Is it ok to deceive a sexual partner about your biological sex?

I don’t believe it is ever right to mislead someone about your biological sex in order ti begin a sexual encounter with them, no. Sexual attraction and orientation are inextricably linked to biology for most people. I don’t believe consent can be informed consent whilst such information is withheld.

Who are "the right people"?

People who are used to taking cases to appeal, especially in regards to sexual assault cases.

Here's the issue. You hear the word 'right' and think if it in its moral sense.

I mean as in people trained to specialise in this type of case.

You know like a lawyer can be the right person for the job, but they are defending a rapist. So are they morally right? The word 'right' doesn't always have moral meaning attached to it.

I never actually made a personal judgement on wether he should have been found guilty or not.

I didn't say it shouldn't stick, I said I don't think it would. The thread isn't a long one. I have posted an explanation as to why.

But here it goes again. It appears (appears being the operative word) that the fact that he considered himself sexually assaulted was not taken into account.

The judge labelled him a bigot. And basically said because he fancied her, and she says she is a woman then this came down to bigotry. Maybe it did. But there seems to been (again seems) to have not taken into account that he may have felt violated and as though the transwoman assaulted him.

I think an appeals team who knows their jobs (so are the right people for that job) could argue that him being a victim of sexual assault should have been taken into account and because it wasn't, that it's basis for another trial or reduction in sentence.

Again, I am not saying I agree with it or disagree with the verdict. But I can understand someone who feels they were assaulted, becoming violent or acting in a, aggressive way. And am surprised that wasn't taken into account. And think it would have been had it not been a transwoman.

Such as the case of the woman (linked above) who was prosecuted for having sex with a woman, whilst leading the woman to believe she was man. That woman was prosecuted for the deception.

Yet in this case the transwoman was not considered to have decieved anyone. Slightly different circumstances but both deception.

And also, in the Gayle Newland case, her conviction was dismissed because of the judges summing up. She was later found guilty again.

In this case the judges summing up appeared to completely dismissed that the man who beat up the transwoman, may have been a victim of assault first.

So yes, I think if a team pick this up that know what they are doing, they could get this overturned.

As several posters have chosen to ignore the OP's instructions and made such suggestions I see no need to abide by the OP's instructions either to leave such frankly appalling comments unremarked on.

If you want to discuss that case use the thread about that case.

The OP was very clear this is a separate topic inspired by comments on consent. Not about the assault case.

It's absolutely never ok to deceive a partner about your sex.

It is rape/ sexual assault by deception. Stonewall are lobbying to make this particular type of rape legal. That should have had people running away from them at a mad tilt, strangely though Ruth Hunt was given a place in the HOL.

I am not convinced that guilty verdict will stick, if the right people take up the case for appeal

Who are "the right people"?

And why do you think the guilty verdict should not stick?

Are you seriously suggesting that thug should be found not guilty?

That's clearly not what I said.

No.

I asked at least 4 times on the other thread versions of ‘why a person who wanted a sexual relationship of whatever duration with another feels that they have the right to withhold information about their sex?’

And didn’t get any actual answers.

Plenty of distraction, projection and false equivalences from some posters, including references to examples such as it being the same as someone having dyed hair, or a belief that was a deal breaker.

But not one attempt that was in any way meaningful as to why a prospective sexist partner would not be respected enough to be told this information if they did not know, and told before any sex act takes place.

I feel the same way as you @Clymene. I think not many judges would have made those comments. I'm sure there will be an appeal.

I feel like the judge ignored the sexual assault element of that case.

Obviously, you can't beat people up. But the judge's comments were very sympathetic to the person who was beaten up. But to my mind, that person should have disclosed.

It was deceptive and its never okay.

[quote Ladylokidoki]@TedImgoingmad

It's incel culture. The perceived right to have sex, and therefore to require the other person to get over it. Goes hand in hand with a new sort of blame culture, where a victim of deception is blamed for finding someone superficially attractive before finding out the actual truth of their sex. As if their personality, clothes, good looks in some way cancel out their victim's own sexuality and sexual boundaries.

Absolutely!

That's why I don't buy it. The people who don't want to be upfront, either get off on the deception. Or they Absolutely feel entitled to have sex with someone, even if they know that person wouldn't want have sex with them, knowing the truth.

But let's be honest, that's the agenda that's been pushed for the last few years 'you are whatever you say you feel like and entitled to anything you want, regardless of the other people involved'[/quote]
This will bells on

It is never ok. Ever. Whether a fleeting encounter or not.

I have been so shocked on the other thread to have people state otherwise.

And to imply that anyone having a casual sex encounter should have no expectation of honesty or mutual respect as far as sex of said partner is concerned, is incredibly troubling.

A friend of mine has his 'first kiss' with a sexy woman who turned out to be male, on our school leavers' dance night, at a nightclub club afterwards.

How is it fair to take advantage of an 18 year old shy lad who is not used to alcohol and had a few too many? His first sexual experience. Deeply unfair.

Extract on Stonewall trying to abolish sex by deception, from the article linked below:

As the Cambridge Radical feminists argue, ‘those who claim, like Paris Lees, that women’s fear of sexual predators is ‘all in the mind’, rather than borne from a life-time of living as a woman in a patriarchal society, would do well to read the news more often’. Mixed sex facilities will ultimately force women out of the public sphere as increased threat of rape and sexual assault will re-introduce the ‘toilet leash’. This is purposeful, transgender ideology is determined to remove women from public life and uses the threat of rape and sexual assault to achieve this end.

Those pushing transgender ideology have made it clear that the rape of women as a consequence of implementing their creed is acceptable. Lola Phoenix, a male who feels like a woman, recalled how they were

‘struck by the conversations presenter Munroe Bergdorf had with those who called themselves “feminists”. There was fear expressed that men might take advantage of the changes to the Gender Recognition Act to sneak into places like bathrooms and changing rooms to assault people or make them feel uncomfortable.
Understandably, many people have responded by claiming this scenario very unlikely — and for the most part I agree. After all, if men want to sneak into women’s bathrooms, they already can — providing trans people with a less inaccessible way to have their identity recognised doesn’t change this’.

Women being raped, because rape happens any way, is worth it to validate male feelings according to that transgender advocate. Under transgender ideology rape is considered a means to validate male identity. Stonewall, in their transgender advocacy, campaigns to re-legalise a form of rape — sex by deception. In Stonewall’s document ‘A Vision for change’ Stonewall argued that there was a need for ‘Judicial clarity of ‘sex by deception’ cases to define the legal position on what constitutes sex by deception based on gender, and to ensure trans people’s privacy is protected’. However, there is already judicial clarity. The Crown Prosecution service has declared ‘evidence that the complainant was deceived as to the identity of the person with whom (s)he had intercourse’ constitutes a form of rape and that with regards to transgender people that when ‘considering the issue of consent as part of the evidential stage of the Full Code Test prosecutors should be aware that the Court of Appeal in Justine McNally v R [2013] EWCA Crim 1051 determined that deception as to gender can vitiate consent’. Nevertheless, Stonewall don’t want clarity, they want change. Stonewall makes it clear that it wants the sex by deception legislation amended ‘where necessary with due regard to the trans person’s right to privacy’. To achieve this the concept of sex by deception would need to be removed. What progressive, human rights ideology, has one of its goals as making it easier to rape women?

uncommongroundmedia.com/the-rainbow-reich-transgender-ideology-and-totalitarianism-part-i/

Not ok

Gayle Newland, who pretended to be a man.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/29/gayle-newland-found-guilty-at-retrial-of-tricking-female-friend-into-sex

Carlos Delacruz, a transman.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6130021/Transgender-sex-attacker-no-penis-tricked-two-women-sex-jailed-three-years.html

Both were jailed for sexual assault.

It's never ok.

It's Stonewall who are actively campaigning to make this legal.

who wants to dtd with someone who is just going through the motions and not really into it? I don't know why anyone would put themselves or someone else in that position.

I think a lot of men don't care as long as they are enjoying themselves.

I believe people have an obligation to volunteer any information likely to change a person’s mind about a sexual encounter:
. Your sex (surprise genitalia are not ok)
. If you know you have a disease or know you have been exposed to a disease but haven’t been tested yet
. If you have the potential to become pregnant

This one I’m not sure if I should include or not…
. If participating in this encounter constitutes cheating on the part of one of the participants
(Because then you get down the slippery slope or will what if he says he is an astronaut, but he is really an office worker and I’m trying to not get into how well you know the person)

Otherwise the encounter is not truly consensual.

It’s deeply troubling that anyone would think it was ok to deceive a partner about this.

It's not okay, and 'sex by deception' is illegal.

'When considering the issue of consent as part of the evidential stage of the Full Code Test prosecutors should be aware that the Court of Appeal in Justine McNally v R [2013] EWCA Crim 1051 determined that “deception as to gender can vitiate consent” (paragraph 27).'

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-6-consent