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

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’.

I can't comprehend what they might mean by 'privacy' in the context of people having sex (or not).

Isn't there the potential that the trans person thinks that they are recognised as trans, and that the other person knows they are with a trans person? Say they get together at a venue frequented by all members of the alphabet, why would a transperson think the other is not accepting of trans people as sexual partners, whether same sex out opposite sex?

They might think that, but in that case it costs nothing to clarify rather than to proceed on the basis of an assumption. 'Before we go any further, you do know I'm trans, right?' or whatever.

You went off piste first and started taking about the decision and scope for appeal so don't lecture me about sticking to the OP's request.
.

Your post is so full of mistakes about the law. You appear to be labouring under some sort of misunderstanding of how provocation or self defence works. Even if one were to accept those played an element his actions went miles beyond what would be acceptable or reasonable.

I have already said I won't be discussing this further, in this thread.

Op has made a request. I am choosing to respect it. Rather than just adding your own bits in to try and start the conversation, I suggest you also respect i.

Also the undercover cop situation. Women didn't know who they were in a relationship with.

TAATs won't necessarily be deleted if they're discussing an issue arising from it rather than the thread itself.

So discussing the judges comments as they would apply generally rather than specially to the case is ok I think.

The comments seemed to be very much on the moral judgement side rather than legal to me.

But in answer to your question, I was always under the impression that concealing your sex was both legally and morally wrong.

@gingerpcatt

No, never.

It forms part of the fundamental contract of consent (as does STD status and contraception imo.)

This. And haven't there been convictions of men who've knowingly and deliberately infected women with HIV ?

I thought you said you were from Iran.

[quote Ladylokidoki]@WanderinWomb I apologise I was actually agreeing with you and saying I will shut up about it When I have reread it back this morning, it doesn't really read like that.

Sorry for my poor wording [/quote]
It's ok.
Am just worried that this might get deleted as being a TAAT when that doesn't appear to be intention and there are some important points on consent/deception being raised. 💐

Straight man picks up transwoman, believing they are natal female. In keeping with the teaching of 'enthusiastic informed consent', the transwoman should check that straight man knows they are trans. Straight man isn't consenting to sex with transperson, he believes he's consenting to sex with a natal female. Same if it's a transman with a natal female. Don't blag someone into bed without giving them the basic details.

However, if straight man discovers the undisclosed trans nature of his sex partner and is unhappy about that, he shouldn't beat them up. 'No, this isn't what I want,' and leave would be enough. I'm sure there will be people out there who would be intrigued, and stay, but some would not.

Aside, people who know they have transmissible sexual (or other) diseases should always disclose.

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’.

Does this mean when someone finds out the person is not the sex they expect and then says 'no thanks' they are transphobic? I guess it does.
A casual encounter will often take place when parties have had too much to drink and it is this that can lead to mistakes. It is unfair for silence to be ok in these circumstances

No, it's sexual assault.

It’s immoral not to disclose if you have an std

Another thing Stonewall are campaigning for, removing the crime of failure to disclose HIV status.

@OldCrone Curious that both these cases are where female born people were jailed, yet trans women with penises we’re all supposed to be okay with. Eve was framed by Dame Helena Kennedy springs to mind. No wonder women want to run away from being women. Except that second case you cite is proof that you cannot.

@WanderinWomb I apologise I was actually agreeing with you and saying I will shut up about it When I have reread it back this morning, it doesn't really read like that.

Sorry for my poor wording

But the judge in the case said he thought that if you were going to have a casual sexual encounter then you really needed to find out the sex of the other person if it mattered to you.

I find this thinking not only wrong, but kind of strange, but I would say that there seem to be people who also think this way in other areas, not just about disclosure of sex. So for example people who feel that there should be no necessity to disclose HIV status.

It seems to be very much associated with hook-up culture, tinder, etc, and in a way I can see why that might be the case. Under those circumstances, there is already a lot of "let the buyer beware" attitude, the fact is you really don't have much idea what you are getting and it's already a high risk activity.

Similarly to anonymous drug fuelled sex in clubs, sometimes in the dark - who really knows who you are having sex with? At that point, complaining about even details like sex starts to seem pedantic.

surprise genitalia are not ok

Yet another phrase you would never have thought needed to be expressed a few years ago. I should only be in proximity to a penis (or looking at a picture of one) if I want to be and have consented. That seems so utterly obvious I'm struggling with the Animal Farm level nonsense that's being used to justify any other position.

And I am quite fond of penises in context. Were I a lesbian or straight man, it's even more of a stretch.

I guess it would be prudent to ask specifically if they were trans/non-trans before; just like it would be prudent to both get sexual health screens and know birth control status before sex.

It’s immoral not to disclose if you have an std ; not to disclose your birth control status and not to disclose your sex (if there is possible ambiguity). However I don’t know about the legalities of this. I think some men have had sex with women who said they were on birth control and were not and vice versa (though the downsides to women are far greater - so the penalties should be greater for this too).

You could argue that a reasonable amount of people in society are trans - so people should ask specifically if it matters to them; same as with STDs and those not on birth control.

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

You are correct. I made the original comment because consent is one of the reasons I think that conviction could be overturned.

Now I feel the need to defend myself, from posters trying to add to what I said claim I said something else.

I have explained twice. And won't be commenting regarding the case again. My explanation stands and I don't need to keep justifying my view.