to ask what you make of this

(118 Posts)
kim147 Mon 11-Mar-13 20:56:14

A transgender FTM aged 25 has been charged and jailed for sexual intimacy from two girls by fraud Tjat's important - not been charged with underage sex.

The girls in question were underage when they met "Chris" - and sex happened sometime in the relationship.

One of the girls then found out Chris was transgender FTM.

There are two articles. The Scottish Sun one is awful

This is the other one.

Is this fraud? At what point should a transsexual reveal who they are?
The Sun reporting is awful and I can imagine for young transmen, it's very worrying.

Like I said - Chris has not been charged with underage sex

Euphemia Mon 11-Mar-13 21:05:34

That's a really odd one! I don't see a reference to how old Chris claimed to be - would that have made a difference?

kim147 Mon 11-Mar-13 21:08:39

Does it? I know the girls were under 16 when they met but I think the relationship went on for a while to over 16. And Chris has not been charged with under age sex (despite what the Sun would have you think)

Does lying about who you are merit jail? (obtaining sex by fraud). How many men would be in the dock?

kim147 Mon 11-Mar-13 21:09:38

Maybe he should have been charged with underage sex?

It's easier to understand than sex by deception.

StuffezLaBouche Mon 11-Mar-13 21:09:58

Hang on, I thought the term trans gender applied when you had had the reassignment surgery? (I have skim read both articles but got the impression Chris hadn't had this yet.)
I don't know where I stand on this one. The Sun reporting is vile, really awful. But I do think people have the right to know he gender of the person they're about to have sex with.

LovesBeingWokenEveryNight Mon 11-Mar-13 21:12:03

Am I right that there is no age for girls? Therefore couldn't be underage as they are classing as a female?

kim147 Mon 11-Mar-13 21:12:39

Transgender applies at any stage.
But it can be very easy for young FTMs to pass easily with hormones and binding.

StuffezLaBouche Mon 11-Mar-13 21:16:37

Ok, so morally I disagree with what Chris did, yes. And while I also agree with men who shag women while claiming to be a rich executive, etc, etc, I think lying about gender is 'more wrong' which I know maybe doesn't make sense.

Also, I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the label of transgender being so freely applicable. Not sure why but it doesn't sit right with me. I'm not the most clued up on this area so happy to educate. Will be watching this thread with interest.

StuffezLaBouche Mon 11-Mar-13 21:16:56

Sigh -BE educated

FeckOffCup Mon 11-Mar-13 21:20:13

I can't get the articles linked to open on my phone, had the FTM transgender person had gender reassignment surgery yet?

kim147 Mon 11-Mar-13 21:22:35

Not yet.

It opens up a can of worms - especially for young trans people. I know some young transmen and women who pass very well and have not had surgery. At what point should they reveal their past? Obviously it will have to happen some time - but at what point?

And is not telling someone fraud? The two people had sex - apparently quite affectionate but Chris used a prosthetic.

FeckOffCup Mon 11-Mar-13 21:24:00

The use of a prosthetic without being honest about it makes me uncomfortable, I think people have a right to know what they are being penetrated by.

FarelyKnuts Mon 11-Mar-13 21:33:12

You ask at what point should they reveal who they are? I think possibly at the.point when sex is a possibility.

kim147 Mon 11-Mar-13 21:35:57

I think you're right - but I'm really unsure about the charge of obtaining sex by fraud. Did not even know it was a crime?

MummytoKatie Mon 11-Mar-13 21:51:43

I don't understand - why was it not underage sex? Had she turned 16 by then? I thought they met when she was 15 and had sex a week later?

Does it not count as sex as Chris didn't have male sex organs?

WorraLiberty Mon 11-Mar-13 21:55:56

It opens up a can of worms - especially for young trans people. I know some young transmen and women who pass very well and have not had surgery. At what point should they reveal their past? Obviously it will have to happen some time - but at what point?

But if they haven't had surgery, surely it's their present and not their past?

Hence the deception?

FarelyKnuts Mon 11-Mar-13 21:57:32

I'm not sure kim, possibly they are using this as a test case?

WorraLiberty Mon 11-Mar-13 21:57:54

And yes it is a crime because was a news story only a couple of years back where a woman had been posing as a lad, and had sex with a couple of girls who were left quite traumatised when they realised they'd been duped.

kim147 Mon 11-Mar-13 22:01:40

worra Gemma was charged with sexual assault plus 3 months for fraud.

But what about men who lie about who they are in terms of status - is that fraud?

WorraLiberty Mon 11-Mar-13 22:07:44

I imagine it's only fraud if it's likely to be a massive part of how/why sex was obtained...and whether any long lasting emotional damage occurred.

I'm not sure bullshitting about your job and car would cause such damage.

But pretending to be a certain gender certainly could.

kim147 Mon 11-Mar-13 22:09:44
WorraLiberty Mon 11-Mar-13 22:16:18

Actually the more I read the more sick it's making me feel for those poor girls.

You describe this woman as a FTM transgender...and that gave me the impression she had undergone treatment.

She did nothing of the sort.

She blatantly lied to and deceived those girls...conning one of them into giving up her virginity.

Young transmen have nothing at all to worry about.

Sex pests thankfully do due to this awful person's imprisonment.

kim147 Mon 11-Mar-13 22:20:12

It seems like they both lied about their age.

And people who are transgendered can be described as FTM transgender without undergoing surgery.

WorraLiberty Mon 11-Mar-13 22:27:35

She is a sexual predator, a con artist and a liar.

Imo she got what she deserved.

FloraFox Mon 11-Mar-13 23:21:29

Does it make a difference that the victim lied about her age? I don't think the two things are the same at all. Most people are attracted to one sex or the other. A person's right to decide who they want to sleep with, including which sex they want to sleep with, supersedes another person's right to "privacy". This absolutely should be disclosed before sex. I don't think it's comparable to lying about your job.

rentalproperly Mon 11-Mar-13 23:32:14

Not revealing you have a disease should be an offence. Not revealing you are actually a woman... nope, sorry, I don't see how that's an issue. The girls had sex with someone they thought was a man, but was actually a woman... why is that more of a fraud than if some boy had sworn undying love and promised marriage and then dumped the girl the next day? What if the man had been married but swore he was free & single? There's a lot of fraud that goes on to get others into bed, I don't see why this is worse than a whole host of other possibilities.

KobayashiMaru Mon 11-Mar-13 23:35:27

She also lied about her age though, pretending to be a teenager rather than a 22 year old. There is a lot more to it than just the transgender issue, don't make it out to be all about that.

WorraLiberty Mon 11-Mar-13 23:37:00

Really you don't see why?

She didn't just 'not reveal' she was actually a woman...she told many lies and went to great lengths to hide it.

She abused the trust the girl showed in her and took her virginity knowing full well she would never have been allowed to do that if she'd told the truth.

And a straight person finding they'd had intercourse with someone of their own sex (or vice versa) can leave deep, emotional trauma.

Just like anyone who has been violated.

djelibeybi Mon 11-Mar-13 23:43:10

Lying isn't a good start to any relationship. Lying about one's gender is a serious lie. For a heterosexual to have unwittingly taken part in a homosexual experience - an encounter that could cause long-term doubts, worries, or shame is a dreadful betrayal.

FloraFox Mon 11-Mar-13 23:44:03

People lie about their age all the time and I don't think anyone has been or would be charged for doing that. Being gay or straight is another matter entirely. No-one should be able to foist that choice onto someone else. Surely the reason a trans person would withhold this information would be because they would be worried that the other person would not want to have sex with them if they knew.

YouTheCat Mon 11-Mar-13 23:44:55

I think transgender here is a red herring. It's the deception and sexually predatory behaviour that is the issue, whether male, female, gay, straight or transgender - that is where the law was broken.

I don't believe for a second that most transgender people would behave in that way. I believe a sexual predator would though.

rentalproperly Mon 11-Mar-13 23:47:48

So if she had been a man, but otherwise acted exactly the same (lying about her age, etc)... that would be ethically shite but no case for fraud. So the problem is not obtaining sex by fraud (sadly v common) but obtaining homosexual sex by fraud from a straight person. (Or vice versa.) Is that it?

WorraLiberty Mon 11-Mar-13 23:49:40

Exactly YouTheCat

You've managed to sum up what my waffling was trying to say blush

If I chose to have sex with a 'man' and found out 'he' was a woman, that to me is sexual assault.

I most certainly would feel utterly violated.

If someone lied about their age, job, income, etc...I wouldn't feel as though they'd sexually assaulted me.

WorraLiberty Mon 11-Mar-13 23:50:36

Yes that'a it rental

Or 'obtaining sex by fraud' for short.

WorraLiberty Mon 11-Mar-13 23:50:47


rentalproperly Mon 11-Mar-13 23:54:37

OK, then, I still don't agree it's something that should be prosecuted. Unless it is within UK law to prosecute for fraud over, say, misrepresented marital status. If a man tells me he's free & single, and I find out after sex that he's been lying, and I would never have slept with him had I known... I don't see how that's more or less serious. Someone has still obtained sex by fraud.

MrsMushroom Mon 11-Mar-13 23:54:48

Worra a woman posing as a lad is not the same as a woman who is undergoing a sex reassignment.

MrsMushroom Mon 11-Mar-13 23:56:33

Oh I see Chris has not had surgery! That is very different.

FloraFox Mon 11-Mar-13 23:57:33

In this case, yes but not necessarily just that. I think a similar approach has been taken for disease. I'd also think it might be an appropriate charge if a man used some kind of prosthetic without disclosure. Framing it that way rentalproperty seems to suggest homophobia is behind this but I think it's more a question of having a right to decide your boundaries for your body.

rentalproperly Mon 11-Mar-13 23:58:00

And I absolutely don't see how it's sexual assault. Whatever the gender/marital status/blah blah you believed the person to be, you had sex with them willingly.

WorraLiberty Mon 11-Mar-13 23:58:49

Any human being who sexually assaults another should be prosecuted.

And to me this is definitely sexual assault.

The fraud made that sexual assault possible.

FloraFox Tue 12-Mar-13 00:00:13

rental I think there is a difference in the act of sex which is very important - putting something in another person's body which is not what they thought it was.

WorraLiberty Tue 12-Mar-13 00:01:09

I would allow a man to penetrate me if I wanted him to.

I would never allow a woman to penetrate me because I would not want her to.

If that woman managed to penetrate my body by pretending she is a man and being so cunning that I had no reason to doubt her...then she would be sexually assaulting me without doubt.

rentalproperly Tue 12-Mar-13 00:01:20

FloraFox it's not exactly homophobia I'm getting at, as Worra made it very clear that the opposite (fraudulently presenting yourself as a man to have sex with a gay man), would also be something she would see as an offence.

WorraLiberty Tue 12-Mar-13 00:05:29

I may be wrong but I think if a gay man or woman was penetrated by someone pretending to be gay, they probably wouldn't feel as emotionally fucked up and violated as a straight person being penetrated by someone of their own sex, who they thought was the opposite sex.

However I could be wrong.

thezebrawearspurple Tue 12-Mar-13 00:06:30

Obviously she's purposely targeting underage, inexperienced and naive teenage girls because an adult would notice something was wrong. Those are the actions of a predator. For kids of that age the deception would be very confusing and traumatic.

Nobody has the right to deceive another like that. It doesn't matter whether you are straight or gay, you have the right not to be manipulated into sex with someone of the wrong gender. Lying about gender cannot be compared to exaggerating to about status/money/popularity.

FloraFox Tue 12-Mar-13 00:06:45

Ok rental thanks for clarifying. I inferred an implication that wasn't there.

aldiwhore Tue 12-Mar-13 00:09:25

I support gay rights, transgender rights, I am completely straight and the idea of being conned is this manner is akin to rape. For me the thought of sexual relations with anyone not of the male gender is abhorrent to me, even though I would defend anyone else's right to be who they are... I am amazed some people dismiss that so flippantly. It is a serious crime.

Everyone should have the right to know what phsyicality the person they are considering having sex with has... if it is something that would change that person's mind, it is a serious crime to conceal it.

To argue that once you've agreed to have sex with someone then for them to use a prosthetic is fine, is just wrong to me.

It is a violation.

Why is it different to a man lying about his wealth, job, marital status? Because you don't agree to get fucked by wealth, job or marital status. I would argue this if it was a woman that turned out to be a man or a man who was a woman, or a transgendered person, a straight. Because I am straight, sex with another woman is not for me (I am sure that homosexuals find it equally an abhorrent idea to be with someone of another gender no?)

If I choose to have sex with someone willingly, then it very much does matter what genitalia they have got.

Unless you're pansexual I cannot see how you can think it's reasonable?

rentalproperly Tue 12-Mar-13 00:12:14

An adult having sex with a child is and should be illegal. I think that is unquestionable, and a totally different issue. According to the OP, that's not the charge in this case.

WorraLiberty Tue 12-Mar-13 00:17:02

Spot on aldiwhore

aldiwhore Tue 12-Mar-13 00:17:46

I think it's about what you can reasonably expect once you've agreed to have sex with someone.

In my case, I would expect them to use their penis, not a milk bottle. I would expect them to be male.

I do agree that lying to get someone into bed is also shite, but it's really not as much of a violation as being conned on the basic given circumstances, that being gender. I do think a person should be able to sue someone for lying about their marital status but that's another thread I think.

I am assuming that the charge of sexual intimacy by fraud is the 'closest fit' from a legal point of view.

garlicbrain Tue 12-Mar-13 00:24:57

I agree with all those who say this isn't about transphobia; it's about sexual predation by fraud. The fact that the girls were so naive emphasises the perpetrator's intentions to abuse: she'd never have got away with it had her victims been more experienced.

Kim, I am not referring to this person as "he" because those who disrespect others lose the right to respect for their preferences.

Of course a transgendered individual should tell potential sex partners before engaging in sexual activity. The idea that they might not consider their partners' feelings and reactions beforehand is repugnant!

This touches on that so-called "right to sex" debate, doesn't it?
Nobody has the right to sex.
Everyone has the right to freely choose with whom they have sex.
Therefore they have the right to sufficient information to make that choice.

How would you feel about a straight man who got a hetero FTM into bed by pretending to be a woman?

rentalproperly Tue 12-Mar-13 00:29:22

X-posted, aldiwhore. That last comment about underage was to Zebra.

I'm not pansexual (okay, I don't know what that means. I don't think I am, though!). But I honestly think there's something strange going on when gender becomes this important after the fact.

"If I choose to have sex with someone willingly, then it very much does matter what genitalia they have got."

But the thing is, at the time, apparently it didn't. Because the girl in question carried on for - what was it - six months? Deception, to be sure, but she was happy with the sex for six months (or whatever). If the complaint is being made AFTER the act, and only on the basis of a difference in gender being discovered afterwards, well.... yeah, I have to ask what the problem is. You had sex with someone of a gender you did not intend to have sex with. You enjoyed it (or didn't) at the time.

Of course it was a fraud, but not more a fraud than a million other lies that can be told to obtain sex. And in my opinion, less serious than others I can think of.

MrsSham Tue 12-Mar-13 00:29:32

When a girl is over 13 and the age difference is not very big a charge of underage sex tends only to be used for the purpose of public interest. So if its deemed not in the public interest then no charge is made, ie he isn't really a threat to the general public. Could be put slightly better than I have worded it though.

rentalproperly Tue 12-Mar-13 00:35:54

1) I don't type fast enough.

2) "How would you feel about a straight man who got a hetero FTM into bed by pretending to be a woman?" Exactly the same.

I would also like to clarify that anyone who seriously misrepresents themself to get sex is a lying scum. But if we prosecute for sexual intimacy by fraud, I think there's a lot of court cases to be had. And I'm a little suspect of the gender-worse-than-all-else thing.

MrsSham Tue 12-Mar-13 00:36:55

However just read the article and seems quite a big age gap

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 12-Mar-13 00:37:35

It this the same case that was in the news last year? I'm sure I remember watching something on tv about it.

Loads of people lie to get sex but most of those lies if they work say far more about the decency of the person being lied to than they do about the liar.

If I was to have sex with someone due to what they said their income/status/ position in society was then that makes me a immoral shallow money/ power grabbing person who should make it clear to the person that that is why I'm fucking them, so both equally as bad as each other so very little reason for mutual cannot expect someone to show you respect if you are showing both yourself and them none.

Telling lies about your gender or sexual health is very different.i would not knowingly have sex with someone of the same gender or someone who had a known sti. I would also not be happy for someone to insert a foreign object into my body without my full knowledge or consent regardless of the sex to do so would be a sexual assault.

Do I think transgender people should always have to disclose? No not if they have actually changed gender correctly because then they are the gender they identify with,it wouldn't bother me if I had sex with someone who had made those changes because they would be the gender they claim to be regardless of what it says on the birth cert,

But up until that point then yes you should have to disclose and if you don't in the knowledge that the person would not otherwise have sex with you then yes it should be a crime.

But then again I think it should be a crime to not disclose

Sexual health status if known,
Marital status,
Domestic violence/ rape/child protection related convictions,

So I can be quite harsh about that sort of thing.

WorraLiberty Tue 12-Mar-13 00:40:12

Oh come on rental it's abuse.

So what if she enjoyed it?

She enjoyed it because she thought she was being turned on by a man.

She thought her orgasms given to her were given by a man

She thought the 'penis' that entered her belonged to a man

At no time did she happily choose to engage in a sexual act with a woman.

That is clearly abuse and sexual assault because she would never have given a woman permission to have sex with her.

Some victims of sexual abuse struggle greatly with the fact that there were times during their abuse, that they actually felt turned on...some have actually orgasmed and therefore blame themselves instead of blaming their abuser.

It's a nasty, vile thing to do to anyone and can fuck them up mentally for life.

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 12-Mar-13 00:40:52


If you can get a milk bottle in your vagina without crying then I'm strangely impressed and more than a little frightened of you.

garlicbrain Tue 12-Mar-13 00:43:09

Those undercover policemen who formed long-term relationships for the purposes of their job are going to be prosecuted, I believe. I don't know what with - possibly the same offence?

You probably could indict a married person for the same, if you'd been clear you would only consider sex with an unattached partner. The defence would have a field day with you, though, which is why those girls' extreme density naivety is a factor in the story.

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 12-Mar-13 00:45:58

Being dense here but how could the defence have a field day,if you had made it clear not being married was a requirement?

rentalproperly Tue 12-Mar-13 00:51:13

I think the reactions of a victim of sexual abuse - who is very much aware at the time that they are being abused, or that something wrong is going on, whatever their sexual response - and those of someone who considered the sex 'loving' until she found out the deception is a very, very different thing.

She was in no way physically harmed (that we know of). That makes a gender deception a totally different thing than concealing a disease, as well.

A lot of deceptions are vile and can fuck a person up mentally for life - say impersonating a teenage bullying victim in order to get sex. I guess we'll just have to disagree on the gender fraud being the worst part.

aldiwhore Tue 12-Mar-13 00:54:16

socket fair point well made.

Rental, it's quite common for horror to happen after the fact surely?

If I agree to have sex with a man, and he is a man, then I have the right to expect that sexual consent includes only what could be considered within normal parameters. If I agree to sex with a man, that does not mean I agree to EVERY possibility surely? So other than the expected, predictable, usual, common acts, anything else would require further permission, the use of sex toys (prosthetics included, though I realise they're more than a toy) and random inanimate objects (perhaps not MILK bottles after all) require further permission... so maybe it's not JUST about the gender fraud but also the absence of the permissions for acts that fell outside usual boundaries?

If my husband took my consent as a green light to do whatever he felt like, wouldn't the MN jury be furious? Would most people in that scenario be in agreement that it would be a gross violation of trust, in fact serious sexual assault?

Why is it different in this case?

WorraLiberty Tue 12-Mar-13 00:54:28

I think you're right we will have to agree to disagree because if any woman ever went near my body sexually, I think I would be violently sick.

I would never knowingly allow a woman to touch me sexually and if I found out that due to deception and lies she had, I would want her prosecuted in exactly the same way I would want a man who violated me prosecuted too.

garlicbrain Tue 12-Mar-13 00:55:13

Sock - slightly off-topic but, as we have an adversarial court system, the defence could easily raise a thousand checks you should have done but didn't (as those checks would reveal doubtful marital status). The undercover cops, by contrast, had fully-developed fake lives, documentation, etc.

It's a whole different thing from gender. If it matters to you that your first sex partner is man, it's reasonable to go by outward appearance and their own statement. Defence would get short shrift for suggesting you should have checked their birth certificate - the victim had felt what she believed to be a penis, so she did a reasonable check.

garlicbrain Tue 12-Mar-13 00:57:32

She was in no way physically harmed

Fuck me, that's straight out of the abuser's handbook angry

So what??? She was emotionally and psychologically harmed. Systematic lying is abuse.

WorraLiberty Tue 12-Mar-13 01:00:25

Exactly garlic

aldiwhore Tue 12-Mar-13 01:03:50

The other thing I am not comfortable with (but may have missed this speed reading) is the op's use of the term transgender. She isn't transgender from what I've read, she's not going from make to female, she's a female lesbian to pretended to be male to get girls into bed. <<< Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think that's the same as transgender in my (limited) experience... usually it's a process of changing from one to the other permanently, not a role playing exercise for the purpose of conning people into having sex with you?

I think the intent is the crucial factor in this case, and the intent was to obtain sex by deception.

rentalproperly Tue 12-Mar-13 01:09:29

'She was emotionally and psychologically harmed.'

Right, which is not physically harmed, as I was pointing out the difference between the gender fraud and say, I didn't tell you I had HIV.

You may disagree with me, and fair enough, but I've hardly made light of what the girl went through. She attempted suicide - she was clearly harmed. She was also 15.

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 12-Mar-13 01:10:00

Thanks garlic.

Rental by saying she was not harmed until she found out is a bit like saying people who are spiked with that drug that makes you do weird shit were not abused.

garlicbrain Tue 12-Mar-13 01:17:30

I can't see why you want to separate physical abuse from emotional-psychological abuse, unless you want to claim one's worse than the other.

This perpetrator not only claimed to be a teenage bullying victim (lied about their age and circumstances), they also lied about having a penis and about what they were sticking in the girl's body. Absolutely nothing about this is okay, nor 'less than' some other variety of sexual assault.

aldiwhore Tue 12-Mar-13 01:24:23

If you base the crime on physical damage alone, many a rapist would go free wouldn't they?

The violation, the fraud, the prosthetic that should have been a penis, the lies, the deception... I can't see a single angle where it would be okay.

I don't even think the girl was stupid. I touched my first penis at around 15 and it was not at all what I expected, I didn't kNOW what to expect, but it was the weirdest thing I'd ever touched in my bloody life (I was facinated in truth) so I can see how, in the dark, with your hands held down, you might not realise if something else is used. That doesn't make it okay. Her naivety and lack of experience was not a crime.

musicmadness Tue 12-Mar-13 01:26:27

Is the person involved trans or not? I can't tell from these articles. I've seen reports that they are female and other reports that they are a trans man who is pre op. It makes a massive difference IMO.

I'll say now I'm pansexual so this could easily effect how I'm seeing this, as I honestly don't understand why someone would be revolted by sexual contact with one sex/gender. I know of course that people do, and respect that but I can't imagine what it feels like to have gender as a deal breaker to sex or a relationship.

If the person is a woman who is not trans and was lying about her gender then I think that is awful, and the conviction is deserved. I'd argue that I would consider lying about marital status to be just as bad though, as I would be horrified to find out I'd slept with someone who was married and I would never have slept with them if I'd known the truth. I'm sure most people have one or more lines that they would never cross in this regard and whatever that boundary was if a partner deliberately lied to get you into bed I would see that as exactly the same thing.

If the person is a pre op trans man then I think it becomes a lot more complicated, because to all intents and purposes they are a man, just trapped in the wrong body. I don't think there is generally any reason to disclose this unless the person wants to, and I think, though I'm not certain on this, that it is unlawful to force someone to disclose if they are trans or not. In this case I'd argue that it is the same as if someone born biologically a man but who for some reason, maybe an accident or something, doesn't have a functioning penis had used a prosthetic without telling the woman. It's unethical, but I don't think it is illegal.

rentalproperly Tue 12-Mar-13 01:27:03

I made the point about physical harm in response to others who had made the point about this being like not disclosing disease, and I disagree. Yes, indeed, I do think it is worse to give someone HIV than to have sex with someone without disclosing your gender. I really do.

As to the fraud, I finally went and read the response link the OP posted, and it does sum up my problem with this:

"...Which begs the question, if he had presented in accordance with his birth assigned sex, female, would he be in the position he is in now, on the sex offenders register and facing prison? Or for that matter if his birth assigned sex matched his gender identity, male?

After a fairly comprehensive search on Westlaw, the largest directory of court cases on the web, we could find no other cases where the charge was ‘obtaining sexual intimacy by fraud’. "

And therein lies my problem. If the only reason that the liar is being prosecuted is for lying about her gender, and not all the other lies, then it throws up big questions.

FloraFox Tue 12-Mar-13 01:28:25

Yes they're different rental but it's not about deciding which of various types of deception is the worst. It's about whether it is bad enough that it should be a crime. I think it is, as would be not disclosing a disease or inserting an object without consent. Other lies that overcome consent should probably be criminal also but they would be difficult to prove in most cases. I'm surprised anyone here would brush it off lightly.

rentalproperly Tue 12-Mar-13 01:29:18

'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.

rentalproperly Tue 12-Mar-13 01:33:03

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.

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 12-Mar-13 01:33:16

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.

aldiwhore Tue 12-Mar-13 01:34:56

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.

musicmadness Tue 12-Mar-13 01:36:32

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.

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 12-Mar-13 01:38:52

Do you mean in the exact same circumstances as this case just swopping the legal/ physical gender?

FloraFox Tue 12-Mar-13 01:39:48

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.

rentalproperly Tue 12-Mar-13 01:42:12

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.

FloraFox Tue 12-Mar-13 01:44:34

I think this time it's you doing the inferring rental.

aldiwhore Tue 12-Mar-13 01:45:32

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.

SacherTorte93 Tue 12-Mar-13 01:52:42

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.

weegiemum Tue 12-Mar-13 02:09:31

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.

weegiemum Tue 12-Mar-13 02:11:32

And the underage thing I though went without saying was wrong, but it seems not.

FloraFox Tue 12-Mar-13 02:12:18

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.

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 12-Mar-13 07:49:28

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.

kim147 Tue 12-Mar-13 07:51:38

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?

FasterStronger Tue 12-Mar-13 08:05:45

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?

raspberryroop Tue 12-Mar-13 08:14:30

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.

TandB Tue 12-Mar-13 08:31:00

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.

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 12-Mar-13 08:33:58

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.

FloraFox Tue 12-Mar-13 08:34:09

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.

WorraLiberty Tue 12-Mar-13 09:05:07

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.

aldiwhore Tue 12-Mar-13 10:00:03

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.

garlicbrain Tue 12-Mar-13 15:04:54

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.

garlicbrain Tue 12-Mar-13 15:05:49

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

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.

FairPhyllis Tue 12-Mar-13 15:39:45

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.

kim147 Tue 12-Mar-13 15:56:58

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.

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.

FairPhyllis Tue 12-Mar-13 16:13:33

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

aldiwhore Tue 12-Mar-13 16:20:47

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.

FairPhyllis Tue 12-Mar-13 16:21:59

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.

Meringue33 Tue 12-Mar-13 18:19:41

Worra, Aldi - sexual deviant???

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.

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

WorraLiberty Tue 12-Mar-13 18:43:38

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.

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

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now