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

No, Butterfly all you have to do is be honest with the person you are about to enter into a sexual relationship with.

I know it is a difficult concept for you to understand that other people have human rights too and one of those is to give full consent to sex having the knowledge beforehand of the sex of the other person, not to be tricked or misled in any way as this would/could invalidate consent.

There are, quite rightly, no exemptions to this - no-one is nor should they be above the law, it applies to everyone.

No-one needs your medical history they just need to know the sex you are.

It really isn't that difficult as you say Eresh.

If a person is about to engage in sex with someone, then the reality is they should have been upfront with them prior to getting to that point of sex that they are a male or female if the person has been under the impression the person is the opposite sex to what they materially are.

There is a great amount of dismissal about this particular fact. Surely it is a sign that the relationship is one that should be continued if it is based on honesty? And even a partner of a fleeting sexual interaction deserves the respect of knowing this so they can absolutely make an informed choice.

If knowing this limits the pool of potential sex partners, surely this was discussed with all those people who claim to live as the opposite sex to what they materially are. And that those people did so with that knowledge.

You just have to make sure the person you have sex with is consenting in the full knowledge of what sex you are. No more, no less, not difficult.

I am not a lawyer, but from my reading of those guidelines, I am not allowed to have sex if I just wear my normal everyday clothing when meeting someone and don't change my completely normal everyday behaviour around them, but I am allowed to have sex with them if I wear a fake moustache, cut my hair short and do a comically overblown impression of masculinity, or risk great harm and danger of discrimination by broadcasting the sensitive and intensely private medical treatment I had in my teens and early twenties.

That seems...strange.

social or cultural differences or the way in which someone is perceived or experiences themselves

So do any one of such differences constitute a "gender"?
I experience myself as shy or outspoken - that's what my gender is?

Or is it something to do with biological sex?

So it seems that it has to be shown by the prosecution that there was a deliberate deception.

The defence being that the defendant held a reasonable belief that it was consensual sex?

Not happy about the word deliberate at all on a first read of that.

I think the deception of gender is also due to the Gemma Watts case
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/twisted-gemma-watts-jailed-eight-17545627

The jurisdiction of the document is England and Wales only and applies to specific criminal offences therein.

Edited to add: But who knows in this utterly batshit world we inhabit.

Does this have implications for the Supreme Court case?

I've read through the Summary once, and all I've got so far is that they seem to have decided that 'sex' is a more useful term than 'gender' - hurrah, I thought.. but on reflection I can't make out what the difference between “deception as to sex”, and “deception as to gender”.

• Whether a deception as to (however that deception is operated) is sufficiently closely connected to the performance of the sexual act that the complainant cannot be said to have made a free choice to participate in it.

At this point, your consent is vitiated. But wouldn't it be vitiated anyway, if you just decided 'I don't want this to continue', for any reason, not just that you've noticed that your companion is not the sex you thought they were?

But in the McNally case, the knowledge of deception was retrospective, so consent at the time was later vitiated.. my head hurts now too, Fenlandia!

If they just decided that 'sex' is the only relevant term, and that 'deception by sex' is what the law is concerned with, and removed the term 'gender', wouldn't it be easier? How are they going to prove 'deception by gender' as opposed to 'deception by sex'.

'My client was deceived into believing the defendant was butch in the sheets, whereas in fact she was only butch in the streets'

I looked up what 'vitiate' means, a new word in my vocabulary so at least that's a positive

Well. Good luck to anyone trying to make head or tail of all that.

Thanks, OP. How interesting, there have been discussions on this the past week on here. I had wondered what happened to the missing consultation.

Thanks OP for posting. It's good news although I got bogged down in the CPS definitions of gender and gender identity

"... gender is commonly used to refer to social or cultural differences or the way in which someone is perceived or experiences themselves (commonly known as “gender identity”). This guidance uses the term “sex” to refer to birth sex and “gender” to refer to gender identity."

Yet we are always being told by TRAs that gender and gender identity are not the same thing. And if gender identity can be something that is perceived by others of you, how can it be the internal gendered soul that can be mismatched with the body? My head hurts.