I recently had protected sex with a male to female transsexual. After we had sex at the end stupidly I put my penis in and out a few times unprotected all in all it could not have been in any longer than a minute or two and I kept taking my penis out so wasnt inside the person for a consectutive couple of minutes. The person showed me negative test results from her latest tests which was a month prior to this meeting and still insists that she is clean to this day. Its been 6 weeks and due to get tests next week and still in contact with the person. What would you say the risk factor is of hiv in this case if potentially the person was unaware or not being truthful.
It's sad to me that people describe passionate pleasure as doing something "stupidly" or condemning their natural desires. Let's remember something important here: Sex feels good. Putting your penis inside someone feels good. For many of us, having a penis put inside of us feels good. There is nothing "stupid," ridiculous, or morally wrong with that.
What can be problematic is if we give and receive pleasure in ways that result in harm. Yet people get injured every day from driving a car, biking, playing football, riding rollercoasters in amusement parks. On most occasions these fun activities do not have adverse outcomes. But when they do, people generally don't condemn themselves or others, they just take care of the injury, deal with the damage, and move on.
There was nothing stupid about wanting pleasure and connection with your partner. And based on what you're sharing, there's pretty much no risk of HIV either. Acquiring HIV as the insertive partner (or top) is relatively rare to begin with (https://www.poz.com/article/HIV-risk-25382-5829). The fact you were only inside her for a matter of minutes would reduce that risk to nearly zero. The fact that she is HIV negative means there is no way she can transmit HIV to others.
Now let's just take a couple moments as well to discuss respectful terminology. You seem like someone who communicates well with sexual partners, and so you may wish to adjust some terms than can enhance communication and demonstrate to your sexual partners that you are a cool and compassionate lover.
"Transsexual" is generally considered an outdated medical term, whereas "Transgender" is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from what is typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth. "Transgender" is generally considered a more respectful and humane term than transsexual. Of course different people have different preferences, but I do believe that respecting your partners gender pronouns is an essential component of communication, pleasure, and HIV prevention discussions (https://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender).
The other term that can be problematic is "clean". You may not have meant this, but referring to someone who is HIV negative as "clean" infers that people living with HIV are "dirty." That is generally considered an insensitive and hurtful stigmatization of another's body. It is less likely to illicit the kind of honest answers and clear communication that you are asking for in your sexual partners.
If you're like me and over 330,000 other people and prefer the option of having condomless sex without getting HIV, then you may want to consider if PrEP is right for you. For more information about PrEP, please check out our resource page here at The Body at: http://www.thebody.com/index/treat/tenofovir_prevention.html .
You won't have the answers you are truly seeking until you get tested. But once you see those negative results on paper, I hope you'll consider relaxing, communicating respectfully, and pursuing the kind of pleasure you wish in ways that protect you and your partners. Enjoy!