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

Disclosure
Isn't
Safe.
Our privacy is protected by law.

No. Not in cases of sex by deception or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I know, you're quite right.

However, I recall people saying on here that they provided responses not for the person arguing but for all the lurkers reading along. Sunlight! 🔆

This guidance interprets 'sex' as sex registered at birth (presumably including any ex tunc correction for DSDs), so @ButterflyHatched 's gotcha fails. CAIS women are registered female, and it's unknown for them to apply to alter it.

People with 5-ard might be more interesting Someone who keeps his female birth registration will, without medical intervention, become an adult of the sex class that is large, powerful, aggressive, and commits the majority of the sex crime. I wouldn't want any of that if I was a lesbian. But maybe I wouldn't be deceived either, having eyes in my head.

Disclosure
Isn't
Safe.
Our privacy is protected by law.

We can't know people hold negative views toward trans people unless they tell us. How can we avoid something we don't know about?

We're pretty good at working out when someone is prejudiced against us but sometimes people can be good at hiding it! Sometimes they keep it secret for years and years!

It's dangerous to enter into a relationship with someone inclined to do you harm and for similar reasons it's dangerous to out yourself in general life so for safety reasons I think it's probably best to get clarification that a prospective partner doesn't secretly hold negative or discriminatory views toward you.

It would be nice if the bearer of these negative views volunteered them, but I suppose if we normalise asking then it removes all ambiguity. I would suggest that trans people pursue that conversation early in a relationship and check in periodically just in case those views have changed.

Trans people are very likely to come to harm from opening themselves up to intimacy with people who hold negative views toward them. This is hardly a controversial point.

Then why would you trick someone into having sex with you, if they may pose a physical threat to you, if they find out?

It's just sophistry, no need to indulge this line of argument @Greyskybluesky

The safest way of ensuring we never accidentally enter into an intimate relationship with someone who holds negative views toward us is for the holders of those negative views to disclose whenever meeting new prospective partners.

Do you know at what point I disclosed my views about trans people when I met my new prospective partner?
Never.
It just doesn't happen like this in the real world.

Which is why, for avoidance of doubt (since we already know it is not safe to disclose and open yourself up to transphobic abuse as a trans person) and it isn't possible to know if a partner holds negative or discriminatory views toward trans people that would affect their consent, it's safest for the holder of negative or discriminatory views toward trans people to practice disclosure with any new partners, or if their views change.

No, there is no reversal to DARVO here. People are not as the law currently stands obliged to declare political or philosophical views to potential partners in the same way. Maybe you should start a campaign.

Needs to repeated and repeated it seems.

It isn't safe to disclose and our privacy is protected by law.

Not in circumstances of sex by deception as the guidance makes clear. This legal privacy protection is about GRC, and the guidance here states that a GRC is largely irrelevant in these cases.

We have no interest in having sex with dangerous people who mean us harm, and nor do we have any interest in having sex with people who hold negative views toward us.

Which you don't know if they have because you haven't told them

It isn't safe to disclose and our privacy is protected by law.

We have no interest in having sex with dangerous people who mean us harm, and nor do we have any interest in having sex with people who hold negative views toward us. We're obviously never going to be safe in such a relationship, and nearly half of us are victims of domestic abuse.

The safest way of ensuring we never accidentally enter into an intimate relationship with someone who holds negative views toward us is for the holders of those negative views to disclose whenever meeting new prospective partners. Don't worry - we won't be able to get out of there fast enough when we find out.

Edited for clarity: entering into an intimate relationship can take many routes of course

Trans people are very likely to come to harm from opening themselves up to intimacy with people who hold negative views toward them. This is hardly a controversial point.

Then surely that's all the more reason to be up front about their biological sex and transition before 'intimacy'- to make sure that they're not having sex with people who may hold negative views towards them?

The trans person stays safe, and the person who may not want to engage in sexual activities outside of their orientation doesn't have their consent undermined. Seems fairly simple, unless you hold the view that the trans person's right to sex with a particular person overrides that person's right to informed consent?

Which is why, for avoidance of doubt (since we already know it is not safe to disclose and open yourself up to transphobic abuse as a trans person) and it isn't possible to know if a partner holds negative or discriminatory views toward trans people that would affect their consent, it's safest for the holder of negative or discriminatory views toward trans people to practice disclosure with any new partners, or if their views change. That way there is no ambiguity and trans people aren't required to endanger themselves by outing to the very people likely to harm them.

• may be relevant. For instance, even though the suspect fails to disclose their sex and / or gender identity they may reasonably believe the complainant consented due to: the degree to which the sex, trans or non-binary identity of the suspect is apparent; the opinion of the complainant towards lesbian / gay / trans people etc (depending on which is relevant to the case) and the suspect’s knowledge of their opinion; the length and nature of the relationship or their communications; the nature of and the circumstances in which the sexual act took place; evidence that the complainant expressed doubts, asked questions, or made assertions relating to the suspect’s sex and / or gender identity; evidence that the complainant was exploring their own sexuality.
• Where there is evidence of coercion, manipulation, or exploitation of the complainant, it is less likely that the suspect held a reasonable belief.
• Where there has been a deliberate deception by the suspect, it might be evidence that they know the matter is of importance to the complainant and a condition of consent. In these circumstances, it is less likely that the suspect held a reasonable belief.
• The suspect may admit that the complainant was unaware of their sex and / or gender identity but claim that they believed it was not a matter of importance to the complainant i.e. a condition of the complainant’s choice or consent. Whether the suspect has a reasonable belief that the complainant consented in these circumstances will depend on all the evidence.
• There may be circumstances where the suspect deceives the complainant initially but, because of the long passage of time between the initial deception and the sexual activity during which, for instance, the suspect and complainant meet and interact on numerous occasions, the suspect reasonably believes that the deception no longer operates on the complainant. Such circumstances may also be relevant where several sexual offences are alleged over a period of time.

These are some of the considerations which may be a factor in particular cases. The golden thread running through it all though is that you do not have the right to lie about your sex in the knowledge that they would turn you down otherwise.

By transitioning, we are being honest.

By not informing others of your transition you are not being honest.

ETA: in this specific context

Disclosure creates more risk. It isn't a neutral act. We don't live in a utopian future where transphobia doesn't exist.
By transitioning, we are being honest. That's the entire point. The text of the law makes it very clear that it supports this stance.
We can't tell who the transphobes are - a partner could come out as transphobic long after we've allowed ourselves to be intimate with them. They might have presented as a perfectly normal safe person at the time.

Great, so you agree with Cheddar when they said That’s a pretty big risk that you could avoid by being honest.

Good to know.

The law in question makes it clear that gender reassignment is a valid reason for a person to consider themself to not be the sex they were assigned at birth and that it can be a relevant mitigating factor.

It can be. It depends on the specific circumstances of the case.

Yes. There's a word for that.

Oh I completely agree with everything but your first point. Disclosure is itself inherently dangerous. It isn't safe to do so, because being trans in society isn't a neutral state where you are free from discrimination and harm. We are protected by law from having to do so in every situation other than intimate ones where suddenly we are prosecutable if a partner decides we weren't convincingly trans or incongruent enough.

We can't know whether a prospective partner holds negative views toward us that would encourage them to harm us. You can't always tell.

Exactly Cheddar. This point has been raised before and, surprise surprise, no response has been forthcoming.

Just to emphasise these crucial bits of your post again:

That’s a pretty big risk that you could avoid by being honest.
If most people aren’t transphobic you’ve got nothing to worry about.
If someone doesn’t want to shag you because you’re trans, why would you want to shag them?

Any thoughts BH?

"fundamentally at odds with my understanding of honesty, trust, consent and human intimacy."

Yes.

If you cannot trust a sex partner to be upfront about the sex they are, or vice versa, there is no trust there at all. There seems to be a very detached view of sex coming through in those posts.

And I would hope to fuck that a male person with that detached view of sex would never be giving any advice to vulnerable young people about sex. And yet... apparently this is happening. And apparently it is a 'respected elder' in the community giving this advice.

Well said TooExtraImmatureCheddar - I'm envious of posters who come on here and say more or less the same as me but in less than a third of the words I used.

If I had to describe myself in five words or less, it wouldn't be 'SUCCINCT'!

The law in question makes it clear that gender reassignment is a valid reason for a person to consider themself to not be the sex they were assigned at birth and that it can be a relevant mitigating factor.

The bizarre bit comes where it then contradicts this with odd language about disclosure and presentation. It just completely ignores the existence of trans people who aren't immediately identifiable as trans and implies that acting perfectly naturally as the sex we're allowed to and otherwise protected from discrimination for transitioning to constitutes active deceit - despite volunteering that it isn't deceit earlier in its own text.

It reads as a loophole that has deliberately been kept open in order to punish trans people who are ambiently read as their congruent sex.

I know we just banned the treatment that makes this a likely outcome for trans women, but at least a thousand or so of us already exist. We really aren't that much of 'a huge problem for a sane society'.