to ask what you make of this(118 Posts)
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
'Many a rapist would go free wouldn't they?'
Seriously???? I think this is losing the plot, now. Rape is rape, you said no, they didn't stop, that's the end of. And that's not what happened here.
Flora, if no other lies have been prosecuted before as sexual intimacy by fraud (if that's true), I'd say that this is very much about deciding which lies are worst. Having sex with someone without disclosing a disease is not sexual intimacy by fraud, it's GBH.
Music,but if you are a man trapped in a woman's body or a woman trapped in a mans body it is not the bit that's trapped that gets inserted inside another persons body its the actual body itself.
I was commenting on your comment that 'no physical harm was done' - nothing more, and pointing out that no physical harm doesn't make the crime less damaging.
I would see it the same way as if a man (biologically) had used a prosthetic and lied about it being a penis. If he would have been convicted of the same offence then fine, but I don't think he would have and that is what I have an issue with.
Do you mean in the exact same circumstances as this case just swopping the legal/ physical gender?
I said it's not about decided which is the worst. The AIDS example may be worse but it doesn't mean the lie about sex (not gender, sex) is not also bad enough to be a crime.
What sort of big questions does it throw up? Of course the reason she's being prosecuted is because she lied about her sex. That's like saying the only reason the AIDS sufferer would be prosecuted would be because he or she lied about having AIDS. It's the essential element of the offence.
We have no right to have sex or to have anyone find us attractive enough to sleep with. The link you quoted also acknowledges that the reason a trans person would not want to disclose is fear of rejection - so in other words their view is that their right to have sex trumps the rights of their partner to choose the sex of their partner. That's very objectionable to me.
There is a reason why it's not legal to have sex with underage people, boys of girls. And that reason is, those people are not judged old enough to consent. If this person had been male, it would still have been wrong. If this person had been female and not trans, it would still have been wrong. To me, the fact this person is trans may well be an issue for the girls involved and I can understand they may be traumatized by an extra deception, but focussing on the fact the abuser was a transperson isn't very relevant, because it would still have been completely wrong even if this person had been born male.
What I think you were doing is suggesting I would somehow be okay with rape as long as there was no physical damage. Which is where the plot-losing comes in.
I think this time it's you doing the inferring rental.
Music I agree with you on that point. There are a few issues aren't there? The charge was sexual intimacy by fraud. I would like to think that the same charge would apply to anyone of any gender who inserted something other than their own body part into another without specific permission. In this case, 'Chris' claimed to be a man, did not seek further permission, did not declare his gender, and I think the conviction is fair.
I do think that an individual's right to know what they're agreeing to supercedes a transgenders right to privacy. Or should do. I know transgender people face massive bias, predudice and discrimination, but I should have the right to know before embarking on such an intimate act. I would matter to me, in the strongest terms.
Even for a pansexual, you should have the right to know what gender you are being attracted by and sleeping with, even if fundamentally it wouldn't make a lot of difference... you still should have the right to know what to expect.
I also do believe there's more to gender than body parts and more to intimacy than what gets stuck where, but I believe the only fair way is eyes wide open, the responsibility to declare if something is not standard, and the right to say no upon discovering something that is unexpected, and the absolue right to feel violated when lied to about something so fundamental.
The language in that article is sickening, though. Just horrible and unnecessary.
Exactly, FloraFox. I'm bisexual and would still regard a woman who had sex with me while pretending to be a man as sexual assault. My ability to give meaningful consent to penetration surely is more important than another's ability to penetrate me just because they want to. And there can be no meaningful consent if that person lies about something as fundamental as their sex.
What is the worst that happens if that person tells their potential partner that they are a transperson? They do not get to have sex with that person. What is the worst that happens if they do not? The victim end up emotionally scarred and end up with massive trust issues, as has happened in this case. Nobody has a right to have sex with anybody else.
I think it's a bit like those creepy arguments about rape within marriage. People used to argue that you couldn't be raped by your own husband, because obviously if you'd consented to get married that meant you must be up for sex with him at any time. This is similar - even if these girls had been over the age of consent, it would have been completely wrong to assume they were consenting to one thing just because they'd consented to something else with the same person.
But it is the underage bit I can't get past. It throws every other issue out.
All the articles are poor, the Sun one being the worst, though, by light-years!!
However, whatever they report, I'd hope that anyone seeking sexual intimacy with another person would be honest. I'm pretty naive as I've only ever slept with my dh, but I don't think I'm being ur to suggest that if he wasn't on the scene, I'd be happy to be in a sexual relationship with anyone I was attracted to (and I'm female and hetero, so, men).
As I'm fairly old, now, I think I'd probably notice if a ftm ts person without surgery but with a prosthesis tried to have sex with me. And if they were just honest, and we were attracted, then that would be ok, I'm sure we could work it out.
It's the very deliberate premeditated deceit that I find hard to deal with.
And the underage thing I though went without saying was wrong, but it seems not.
I agree LRD. I also think it's a bit like those arguments - "you've consented to sex with man X so you should consent to sex with me".
It should go without saying. I don't think it does, as the articles are focussing on other things and it sounds as if that isn't the main issue legally, which I think is disgusting.
Yes, I agree flora.
All the reports are saying she WAS 16 when anything sexual happened and even when she was actually 15 she told Chris/ Christine she was 16 but her birthday happened in between meeting and sexual contact.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
there is a lot of fraud in sex and I don't like a transgender person being punished whereas lying to get sex is a largely accepted in wider society.
how many other people have been prosecuted using this law?
I'm with the court, as far as I can see its PC bollocks to think its ok to 'conceal' the fact you in fact have no dick - despite what may be in your head. Transpeople have a right to be treated with the same level of respect as everyone else but their right to privacy and ' be what they want to be' does not trump other peoples right to know the sex of the person they are sleeping with.
I'm surprised there is any argument over this. The girls consented to sex with a man and penetration by a penis. They did not consent to sex with a woman and penetration by an artificial item.
This young person has the right to live as they like - but at the point at which they are about to insert something into someone else's body then they should be having a serious conversation to make sure that they have full and informed consent.
This is not someone who has gone through full gender realignment - this is someone who is still, to all intents and purposes, a woman - for the purposes of sexual intercourse anyway.
Kim, grooming possibly but if all parties are saying nothing happened untill age 16 then its not underage sex.
I say possibly to the grooming as its my understanding that you have to be doing so knowingly and Chris/ Christine was not aware at any time that anyone was younger.
No one can be charges with underage sex if all people involved state nothing happened under age and with nothing other than assumption to disprove that.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.