Mumsnet Talk

No worries - it came across pretty clearly that was what you meant, to me at least.

You're right LRD - thanks.

I do think this person is a sexual deviant Meringue33, in fact I'd say it fits perfectly considering the lies and deception.

(Sorry, I realize I should say I don't think they're using the term for that reason. I just assumed.)

I'm not keen on the term sexual deviant either - I think it's usually better to label someone's actions rather than them as a person - but meringue, they're not using the term because this person may be trans, they're using it because this person lied in order to coerce someone into having sex with them under false pretences.

Worra, Aldi - sexual deviant???

Well no the articles are obviously written with their own agenda. But if that really is direct speech ...

I understand why negative stories about trans people are upsetting for the trans community. But it will not ultimately do that community any good to defend or excuse cases of abuse.

He (and we're not sure he IS transgender or not?) would have 'made a mistake' if he'd not told her on their first date, when feelings were developing. That would have been a mistake, I would have felt some pity.

However, there was no 'mistake' involved here it was pure deception.

Sexual deviants comes in all genders, sexualities and ages. It is always disappointing when someone who is going through many issues you can relate to turns out to be one. Kim this individual may well have issues, may well be a tortured soul but they inflicted serious harm upon another person... the betrayal of trust, the humiliation, the violation. Gender DOES comes into it, because that is where the fraud really lies, but the crime isn't a transgender issue as such, it is a matter of informed consent, and this SHOULD apply to all people, no matter how uncomfortable people find it, a person has the right not to be lied to.

I agree with LRD IMO the solution has to be to educate and make life less dangerous, so that coming out to someone you fancy as a homosexual or a transperson or whatever, is no longer potentially dangerous or scary, but just another routine thing that people do.

I'm not sure I trust those articles in the slightest, though, given the way they're written.

Sorry but I am with LRD on the 'mistake' comment, Kim. Calling Chris's actions a mistake is minimising sexual abuse. And it seemed fairly clear to me from one of the articles that Chris is probably also EA - the girl described being insulted about her appearance and made to feel 'worthless'.

I get where you're coming from, but I'm really uncomfortable with calling this a 'mistake'. Having sex without consent, with underage girls, is appalling. The identity of the abuser is obviously a big issue for that person, but it doesn't and can't make it less abusive.

Thanks for people's comments - it's always good to hear different points of view as sometimes on other forums, you're only going to hear one viewpoint.

I think TBH most transpeople would tell someone their status if they were non-operative and were about to have sex. I also know some are deep stealth and would never reveal their past - which can of course be very difficult.

Unfortunately there have been cases, like in the gay community, of transmen and transwomen being murdered when their status was found out. It's something people live in fear of if no one knows.

I do think Chris has made a mistake. Obviously a lot is going on in his head (as did Gemma Barker who was the focus of a media storm last year). I feel sorry for the girls involved but it has been interesting to talk about the issues from another perspective.

This seems pretty clear cut to me. If Chris used a prosthetic while the girls didn't consent to being penetrated with a prosthetic, but in fact consented to and thought they were being penetrated with a penis, then a crime has been committed.

What should transpeople do about sexual relationships? Well, I think they should be honest with their partners before they get to that point of intimacy. This is a basic way to show respect for their partner by being honest with them and to show consideration for a partner by acknowledging that it might be a dealbreaker for them. I would imagine that this would also protect a trans person from the extra vulnerability/danger of being rejected in the heat of the moment, if their trans status is not discovered until then.

I understand this is yet another thing that makes trans people's lives harder. But lots of people have difficulty having sexual relationships and live with vulnerability and fear of rejection for many reasons. This isn't some special form of punishment for being trans - nobody is entitled to have a sex life totally free of hang ups - or to have a sex life with other people at all.

kim, I follow what you're saying, but I don't think it is very different from the situation for young gay men or women (or perhaps, from the situation for them a few years back as I do hope things are changing). It's not terribly easy for someone to admit they're gay. Obviously, there's a point where you have to say to the other person that you are, and it can be terrifying and, yes, potentially very dangerous if the other person doesn't respond positively. Young gay men have been beaten up for admitting to another young man that they're gay.

The solution can't be to put the blame on an individual like one of these young women, and say they should put up with being lied to, any more than it'd be acceptable to say that all young men should demonstrate their lack of homophobia by reciprocating if they get chatted up by a gay man - and IMO, making the issue out that it's hard for transpeople to admit to who they are, is doing that. IMO the solution has to be to educate and make life less dangerous, so that coming out to someone you fancy as a homosexual or a transperson or whatever, is no longer potentially dangerous or scary, but just another routine thing that people do.

Sorry, it would be sexual assault in English law, I think.

Don't have sex with someone until you trust them enough to tell them the truth.

We should not ask others to justify why they might not want to have sex with us.

Absolutely! This perp's whole approach was abusive. Everyone has the right to refuse sex; if we're not in a position to give informed consent, we're being assaulted. Victim could not have given informed consent because her information was false.

From a non-expert pov, it looks as though Chris/tine could have been prosecuted for rape. Suspect the alternative charge was used to reduce distress for both parties.

The case though throws up some questions. Some transpeople - especially those young ones who pass easily do not want to disclose their status until they trust someone. Obviously for transwomen, that can be difficult if it gets to full blown sex but what about beforehand?

I would say that if you don't trust someone enough to tell them something so important, then you should not be having sex with that person. I understand there must be a lot of fear involved, of rejection, attack, reaction, but that doesn't come into play. Just because someone doesn't want to do something (divulge information that could change a yes to a no) doesn't mean they don't have a responsibility to.

It must be extremely tough to be transgender, and informing sexual partners is no small part of that.

Then you've found out they're trans and that throws up a whole lot of issues about you? I would agree with that statement if you changed the 'about you' to 'for you'. But that is not the point. It still comes back to being deceived. If you are in a 'loving' relationship, old fashioned honesty matters. There is no by passing it, no matter how hard the truth.

Is is because it makes you question who you are? You've been having a great relationship and wanted to have sex with this person. Then you've found out they're trans and that throws up a whole lot of issues about you?

The only 'issue' it would throw up about me, is that I had been lied to by a sexual deviant who went to great lengths to make me believe she was male.

kim it seems really easy to me. Don't have sex with someone until you trust them enough to tell them the truth. By easy, I mean the actual decision-making process. I can imagine that the lived experience wound be very hard. But there is still no right to have sex with another person.

Saying it's the other person's problem because it "throws up questions about you" is hugely problematical for me. We should not ask others to justify why they might not want to have sex with us. That smacks of trying to overcome a lack of consent. It's not acceptable.

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.

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.

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.

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 not defending Chris's actions - the fact the girls were underage (even though they said they were 16) is an issue. It is a problem that he was not charged with underage sex or grooming of a child.

I have used he deliberately - as far as I understand, Chris identified as male and presented as male, even though he had not undergone treatment yet.

The case though throws up some questions. Some transpeople - especially those young ones who pass easily do not want to disclose their status until they trust someone. Obviously for transwomen, that can be difficult if it gets to full blown sex but what about beforehand? They might have formed a loving relationship. Same for transmen - but then someone raised the point that you have a right to know what you are being penetrated by.

For some young transmen and transwomen, it can be very dangerous to be exposed as trans. You can be having a great time as the person you were meant to be and then exposed. If you see Boys don't cry or the Gwen Arujio story, it can end up in a violent death.

Is is because it makes you question who you are? You've been having a great relationship and wanted to have sex with this person. Then you've found out they're trans and that throws up a whole lot of issues about you?

Just wonder what people think?

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.

Yes, I agree flora.