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

[Clymene]

This is not a TAAT but that is about a horrible violent attack and this question is quite separate.

In any sexual encounter, do you have the right to expect the other person to disclose their biological sex if they visually appear to be of the other sex?

Essentially, does a lesbian have the right to be upset if the person they were female before they got naked has a penis?

Does a gay man have the right to know that someone who appears to be male has a vagina before he has sex?

Does the nature of the encounter matter? 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?

It is not ok. I would feel lied to, cheated and as though I was not consenting... because I did not know the reality (scientific, general reality not that person's reality).

It's deception.

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.

That's putting the onus the wrong way round. If a trans person 'passes' from the POV of the potential partner, what was the latter supposed to do?

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

Sexual orientation is based on sex so it should be disclosed. It does matter and I can see why you ask the question. It's dishonest and trickery and not acceptable.
If I were a heterosexual man and ended up with a transwoman (who passed) why would I ask their sex? Surely, morally it is up to the transwoman to disclose this before any intimacy.

Its never ok to be deceptive doesnt matter if its a ons or a lifelong commitment

@merrymouse

I’m mystified that anyone should suggest this. Presumably in this scenario nobody is thinking about contraception????

Umm what? Do we need condoms is not something lesbians usually say? Likewise a man asking a mtf if she is going to use a condom if she passes as "she"

@Ladylokidoki

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

Two wrongs don't make a right. There's no excuse whatever for violence. But the OP specifically doesn't want this thread to dwell on that aspect.

No it is not.

I'll keep it short and simple this time.

Definitely not OK.

It's never okay.

Two wrongs don't make a right. There's no excuse whatever for violence.
But the OP specifically doesn't want this thread to dwell on that aspect.

I didn't say it did. However, it doesn't appear that the fact that the man had just been sexually assaulted was taken into account.

The vast majority of the verdict was 'you fancied her, she is a woman because she says she is. You beat her because you are a bigot'.

That's why I am saying it may not stick. It seemed to miss out the frame of mind ofbthe person who was sexually assaulted first.

As I said above, I have been sexually assaulted. The reason I didn't try and beat the shit out of the person assaulting me, is because as a woman I am far more likely to be killed by the man sexually assaulting me.

Had I have felt it was a fair fight, then yes I probably would have become violent with the person violating me.

It’s never ok.

I want to know a person's actual sex in several situations and would like it to be written into law
If I am going to have a relationship or sexual encounter with them
If I request a female HCP
If I am going to be sharing a space where I am likely to be vulnerable such as a hospital ward, rape crisis Centre or a prison
If my child is sharing a room or dorm

It’s not ok.

I'd want someone I was going to have sex with to be comfortable with me so I'd let them know about anything that might be unexpected -my very large scars, for instance, because, they may not be an issue, but I wouldn't want someone to be unprepared and potentially turned off. It seems pointless to me to have sex with someone without some form of disclosure - 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.

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

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

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.

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.

It's never ok.

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

@BlackeyedSusan

it would be sex by deception. there was a cse where a women (not trans afaik) was prosecuted for pretending to be a man and using a strap on.

There have been at least two cases like this in the UK.

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.

Not ok

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/

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.

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.