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?

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.

[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. 💐

@DoingItMyself

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.

Please can we not talk about that specific instance? I really don't want this discussion to be deleted for being a TAAT.

If you want to opine on that case, there's another thread about that. This one is purely to discuss wider issues around consent.

@JellySlice "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?"

Even in that instance, why wouldn't you just check? 'You know I'm trans, right?' or similar. It's getting consent. The context of the occasion shouldn't matter.

Once it does, you're on a slippery slope.

I thought you said you were from Iran.

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 ?

No, never.

@gingerpcatt

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.

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

@Ladylokidoki

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.

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.

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.

@Ladylokidoki

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.

You posted comments which are startlingly inaccurate.

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.
.

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.

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).

What on earth?

Of course you shouldn’t deceive someone like that.

But of course also you shouldn’t attack someone who does, unless you’re acting in self-defence. Just walk away.

No, of course not.

I think it's important — I don't want a full sexual history necessarily, but I would always ask a few questions. I donate blood, so want to be able to answer the screening questions truthfully and accurately!

In the case of a person being trans, I think they should tell you. Not necessarily the minute you meet them, but before you do anything intimate. And surely it's safer for them as well? Better to be rejected earlier than either be rejected when the other person notices and they're cross about it, or after and they feel deceived into sex.

Clarity about what kind of sex you're having, STD's and contraception are all essential parts of full consent.

It’s often said that men are less good than women at clocking whether someone is biological male if they present as female. Women generally tell quickly because bluntly being smaller & physically weaker, we need to spot potential danger earlier. Men on the other hand are more likely at least initially to go by presentation ie that person has long hair, boobs, heels & a skirt so must be a woman

@Micemakingclothes

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.

You forgot to add

If you are an undercover police officer sleeping with activists who would never consent to a sexual relationship with you if they knew who / what you are.

This is where the two positions jut up against each other the hardest.
If you believe that trans people are trans, and that man/woman still refer to sex categories, someone not disclosing their sex is a deception.
If you believe that man/woman refer to how someone feels about themselves, then there is no deception because women can have a penis and men can have vulva, and if you're attracted to someone then their biology doesn't matter. And not wanting to have sex with someone with a penis is just a preference.

I would argue that the overwhelming majority of people fall into the first category, no matter how much they go along with TWAW/TMAM, and tell others that they just need to 'be kind'.

It's never ok to decieve anyone in that situation.

It's not something that I or anybody I know would do, apart from anything It's bloody dangerous but also so wrong to put an unsuspecting person in that situation.
It's never going to end well.

Hardly does the Trans cause much good!

Wouldn't you notice when they got naked?

If the standard of surgery is high enough that someone wouldn't notice or could explain it away as having had an injury repaired or something. I think it's necessary to mention if there is a chance of pregnancy resulting from the encounter no matter how slight.

Other than that I don't know. I suppose it would be horrible to have been kissing somebody and only later find out they were the opposite sex if you're not bisexual. I think? I am bisexual and I don't think I'd find it a huge deal depending on the reason not to say anything! But can see it would be very upsetting to others. Is it comparable to tricking a vegetarian into eating meat? For me, it feels more on the level of this person told me they were single but I later found out they're married, I have a strong moral code against sleeping with married people and now feel disgusted.

Consent needs to be informed and freely and enthusiastically given.

If someone chooses to withhold information because they think being honest might mean the other person declines sex, then they are knowingly choosing to remove someone's ability to consent.

Nobody is entitled to sex. It's as simple as that.