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

"I'm not. I would like to think that 'Don't have sex with vulnerable people whose ability to consent is diminished.' is to be considered a given regardless of sex or gender or any other factor. Obviously don't do that."

And yet, you don't post anything that shows this at all. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say, you designate people who you support not disclosing as being more vulnerable than any one else in that interaction.

In fact, quite the opposite. Your posts, which you write with the intention to position anyone who wants to know the sex someone is as being a bigot, or transphobe, often indicate that you are indeed telling vulnerable young people to choose sex partners from people who they don't believe will take them to court. These are your own words below aren't they?:

'My standard advice to young trans people intending to go stealth is 'don't fuck bigots or those even faintly vulnerable to bigoted ideologies; they can and will send you to prison and there is legal precedent supporting them doing so' with a side order of 'you can't know if someone is a bigot until they show you. Make sure the first time they show you isn't in court'. Schrodinger's bigot is something we have to factor into our daily lives.'

and

"my advice is thus 'don't fuck cis transphobes if you decide to go stealth'."

and

"And this is why we advise younger trans adults intending to go stealth to avoid 'bigot' bad vibes; not only is there a very real direct risk of personal harm, but also a risk of prosecution from anyone seeking to punish them for being trans."

and

"Nah mate, I warn them not to fuck cis people who hate them"

and

"Well it would be pretty fucking irresponsible to recommend to vulnerable young people who are trying to escape a lifetime of prejudice that they put themselves in danger in order to test a legal precedent, wouldn't it?
So we just advise them not to let bigoted cis people fuck them as it's safer all round. Maybe in a world where it isn't dangerous to be publicly trans we wouldn't have to worry about privacy quite so much."

None of the above could be considered balanced advice to be given to a young person using safeguarding principles.

"Why the fuck are you arguing it must be mandatory for people with a medical history of transition then?"

Because what you keep ignoring or dismissing is that in having sex with someone, it can be highly relevant for many people because of their sexual orientation. Plus it is highly relevant for the quality and even the type of sex that a person is about to have. There are quite a few essential factors around the sex of a person.

You keep denigratingly referring to my 'ideology', however, I think you have it backwards. You, personally, have redefined the meaning of sexual orientations to suit yourself away from those commonly understood by society. That is ideological.

"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."

This is not denied. However, if a person is going to put themselves into a position of having sex with someone, surely the 'safe' advice is to be upfront before sex is agreed to. Not disclosing the sex you (general you) are is absolutely like to increase the likelihood of harm.

Oh... that's right.... unless you (general) are a person who believes that what a person doesn't know can't possible harm them.

I would have thought that as a matter of safety trans women would be better off disclosing their sex up front. Why would you take the risk of getting into an intimate situation, probably in a private place, only for someone to twig and then a) shrug and carry on, b) reject you (nicely or not), or c) react violently and aggressively? 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?

Statements by ButterflyHatched such as 'being allowed have sex' or 'forbids me from intimacy' are fundamentally at odds with my understanding of honesty, trust, consent and human intimacy.

Quoting very rare medical conditions is not useful - laws have to work on a general population level, and if a consent-related case involving a person with a DSD comes to court, that would be looked at on an individual basis, I guess.

Trans people are very likely to come to harm from opening themselves up to intimacy with people who hold negative views toward them.
Ummm.... so don't do it then??

Most people have a sexual identity which means they only like to have sex with people of the opposite sex to them; or people of the same sex as them.

Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, a trans person 'opening themselves up to intimacy' with somebody who does not know what the trans person's biological sex is is likely to encounter negative views toward them.

That's just basic common sense, isn't it? I don't go around 'opening [myself] up to intimacy' to women I know are straight because it would make them feel negative about me, and it would make me feel negatively about myself for being [a] insensitive [b] an eejit [c] rejected and [d] shouldn't have had that nth g&t

Can't transpeople exercise adopt the same approach? what's the problem?

Sex is also a protected characteristic

It is, but the Equality Act is not relevant to criminal law, Butterfly is equivocating with sophistry that you should have to declare philosophical beliefs etc.

I actually think it might be very useful for politicians, lawyers and decision makers to hear exactly the arguments being used, to put forward the idea that people should be 'allowed to have sex' with people without full and informed consent.

It certainly gives the lie to the oft quoted mantra of trans people wanting the same, equal rights as everyone else to be arguing that they can remove the right of another person to give free and fully informed consent to sex.

Sex is also a protected characteristic and yes not disclosing your sex is deception.

So you can use all the sophistry you like, it doesn't change the facts that people need not to lie about their sex when having sexual relations with others.

Whether you like it or not, having sex by deception on the grounds of pretending to be the opposite sex is a criminal offence and people (women) have gone to prison for it. It's a form of sexual assault.

It's about deceiving people about your sex Butterfly, zero to do with the Equality Act.

I'm not. I would like to think that 'Don't have sex with vulnerable people whose ability to consent is diminished.' is to be considered a given regardless of sex or gender or any other factor. Obviously don't do that.

Is a requirement to disclose a protected characteristic demonstrative of a lack of care for a prospective sex partner? Why the fuck are you arguing it must be mandatory for people with a medical history of transition then?

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.

This thread should be linked in a psychological glossary under "DARVO".

Also, do you have any evidence of transw being murdered in the UK and their partner getting away with it? It sounds like utter nonsense.

It is utter nonsense, but stand by for the numbers of transwomen working as prostitutes being murdered in South American countries....

And again, you are dismissing people who are vulnerable. I am happy to explain this to you again and again and again, just as many other will be happy to as well.

"There is literally nothing stopping a person from asking 'Do you hold the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment? My Gender Critical ideology is also a protected characteristic which forbids me from intimacy with the marginalised minority group this applies to, so I need to know if it applies to you.'"

This above is complete and utter fuckwittery and it shows exactly your lack of any care for a prospective sex partner if this is really what you believe.

Please keep going because you each and every post on this topic has been like a beacon to those reading along that this very law is vitality important to protect people vulnerable to this behaviour.

"You're the one talking about people not wanting to be intimate with members of marginalised minority groups with protected characteristics because the complexities of their harmless medical history and metaphysical classification offends your ideology."

Seriously? No matter how you try to present this with whatever wording you think makes it look like it is a view intellectually supported, it is not about the discrimination of minorities angle that you persist in pushing. It is only about a person wanting to know what the sex of the person is that they are having sex with because it is a fundamental requirement for that person.

You can try to then position this as 'harmless'. But the reality is, if any person has prioritised their own demands to not have to disclose over another's need to know the sex of the person, that is the very opposite of 'harmless' and can be viewed as preying on those who in that moment are vulnerable to because they have not realised that the person they are about have sex with is not the sex they believe that sex partner is.

To me that behaviour is the very opposite of 'harmless'.

It's revealing that you have concluded that 46XY CAIS women are men...

Medical scientists have swathes of evidence to prove conclusively that they ARE men, she hasn't just pulled it out of her ear.

Also, do you have any evidence of transw being murdered in the UK and their partner getting away with it? It sounds like utter nonsense.

It certainly is.

You have to wonder why people want to be able to have sex with someone who hasn't fully consented. A very strange thing to advertise about themselves

There is literally nothing stopping a person from asking 'Do you hold the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment? My Gender Critical ideology is also a protected characteristic which forbids me from intimacy with the marginalised minority group this applies to, so I need to know if it applies to you.'

That seems quite reasonable to me. The holder of the Gender Reassignment protected characteristic can then choose whether to disclose or not, and has the option of simply declaring that they'd rather not be intimate with someone who holds Gender Critical views without having to disclose - after all, disclosure is noted in the GRA as being potentially extremely harmful.

Oh it's quite a different social landscape nowadays - in my experience at least, most normal people don't hold raging anti-trans views anymore, which certainly wasn't the case a decade ago and prior where you really couldn't trust that anyone you met in normal life wouldn't be schrodinger's bigot and had no choice but to protect yourself through complete silence and great caution.

I suppose this is a tradeoff of the positive change since and the more recent culture war that is trying to roll us back to the Bad Old Days - the number of reasonable people has increased significantly, but the number of highly radicalised holders of negative views toward trans people or transness in general has also increased. As a trans person minding your privacy and trying to remain safe while having a healthy, active sex life, you can now be fairly confident that most people you meet will at worst consider you to be a bit of an unusual curiosity.

The dangerous anti-trans culture warrior factor, however, is much more prominent now, and this is doubly relevant if your preferred partners are men since male violence against people they perceive to not be male remains disturbingly high, and that threat does not reduce if the victim is transgender.

In the bad old days, we lived under the shadow of Trans Panic defences and all bets were off. If you chose the wrong partner, they could choose to murder you for being trans and would probably get away with it.

Nowadays, that's less likely as transphobia is less socially acceptable and has increasingly retreated into the realm of dogwhistles and concern trolling demagogues. People who hold negative views toward us have gotten better at hiding them, and the reasonable expectation from everyday life is that most normal people no longer hold these kinds of views.

Because of this, I think it's probably safest if those who hold negative views toward trans people don't go stealth amongst the population; the risk of harm is way too high.

No.

I am talking about people who would like to know the sex of the people they are about to have sex with.

I believe that you are trying to present this as being whatever you can present it as to make your position look better, but I don’t think you are succeeding with anyone.

It's revealing that you have concluded that 46XY CAIS women are men and should be considered to be breaking the law if they do not disclose their medical history to intimate partners.

What a strange stance to take. I wonder if the light of experience has ever shined upon your opinion.

It's quite something to put forward an argument that you should be allowed to have sex with someone if there was even a scintilla of doubt that that person would not consent if they were fully aware of the sex of the person they were about to have sex with.

To argue that a particular cohort of people should be exempt the law on deception/trickery/misleading in regard to sexual relations is quite staggering.

To be clear: You're the one talking about people not wanting to be intimate with members of marginalised minority groups with protected characteristics because the complexities of their harmless medical history and metaphysical classification offends your ideology.

That's fine. Nobody has to have sex with anyone and consent can be withdrawn at any time. People are allowed to just not be into someone else. Heck, people can pretend just to not be into someone even though their entire existence is a secret source of seething rage and disgust.

I'm simply pointing out that it's the marginalised minority group who is the one who has to either perform exaggerated maleness or femaleness that is not congruent with their own sense of self (effectively lie about their own identity and conform to unambiguous birth sex stereotypical presentation), or alternatively to out themselves as having a trans or intersex/dsd history, if they want to be safe.

That seems...wrong? I would expect that a forward thinking and compassionate society - which already has some laws to protect these vulnerable, harmless people just trying to live their lives, giving a clear indication of intent - would be taking steps to protect them.

The law here seems to be having the opposite effect - it serves to embolden those who hold negative regressive views about trans people or transness in general and say that they're not only right to be disgusted by the marginalised minority group that draws their ire, but that those minorities can never truly be safe even in a loving intimate relationship; that they must always be watching over their shoulder and fearing their past catching up with them.

I suppose it comes with the territory, since nearly half of trans people experience domestic violence. We're no strangers to having to deal with abusive behaviour from partners - it's just disappointing that the government has chosen to double down with the transphobic policy yet again when they had the opportunity to make a clear statement against transphobia instead.

That is very revealing framing, re-classifying not being able to deceive, trick or mislead a potential partner as to the sex of the person they are entering into a sexual relationship/encounter with as not being allowed to have sex.

Isn't it.