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?

@QuentinBunbury

Its not a male context. Its a context from an Internet random claiming her husband thinks it

Well, you could take any post on here and say it was from an 'internet random' 'claiming' this or that viewpoint or experience.

There's little point in participating in a forum discussion if you're going to start from an assumption of bad faith.

A man's reaction to this seems worth considering.

Your man's. Sure.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

A man's reaction to this seems worth considering.

Your man's. Sure.

Short of going out on the street and polling everyone who passes by, posters can only give the experiences/views of themselves, their friends and family. Posting the expressed opinion of your partner is no less valid than anyone posting their personal opinion.

Posting the expressed opinion of your partner is no less valid than anyone posting their personal opinion.

And? If I quote my DH or any other male saying differently it cancels her DH out, no? If she wants her DH to share his important perspective, he should post on the thread.

This question only requires Yes or No answers.

No need for argy bargys.

Then no, it isn't. This is a general principle of mine which applies to both sexes, so posters' friends and family who have views about individual cases are unconvincing to me.

And? If I quote my DH or any other male saying differently it cancels her DH out, no? If she wants her DH to share his important perspective, he should post on the thread.

It no more cancels an opinion than any poster expressing an opinion contrary to one previously expressed. It's the nature of debate - people express different opinions. Debate is not about cancelling opinions - on the contrary, it's about stimulating discussion.

As for the DH posting on the thread - surely, that's up to him. Personally, I'd no more try to persuade my husband to set up a MN account than I'd try to stop him - one can reasonably assume the husbands being quoted have access to the internet - if they're stimulated by their wives' commentary to post in person, all well and good - if not, that's up to them.

Confused by a few things.

-Who is from Iran?

-Stonewall are trying to make it fine to HIV+ people to not declare that to sexual partners before they could pass it on and make someone else ill. You'd want to be a right shower of f*ckers to campaign for that.

-Being misleading about your sex before engaging in sexual activity with someone is deception by omission. I think the issue is so basic that it should be disclosed.

Because many people consider both to be things that should be disclosed, and think it is highly immoral not to.

It's also the case that some groups, like SW, want to argue that both things are ok.

So a pretty reasonable comparison of an area of controversy over disclosure and it's relation to consent, my point being that while many people think it is obvious that you should be obligated to disclose, some do not, and they tend to feel that about a variety of similar situations.

@SmokedDuck I’m not sure who you mean by “many people”. But in the case of HIV (which as previously mentioned the vast majority are unable to pass it on so no risk) why and how is it immoral given that this is a ONS scenario? It’s actually akin (to make a comparison with another latent virus) to having to disclose to having had chicken pox.

Btw we do have proof positive of no risk - endorsed by all world health organisations: i-base.info/htb/32308
We do also have the law which means those of us who are no risk do not legally have to disclose as we can’t pass it on: www.tht.org.uk/hiv-and-sexual-health/living-well-hiv/legal-issues/how-law-works

Of course the law can differ in other countries such as those in the Middle East that prefer to stigmatise those living with HIV.

Now in a relationship, morality and sharing status and any other information is a whole different ballgame.

It’s important to have context.

@KimikosNightmare

Me too! I particularly enjoy it on the feminism board. It's so refreshing when women share their husbands' perspectives. As if their own weren't enough to make an argument

The hypocrisy in that is breathtaking- but never mind- hypocrisy on here is hardly unusual.

Does solicitor hubble have something he'd like to add?

@Arbadacarba consensual sex with a stranger, or virtual stranger, is never going to be a risk-free activity.

If you think you're about to have sex with a woman and it's actually a man, then it isn't consensual.

Or are we back to the 'one mouth is much the same as any other' argument that someone made on the deleted thread?

@hivpos

How often are people being tested that they can be confident that the viral load remains undetectable?

Unless it is incredibly frequently, not disclosing is absolutely outrageous.

If you think you're about to have sex with a woman and it's actually a man, then it isn't consensual.

This comes back to the issue of personal responsibility. If someone decides to have sex with someone else, this is an active decision. It's reasonable to expect the person to 'do their research' beforehand.

As I keep saying, context is everything. This isn't about someone who's been lied to, or lied to by omission. This is about someone falling into bed with someone else at the drop of a hat, not bothering to get to know them, and then being surprised that the person wasn't entirely as they expected.

There is an increasing tendency for people not to take responsibility for their own actions - and it is your own action if you engage willingly in sexual activity - and to seek to blame anyone but themselves when things don't turn out as they want.

"I'm male the way. Do you still want to have sex with me?"

"I'm male by the way. Do you still want to have sex with me?"

"I'm HIV positive. Do you still want to have sex with me?"

"I'm female. Do you still want to have sex with me?"

PurpleHoodie I'm not sure who you're asking but - HIV Positive - yes, as long as we use a condom. Male/female - if I fancied you enough to get to the stage of possible sex, it's not going to stop me if your biological sex doesn't match the gender you present as. I'm female but I certainly don't see a penis as essential for sexual gratification.

[quote Micemakingclothes]@hivpos

How often are people being tested that they can be confident that the viral load remains undetectable?

Unless it is incredibly frequently, not disclosing is absolutely outrageous.[/quote]
@Micemakingclothes we are tested every 6 months and absolutely confident. All the studies that have been done over the years are mentioned in the link above. Keep in mind that generally medics don’t tend to use the word “zero” risk, it’s rather low, slight or negligible. However in this case they do use this word, and as mentioned all major world health organisations have endorsed that once on effective medication the virus can’t be passed on.

Medication, science and knowledge has moved on over the years and although a lot of awareness has been raised there’s still so much more to do if we’re to reach zero new infections and zero stigma by 2030, something backed by the government.

I’ve done a few threads on this in the past including this one if you want to know more, there’s really no need to be outraged 🙂 www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3631563-To-think-that-more-people-know-about-Undetectable-equals-Untransmittable-attempt-2

Withholding a pertinent truth is lying by omission.

True that you takes your chances when the people involved don't even know each other. That applies to both of the people involved. If you don't know how the other person feels about same sex intimacy. They may see any misrepresentation as a violation, you don't know how they will react, and it may be a risky business to not reveal you are the same sex as them at the outset.

@WanderinWomb, I was responding to someone who was responding to someone else who brought it up. And I do think it's germane to a question posed in the first post - "Does the nature of the encounter matter?"

Or are we back to the 'one mouth is much the same as any other' argument that someone made on the deleted thread?

I think we are.

As I keep saying, context is everything. This isn't about someone who's been lied to, or lied to by omission.

Yes it is. This is not about that specific case, but in any case the person choosing to have casual sex with people does not negate their right to consent.

What is relevant info to one person is not necessarily relevant to another. Some people already have contraception, so don’t need to ask partner. Some people at ok with any sex, some people are not. Some people only wish to have sex with people who have been vaccinated for covid.

Someone brought up the point about marital status as being relevant. Does that mean that all those married affair partners who lie to their fling AND spouse have assaulted them. I would think yes - and would hope they could be sued for it - especially risk of STDs.

Namenic

I think the vast majority of people have a preference as to the biological sex of the people they sleep with. Biological sex is at the very centre of sexuality.