CPS change the proposed 'sex by deception re gender' legal guidance

Nice one! I'm glad that you agree women's bodies are real, i.e born that way and not surgically created at a later stage.

Maybe you should answer clearly without all the emotionally manipulative and inconsistent language and discussion points.

Should I show the evidence of what I refer to? I am absolutely happy to.

Glad we are in agreement on this!

I think the guidelines it has issued are unfit for purpose because they, in practice, place trans people who have had gender reassignment into the same category as people who are actively attempting to trick others into consenting to sexual acts that they are not consenting to.

Only if you lie about your sex!

Men who have had genital surgery do not have a vagina. They have an inverted penis. They don't have breasts.

A lesbian, for instance, has every right to expect the same anatomy in the woman she's going to have sex with ffs.

It's quite important!!!

Oh for god's sake, can you please at the very least try and interpret what I say without this constant, systematic pattern of malicious interpretation?

Yes. This was confirmed on another thread recently.

They want a sub group of the sub group of male people excluded but them included.

However, they will attempt to splice it and parse the language to make it appear to not be this. But it is. Under all the sparple, this is what they want - a special sub group of male people to be included, others who are not so special should be excluded.

Yes the posts are consistently contradictory. To back up whatever point butters is trying to make. As Helle says it's like watching whiplash.

Butters passes so well that no one would know they were trans, yet they are subjected to transphobia at the drop of a hat, live a life of isolation, whilst enjoying an active social life, seek validation wherever they go, yet everyone they know thinks the idea of them as a man is ridiculous.

And have said countless times that anyone objecting to being deceived as to butters sex is transphobic.

so if a man, in a sexual situation with butters is horrified when they find out butters is male, it's because they are a transphobic bigot and best avoided.

Not having a totally normal heterosexual reaction to being deceived as to sex.

And all this because the law has just been clarified that you cannot obtain sex by deceiving people as your own sex.

As objections go, it's a pretty revealing one.

No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that we should be humane and considerate to people who are trying their best with what they have even if their bodies don't look the same as ours, and I'm saying that can be done while also being conscious of and careful with the effect that doing so can have on other people who will find it difficult to accept them as they are.

Women's bodies are real. They are part of us. They are not bait-and-switch props for anyone's validation.

I think the intent of 'sex by deception' law is reasonable in its original context - cases where someone has actively gone out of their way to deceive a specific person into believing they are a man when they are in fact a woman (and the hypothetical vice-versa situation), and where the act itself involves extremely dubious and questionable bait-and-switch behaviour involving the substitution of physical parts of anatomy. There is clearly a completely unreasonable act of deception occurring here and the actual behaviour itself is being obfuscated.

I am pleased that the CPS bothered to consider the existence of gender reassignment at all within this context. I am pleased that it has specified that trans people are not actively intending to deceive when they engage in consensual intimate behaviour with their own bodies without obfuscation.

I think the guidelines it has issued are unfit for purpose because they, in practice, place trans people who have had gender reassignment into the same category as people who are actively attempting to trick others into consenting to sexual acts that they are not consenting to.

Our bodies are real. They are part of us. They are not bait-and-switch props. Portraying us in this way demonstrates a profoundly offensive and trans-hostile interpretation of our existence and sets an extremely concerning precedent.

I would be extremely careful about how I use single-sex spaces knowing that my impact on other people using them will be perceived quite differently and harm could be caused in ways that my previous body would not cause.

So this is really an argument that non-passing TW should stay out of female single-sex spaces because women will be uncomfortable sharing with perceived males but if women are none the wiser they can’t be uncomfortable because what they don’t know can’t harm them.

So is it BH’s position that non-passing TW should stay out of female spaces?

I've gotten very lost over this (what I believe to be contradictory posts).

In one post the poster claims that they would never pursue sexual relationships, yet in another they are so passable and everything works exceptionally well post-op that no one could ever tell.

I think for all the talk about hypothetical science fiction ideas, I think so much of these life-experiences are hypothetical, because just the way everything has been expressed doesn't seem particularly passable on a text-based platform, let alone a real-life situation.

All they have to do is be honest. If they are cis passing then they need to make sure any sexual partners realize their natal sex. If they don't they are being deliberately deceptive and stop their partner being able to give informed consent.

“criminalises sexually active cis-passing trans women unless they take steps to no longer be cis-passing is an incredibly bad law”

Any person who does not disclose their sex and have represented themselves as the opposite sex to their sex category, regardless of any identification that states otherwise is not seeking full consent from their sex partner. Their sex partner is unable to consent if they have been deceived.

Not one person on this thread has said that a person should have to change their presentation. They just have to have a conversation that declares that they are either male or female.

It must be a very disconnected mind that believes a happy intimate relationship can be built based on not disclosing this fact about themselves. And the weak arsed attempts of dismissal of it as ‘hidden transphobia’ is just another cognitive distortion. It is the absolutist approach of if you need to know this you are hateful.

You're saying that you don't think you or any other trans person should be truthful to sexual partners.

You talk about privacy, but we're talking about sexual intercourse here! Where you are quite literally exposing yourself to your partner.

You're not saying that?

ButterflyHatched · Today 14:19
It says that men who rape trans women are able to claim that they didn't know their victim was trans in order to confound prosecution.

It takes us right back to the dark days of Portsmouth/Guardsman defence, just with a new transphobic lick of paint.

I think that a law which actively encourages discrimination against trans people and criminalises sexually active cis-passing trans women unless they take steps to no longer be cis-passing is an incredibly bad law.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the law is badly written and provides numerous avenues for exploitation by terrible people, especially against trans people. It expressly singles out trans people in a way that reads as grotesquely pointed.

Well, I thanked you for answering, but I'm horrified nonetheless. You do think trans people should be exempt from the law.

A person who is upset because they found out they had sex with a man, thinking he was a woman, is not being transphobic (remember, non-trans people commit this crime too, and presumably you think they should be punished).

All people are protected from rape by the law; men, women and trans.

You seem to be thinking that consent is a one-way street.

A trans woman has to consent to the sex and the man has to consent also. And the consent has to be informed. The man has consented under false pretences if he didn't know that his partner was actually biologically male.

There is nothing in law that says it is acceptable to rape a trans woman if the rapist didn't know they were trans. What a bizarre thing to suggest.

"It says that the feelings of transphobes are more important than the trans people they hate - people who have absolutely no interest in having sex with transphobes themselves and would not consent to doing so if they knew. Who goes to court in this scenario? Who does the CPS list numerous examples of?"

So, this is saying that being 'trans' is a philosophical belief? Because the two scenarios are to be treated as equal.

"Who goes to court in this scenario?"

If a person with a transgender identity has been upfront and honest throughout the entirety of their sexual relationship, how would the other sex partner be able to take them to court for 'sex by deception' and win?

This has been the glaring inconsistency people have repeatedly tried to highlight. What other group of people are protected from having their materially real situations exposed in court? Any other group? Whether it is a philosophical belief or a material reality?

And yes, some people might have to defend their innocence just like in other cases, and it is abhorrent behaviour that a person has misused the law as a source of abuse.

That does not mean the law should be repealed. It does not mean that the law is not protecting people vulnerable to being sexually assaulted.

@ButterflyHatched the law says that if someone consents to have sex with a woman, but the individual is in fact biologically male and has deceived them - whether by commission or omission - the consent is invalidated.

That's it, and that's all.

You can spend hundreds of words bewailing and explaining away and reframing, but it doesn't change the law. Or the truth.

If you have sex with someone either while lying and claiming to be a woman, or neglecting to mention you were born male, you're committing a sexual offence. Doesn't matter whether you think it's fair or not.

Consent is consent and no has a full stop after it.

The law says that a trans woman who earnestly believes she is engaging in consensual sex with someone who perceives her to be a woman in line with her daily presentation is a sex criminal if that person secretly harbours transphobic views and hasn't made them clear to her.

It says that men who rape trans women are able to claim that they didn't know their victim was trans in order to confound prosecution.

It says that trans people do not deserve privacy; that they must go through life periodically exposing themselves to abuse even if they have been lucky enough to escape it.

It says that the feelings of transphobes are more important than the trans people they hate - people who have absolutely no interest in having sex with transphobes themselves and would not consent to doing so if they knew. Who goes to court in this scenario? Who does the CPS list numerous examples of?

It's a terrible law that has always been a terrible law and has been changed to be more harmful in a way that sets an extremely worrying precedent.

Women on here can't silence posters - only Mumsanet can do that if they decide a poster isn't posting in good faith.

You get repeated feedback / pushback / criticism because (judging by the contents of your posts) they display little respect for women and girls, they're not empathic or showing an interest in parenting or in the vulnerability of children to gaslighting that their growing bodies are wrong.

You're fully entitled to those views. We see the whole gamut of anti-women posters, incels, misogynists etc arriving on here pronouncing about how awful women are. As long as they post in line with the guidelines their posts usually stand. But Mumsnet do allow posters to respond - not remain in passive "listening only" mode that most transactivists seem to expect from women.