A court of appeal ruling (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2013/1051.html) on the case of a young trans man has just been made and it states that unless you 'out' yourself to your partner, then any penetration of your partner could amount to unlawful intercourse.  How tis would apply to transsexual women would have to be tested in the courts I presume.

A blog about this ruling can be read at the link below, which makes for interesting reading:-
http://www.complicity.co.uk/blog/2013/06/court-of-appeal-confirms-stealth-trans-people-having-sex-are-criminals/

Interesting.   Very complicated,   But as far as the law goes, perhaps not in this particular case but once you have a Gender Recognition Certificate, the law is emphatic, about your gender status.   So there could be no consideration as far as the DPP goes for a criminal prsecution, its arguable, that deception involving litigation in a civil action, if it was proved the defendant, deceived a partner, perhaps on the basis of being able to concieve, etc.

In the case mentioned, it could infringe the confidentiality clause in the Gender Recognition Act,  The first person to actualy 'out a person' is liable, under the relevant section and is deemed a criminal act, if no criminal related act was made by the person protected by the act.

Does that make sense.

Also a ruling in Reading Crown court, which set a precedent, that has never been replealed, ruled a surgically constructed vagina, was to be regarded  in law in common with a natal females vagina..

This case will undoubtably be subject to a ruling by the EHRC.

Yes, we have just been discussing this in Trans Media Watch Crissie and that was what wee hoped would happen as the ruling would have a far greater chance of being thrown out there.
I was disappointed though to read that it was Lord Justice Leveson who was one of the three presiding Appeal judges - although that doesn't obviously mean that he supported the ruling, he might have been outvoted 2:1