I did think about posting about this myself but then realised I had nothing relevant to say and it may have already come up, briefly, in the trans /news/ thread.

The right picture is purposefully chosen to illustrate a stark difference in appearance, I don't doubt the person could possibly be attractive when they're not on their way out of court and/or obviously trying to hide something beneath an airbrush. With a genuine smile and light heart their appearance shouldn't really be an issue.
Trans people don't have to be convincing and they don't have to pass. Some of those who don't are absolutely gorgeous.

I don't really know how I feel about the case, to be honest. If a person finds someone attractive enough to get with them, then surey it doesn't matter what's down their pants? The 'victim' made a presumption, the 'perpetrator' either didn't correct them or thought it obvious.
Would you expect someone to tell you they had a colostomy bag? What about an STD? What if you find out someone isn't as nice a person as you thought after you got with them?

What are the actual conditions at play, merely concealing biological sex? I get that people wouldn't like to be made a fool of, but they did like everything up until that point right?

I'm partially in mind that the victim fooled themself. When I was 'taken advantage of', there was a point when I thought 'fuck it', and it definitely came after resistance. But it was my intoxicated choice - I could have got up and walked out but I didn't. I got on top.
It's difficult to put myself in the mind of a homophobe (or whatever's going on, here).

Why is sex considered shameful?

I'd absolutely welcome good faith responses if anybody cares to make them.

>>42883
I don't know if there's any justification for rape by deception, seems open and shut to me but I do question why this was deemed newsworthy and why OP felt the need to share it.

Would.

>>42883
I would say you're more likely to really kick off if you're insecure about these things. I don't think I am insecure, though, and I really wouldn't want it to happen to me and I would expect to be told. After all, if you think it shouldn't matter, then surely it shouldn't matter for the woman(?) to tell me, right? You could say it's no different from saying you have a wooden leg or a mastectomy, but I think that's quite naive because it's well-known that a noticeable percentage of society really wouldn't be comfortable with this. You also suggested STDs, and just so you are aware, yes you really should tell partners in advance if you have an STD. They have codes they use in dating profiles to find each other so they can shag each other and not spread the illnesses.

If I was the man in the story, I would be absolutely furious at the deceit and I certainly wouldn't want to see her again because I would consider that she had lied through omission and didn't trust me. But I really wouldn't sue her for tricking me, because ultimately it's on me to make sure I'm not getting sucked off by a bloke.

>>42887
Bringing it to reality, I do know a person whom I'm unsure of. Well it's almost obvious what they are but not what they've got. Any fantasy falls flat if I imagine they're missing pieces, but I'd really like to find out. Nieve is clearly the key word.
I want that experience of discoving the detail of a love interest. That's the nature of trust, really.

Imagine you've got on very well with someone over the course of a year but it turns out they have one of those horrible body modded octopus cocks. Shocking, but .. illegal? I'm not sure.
"Why didn't you tell me?!"
"Uh, because it's fucking horrible?"

>just so you are aware, yes you really should tell partners
Nah, that's cool. It was only thrown in for the contrast.

>>42887
>I really wouldn't sue her for tricking me, because ultimately it's on me to make sure I'm not getting sucked off by a bloke.

It sounds like he's mainly gone to the rozzers because people in whatever online community he's active in had been taking the piss out of him for putting his knob inside a blatantly obvious evangelist christian korean youtuber.

>>42883
This case is treated as lie by omission which is true but crucially she also lied by saying she was on her period so that he wouldn't put his hands down her knickers. This provided the mens rea of the case as deception and corroborated the bloke's story of not knowing.

>>42883

>What about an STD?

Yes I expect someone to tell me they have an STD. That literally GBH to deliberately not tell someone. People have gone to prison for giving people aids for that reason.