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

I didn't realise the other thread had been deleted, but it did seem to have been taken over by some very hostile commentators.

Anyhow on that thread I post some links (for anyone who is interested) where this has been discussed before. Partly because of trans activist demands to have trans peopel excempt from prosecution for sex by deception, but also because of examples from other countries.

No time to sort - so just listing as they came up in search:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4075830-Proposal-to-make-sex-by-deception-a-crime

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/1797994-Does-gender-matter-when-it-comes-to-sexual-consent

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/1797994-Does-gender-matter-when-it-comes-to-sexual-consent

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3416075-Shocked-by-sexual-offences-lecture-sex-by-deception-and-bigoted-women

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3307355-Sex-by-deception

Discussion seems to have been going on for nearly 10 years!

I think if you're unable to make your argument without referring to a particularly egregious case of male violence, it's probably not a very strong argument.

It wasn't the violence that was at the core of my argument, but the particularly casual nature of the sexual encounter in question. The violence isn't really relevant to the issue of consent - I think everyone, more or less, was in agreement that the violence was unacceptable.

From reports at the time and a couple of threads at the time it seemed that Newland was confused / embarrased to be lesbian.

There's a real element of cultural expectation. Part of why this is fraught is because there is no set out etiquette.

And also implied are questions about how significant a sexual union is. In general we don't get as upset about something not very important not going the way we'd like.

And there are people who don't consider having sex that significant or important a thing, so it's consistent that they might not place as much weight on all kinds of things about a casual sexual partner. Not to be crude, but if we're talking about something like glory holes, does it actually make one iota of difference who is on the other side? It could be anybody, a person of the opposite or same sex, Dominic Cummings, your cousin...

This one?
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/gayle-newland-found-guilty-again-13258179

I was always confused as to whether or not Newland was in fact trans. Don't think this would have been reported the same way at all if it were a male perpetrator

Consider again who would report and silence and derail women discussing consent. It worked though didn't it ?
MN listened to them deleted posts and then the whole thread.
Hopefully this one can stay as it is not about the specific case and it raises very important questions of consent and is extra extra relevant to lesbians re the cotton ceiling

I'm sorry the other thread has gone. I was trying to have a sensible conversation on it. I did post my point of view earlier on this thread, but as it relates particularly to the example on the other thread, which I can see from earlier posts others don't want to discuss, I won't restate it here.

That’s really shitty because now those screenshots taken out contents are just another stick to beat MNusers with

I noticed that too Clymene. The number of posts slurring people was quickly mounting up.

Yep Jellyslice being nice assumes fair play on both sides - disclosure of anything relevant leading to a mutual agreement for sex. Refusing or choosing not to disclose because you know it will or may affect the consent you are seeking is dishonest.

The only reason for dropping ridiculous examples in there is to make it seem as if someone has the right to override lack of consent if they deem the reason for that non-consent invalid.

Yes.

Incel and rape culture. "Gender" cultures are providing many, many verifiable online examples of this as well.

As for the examples about someone's name or dentures or natural hair colour or whatever? Really?
We all know very few people would find the above relevant to whether they wanted to have sex or not. Just as we all know that many people would find the biological sex and sexual orientation of the other person extremely relevant.
We all know that. The only reason for dropping ridiculous examples in there is to make it seem as if someone has the right to override lack of consent if they deem the reason for that non-consent invalid.
That is messed up. Consent is consent. If you can't be 100% sure that the other person is fully consenting, don't do the sex. It's that simple.

What Turtle said.

This conversation came about because of the, quite frankly, abhorrent summation of a UK judge.

No it's not OK. Ever.

We don't life in Barbarella. Sex is about bodies and safety. Lying just leads to a world of harm and prevents all positive outcomes.

Thanks for starting this thread, OP. This is a separate question and issue to the attack.
For me, this is simple. If your prospective sexual partner is likely to consider something essential to their consent, then it should be disclosed.
Deliberately hiding something because a sexual partner wouldn't consent if they knew i is creepy and entitled at best and rape at worst.
It's extremely concerning how many people will casually cross someone else's sexual boundaries and defend their so-called 'right' to do so.
No one has a right to sex with another person under false pretences. No one.

Sexuality is innate. You are born with it. It is what it is, and to many people having sex with someone that doesn't match their sexual orientation causes a visceral reaction.

I don't know if I'm making sense, it's hard to put into words .

No it's not. You have expect not get what you want if you do.

Prosthetic leg? Mastectomy bra? Denture? Do they also have to be declared?

Wtf? 🙄

Which utter thicko thought the suffering leading to needing one of the above is comparable to being a lying twat?

Please can we not talk about that specific instance?

No specific instance was mentioned. It's a matter of principle. If I don't like what I find when people get their kit off, I don't beat them up. And I don't expect them to assault me if I'm not what they expected. I do try to give people a heads up... 'I wouldn't, mate, I look even worse with my clothes off.' That kind of thing.

Prosthetic leg? Mastectomy bra? Denture? Do they also have to be declared?
I think those are all quite different to encountering a vagina where you expected a penis for example.
I would feel very deceived if I thought I was going to have PIV sex with man and found in fact it was a trans man intending to use a dildo.
Then there's the awkwardness/potential risk of declining sex when that becomes apparent at a late stage.
People should be given that information prior to sex happening. Otherwise its not informed consent.

Huh. Dunno why I got deleted. Never mind

If it's a casual encounter, is the onus on the person who appears to be the other sex to come clean in advance, or is it the responsibility of the other person to check before proceeding?

I think the nature of the encounter is important. If (as in the case that inspired this debate) you decide to have sex with a stranger you have met at a party, I think the onus is on you to check you are happy with what you're doing.

If you ask, and are lied to, then that would be deception and unacceptable. If you don't ask, but go ahead anyway, in my view it's a risk you've taken.

In the context of a relationship, I would agree that both parties should be honest about biological sex/expectations.

In the context of having casual sex with someone who is a complete stranger, the onus is on each party to complete due diligence before going ahead.