Example: my family will literally never speak to me again if I'm 'caught' making out with a 'dude'. There's an obligation to disclose relevant sexual data BEFORE decisions are made. Not after.

Example: My family will never speak to me again if I am caught making out with a "black person", there's an obligation to disclose relevant sexual data BEFORE decisions are made. Not after. Race is something people can be attracted/not attracted to. And it is just as physically relevant as having a dick, to making out.

Also, to completely ignore all arguments made so far, I have a RIGHT to know who I'm giving consent to, and the terms of that consent.

I mean how far do you take that? I hate people who like Lego (I don't actually), just viscerally hate them. Does everyone woman I meet who likes Lego have an obligation to inform me of this, or if it's so important to me, is it on me to ask.

All of this is just a shell game for working around consent. If there's nothing wrong with this, then why not just say 'Well you know I'm trans, right?". I don't get why the conversation is "to what extent can we deliberately deny information to give rational consent without it being sexual assault via deception".

Well because that is a valid question. You can get around a lot of moral quandaries by "playing it safe", but that doesn't make the questions any less valid.

This is the same conversation as that guy who tricked women into thinking he was a doctor and having sex with them. They consented to sex, the guy presented as someone who knew medical sexual techniques would help them.

I mean if he was lying or doing something to deliberately mislead then that's bad, that isn't what's happening here. If a trans woman with a penis left a tampon packet on the table or something to try and subtly indicate she had a vagina, that would be active misleading and bad.

I mean he LOOKED like a doctor, and IDENTIFIED as a doctor, but these women wanted someone with different credentials.

Active misinformation is different.