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?

[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

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.

@ErrolTheDragon

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?

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?

@WhoNeedsaManOfTheWorld

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

Agree!

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 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.

@Ladylokidoki

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

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

No.

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

That's clearly not what I said.

@Ladylokidoki

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

That's clearly not what I said.

This is what you said.

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?

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.

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.

@WanderinWomb

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.

I suggest then you address your comment to the several posters on here who have suggested there are grounds for appeal.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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

@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.

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.

No, it's sexual assault.

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