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?

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.

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.

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.

I see the other thread has gone. Make more and more outrageous assertions, throw around a loads of slurs and you can get conversations stopped.

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

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

@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.

Yes, although in that case it was difficult to believe the other person didn't suspect anything. It was a strange case if we're talking about the same one.

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.

@PurpleHoodie

What Turtle said.

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

It's a shame that the thread inspired by the judge's comments and with about 30 pages of discussion on consent got deleted.

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

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

@JellySice

* I am finding it really uncomfortable the drift of judgement occurring around this discussion that people who have casual sex encounters 'deserve' what they get which is how is it all coming across to me.*

I'm absolutely not saying this.

I'm trying to explore whether declaring your trans status must be a blanket rule.

There's possibly a bit of devil's advocate going on here as well, because I am firmly gender critical.

I think this is a totally valid thing to explore.

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...

@Arbadacarba

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

@Arbadacarba

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.

Sorry, I do remember that before the thread got zapped. I think that can be discussed without referring to that particular case, can't it?

I would argue that the situation doesn't matter. That there is no context in which is it ok to deceive a sexual partner about your biological sex. Even if it's a quickie against a toilet wall.

The minute you start putting conditions on consent, you weaken it. It should be sought in any and every situation. And if you believe that by telling the prospective sexual partner that you're not the sex they think you are might mean that they don't want to have sex with you, they are not consenting.

The minute you start putting conditions on consent, you weaken it. It should be sought in any and every situation.
Such a good point

@Arbadacarba

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.

It's the casual nature which is at the root of this for me. And neither you nor I were criticising people who have casual sex - I've done it myself.

I've just discussed this with my husband and asked him if this happened to him in these exact circumstances what he would think and feel. He said embarrassed and angry with himself for not noticing or caring but he absolutely would not think he had been the victim of a sexual assault. Husband is a solicitor and whilst criminal law is not his bag he has some experience of it.

I think your husband would notice if he came across a penis when he was expecting a vagina, @KimikosNightmare, even if he is a solicitor.

@Clymene

I think your husband would notice if he came across a penis when he was expecting a vagina, *@KimikosNightmare*, even if he is a solicitor.

I don't know what point you are making. I asked him if these exact same circumstances happened to him- he was expecting oral sex- and he had noticed at the point the convicted thug did- ie after the blow job , what his reaction would be.

His response was he would be embarrassed and angry with himself for not noticing or not caring enough to notice before he allowed someone to give him a blow job. He was categorically of the view that in the circumstances here this is not sexual assault.

I don’t want to have sex with anyone who doesn’t want to have sex with me, as the majority of the population are attracted by sex and not gender I think it’s pretty important to be upfront if you’re not what you appear to be.

Or alternatively, you could get their consent before

Read my post, dear.

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.

@SmokedDuck well, for the well over 90% of those living with HIV in the UK, in the case of something like a ONS why would they need to if they are no risk to any sexual partner? Not sure why you're making this comparison other than both can be highly stigmatised.

This leaves a great many trans individuals at risk of prosecution for a criminal offence.

This is interesting by Stonewall. The only possibility of prosecution is if the partner reports to police. The only reason I would report a sexual partner to police is if I felt violated and that a crime had been committed. If I didn't care either way why would I report?

What Stonewall are saying that that a 'great many' partners would feel violated but they don't care about that. Regardless of the morality of it, if they believe a great many people would be so upset they'd report, that's not freely given consent. And sex without free consent is assault.

@KimikosNightmare: I suspect your husband's reaction would be typical. Saying that is or ought to be viewed as a sexual assault seems like making Stonewall's case for reviewing CPS policy on sex by deception for them.