux naivety to think that biological sex isn’t important to a person who is seeking out a prospective partner. If not the most important point. I’m a straight woman so the no1 criteria for me looking for a partner is that he’s a man. As another poster said, there are significantly more people out there who this would be a deal breaker for than not.

If people on dates aren’t asking you if you’re trans, it’s most likely not because they are ok with dating a trans person but because the odds of being on a date with a passing trans person are so minuscule (make up such a tiny amount of the population) that it’s assumed you’re non-trans by default. I think the onus should be on the trans person to make the other person aware as early on as possible (preferably before meet up) to avoid any safety or humiliation issues for both parties.

Police and the courts almost always record crimes by self declared ‘gender identity’ rather than sex even though a) this messes badly with crime stats and b) we know that our sex is the biggest determinant of criminality (ie men are far more likely to commit crimes than women) and hiding the male sex only harms women.

This has been a terrible policy brought in under the radar by pressure from Stonewall and has been operating for some years. Hence why Dr Alice Sullivan (a senior statistician who wrote an excellent report on this) found that at least 650 rapes have been recorded as committed by a female despite rape needing a penis to take place (otherwise it’s serious sexual assault).

It totally messes up the data as women commit relatively so few crimes and research in this and programmes designed to reduce offending or rehabilitate.

As an example, almost all of the ‘female’ sex crimes recorded in one year in a Yorkshire force area were committed by a prolific male offender (a teacher) who then announced that he was really a woman - presumably in the hope of getting into a women’s prison. His chances of success were very good at the time.

Because a tiny minority of people are trans so the presumption is that they aren’t.

Im generally all for trans rights but as a straight woman, I would be hugely disappointed if I got into bed with a bloke and then found there was no penis.

It IS dishonest to become intimate with someone without sharing who you are. Giving them a choice on whether to proceed or not. I can’t say if it would be a deal breaker for me, clearly I fancy them but it would give me cause to question my own sexuality and the d have to ask myself if I wanted to do that.

Telling someone you’re trans doesn’t have to involve discussing your genitalia. You should tell someone you are trans before any physical and sexual contact.
It’s not difficult unless you purposefully want to deceive people.

Great minds and all that 😉

All of it bears repeating a thousand times as there are still too many in government and other positions of power that want to enable it one way or another!

I don't consider wanting to have a sexual relationship in accordance with one's sexuality to constitute 'having an issue'. Phrasing it that way implies that people who don't want to date TW if they're attracted to women or TM if they're attracted to men have 'an issue' with trans people, when in reality they simply want a partner of the sex they are attracted to. As I'm sure many trans people do too.

@ClassicalQueen They didn't have intercourse.

I find it hard to understand how he couldn’t tell it was man, I think it’s most likely a case of he regretted it afterwards and reported him/her to the police. I’d be interested to see how this plays out in court.

'Her'??

If you met them using the Internet then it should have been clear from the start I.e. the app should list your sex accurately.

If you met them in person and they asked you on a date then during the first date.

It stops either of you wasting time. You don't need to discuss genitalia. Just something simple like 'do you realise I am trans'.

Then you can walk away if you don't get an answer you are comfortable with.

Yeah I’m just thinking about a rapacious transgender man in Oxfordshire whose crimes of male violence were ascribed to a ‘woman’. He didn’t look like a woman by any stretch of the imagination, and his womanhood depended entirely on his declaring it as a fact.
Not sure if that crime statistic has been corrected yet.

Just a rather large bee in my bonnet, as you can tell! Anyway, apologies for a bit of a hijack here.