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

Thank you @Helleofabore . Your last sentence means that this is more horrible than I had imagined.

The thing now is apparently if a person is ‘living congruently’ in their ‘gender’ they must not be expected to be honest about their sex. Because to do so interrupts their gender experience. And remember that is based on philosophical belief. This group truly believes that their philosophical belief over rides everyone else’s.

yes, and I wouldn't mind so much, but the people doing the banging on, are completely upfront about being trans!

If you're going to fight for your right to be trans, on all the social media going, you're not exactly stealth anything.

you got it. It means that male people who claim to be female don’t feel they ever have to disclose they are male. And vice versa. The stealth element indicates that they know they have deceived the person into believing that how they present is the sex they are.

Crumbs, I wasn't expecting to get deleted. The gist of my comment was; can anyone explain what "stealthing" is in this context? Does it mean a TW saying they are a W and not saying they are a TW?
I am really disturbed by this thread; in the wake of Gisele Pelicot's immense bravery, I am shocked that women still have to explain what consent is.

The other thing to point out is that in the UK, the number of trans people who have had bottom surgery is quite low. So the sexual partner is going to find out pretty bloody quickly once clothes come off - so then how does stealthing work? It sounds like a weird mad fantasy - oh wait…

There really seems to be a determination for prioritising gender over sex.

The thing now is apparently if a person is ‘living congruently’ in their ‘gender’ they must not be expected to be honest about their sex. Because to do so interrupts their gender experience. And remember that is based on philosophical belief. This group truly believes that their philosophical belief over rides everyone else’s.

And that their decision to have extreme body changes, with different body parts substituted for others that will be involved in sexual acts, never have to be disclosed to a sex partner.

I genuinely cannot imagine someone thinks not disclosing their flayed inverted penis or ‘backpack’ or transplanted bowel before someone is about to have sex with that body part, is either righteous or moral. But hey, all part of ‘living congruently’, eh!!!

I have met many transmen who do pass but once their trans status has been shared, I have spotted 'tells'. I haven't knowingly met any transwoman for whom I haven't at least had a strong inkling they were trans.

And I agree with this too.

The key thing is, when it comes to consent, one cannot assume anything and so the first group must treat everyone as thought they belong to the second, unless explicitly told otherwise.

Yes, exactly.

"See my reference to bisexuality, where if the person thinks they're sleeping with a man, they want it to be a man.

Just because you might normally include that sex in your dating pool, it doesn't mean that you've consented to sleep with that sex, that time."

I imagine that the people who have no issue with trans people hiding their trans status before, during and/or after sex, have a sexual orientation where sex isn't any more significant than something like having or not having an intact appendix. It is these people saying that it isn't important enough to declare.

There are people (which includes me) for whom a person's sex is very important and my consent is void if I have been deceived about a person's sex.

The key thing is, when it comes to consent, one cannot assume anything and so the first group must treat everyone as thought they belong to the second, unless explicitly told otherwise.

the guidance around gaining fraudulent consent for sex by deception has been strengthened so that there's no confusion about the fact that transpeople must be proactively honest about their biological sex before sexual contact or they are predatory sex offenders,

I meant, it's fairly bloody basic, isn't it.

transactivistivism has really done a number on people, implying they can get away with all sorts of things. Voyeurism, indecent exposure, cheating at sport, and now sex by deception.

Try putting that on a lesbian dating site and you'll be banned.
Also it's not the responsibility of a victim of fraud to ask are you trying to defraud me, why because fraudsters are liars and would lie.
The person who has a legal and moral duty to disclose their biological sex is the person who is trying to disguise their sex, and because so many transpeople (apparently) don't want to/don't think they should have to disclose their biological sex, the guidance around gaining fraudulent consent for sex by deception has been strengthened so that there's no confusion about the fact that transpeople must be proactively honest about their biological sex before sexual contact or they are predatory sex offenders, if as you say the silent majority of transpeople don't want to be sex offenders or have sex with someone who has a basic understanding of both biology and their own sexuality then what's the problem with them being honest upfront about their sex?

Just because you might normally include that sex in your dating pool, it doesn't mean that you've consented to sleep with that sex, that time.

Indeed.

“definition of sexual orientation is "it doesn't matter if you look like a woman and have breasts and a vagina and I didn't know until you told me"

Blimey. So if it is an implanted cavity made from an inside out penis or cut from digestive tract, that is quite good enough for you then as long and the rest of the body ‘looks like a woman?’

Great that is what you consider a woman is. Body parts that you want to fuck depending on your mood is what this comes across as.

Kweer Feory innit.

"But I'd still be aware that declaring yourself to be "pansexual" which is a bit of a buzzword doesn't mean that a person wont feel violated if someone tricks them into sex by telling them a lie."

I agree. I guess, at least, it brings to mind that the person might be trans.

I have met many transmen who do pass but once their trans status has been shared, I have spotted 'tells'. I haven't knowingly met any transwoman for whom I haven't at least had a strong inkling they were trans.

Thanks for bringing up some interesting points, Occasionalnamechanger.
I think for a lot of people their orientation is based on what someone looks and feels like.

I don't think that's a 'sexual orientation', I think that's just a preference - I might find myself drawn to nice hair/cute tummy/whatever, but I'm not going to be scanning a group of men to see if any of them meet those criteria, hey he has nice hair and a cute tummy [sorry, I'm having difficulty with that concept!] he'll do, I'll go over and see if he has any plans for the night..

My sexual orientation is lesbian, so I am attracted to women, not to people with nice hair etc. And the attraction is not just sexual, there's another element, difficult to pin down, but it's something based on shared identity, as women and as lesbians.

Obvs that only kicks in if it's more than a brief encounter, nice hair and cute er...tummy? will do grand in the very short term; but only if they belong to a woman, the biological kind. Because that's my sexual orientation, within which I may - or may not, don't want to rule anyone in or anyone out - have certain preferences.

Does that make sense??

It’s all about me.
Do as I do.
Think as I think.

Yeah, it's not very inclusive, is it!

quite. See my reference to bisexuality, where if the person thinks they're sleeping with a man, they want it to be a man.

Just because you might normally include that sex in your dating pool, it doesn't mean that you've consented to sleep with that sex, that time.

Trans people can make it known they only date/hook up with people with pan-sexual orientations. This means they don't have to disclose anything other than their sexual orientation - which is standard practice for everyone

Yes, I think that's fair enough. But I'd still be aware that declaring yourself to be "pansexual" which is a bit of a buzzword doesn't mean that a person wont feel violated if someone tricks them into sex by telling them a lie.

To Occasional’s post about his conquests
This reads as:

It’s all about me.
Do as I do.
Think as I think.

Scouring for bodies I find attractive to take. They’re mine.
If I don’t fancy a body, I let them go. I have no shame in admitting my thoughts above.

—————
Also I doubt you have had much ‘luck’ and this is a fantasy.

I think the term bi-sexual refers to sex-based, not gender based attraction, but being bi-sexual could lead to some people underestimating how strongly same sex attraction can be to exclusively one sex.

I thought the term 'pan sexual' was used to describe people for whom the sex of a partner was less important than their gender presentation/identity.

I have only heard pan sexual used to refer to people attracted to different sexes and gender presentations/identities. This needs to be supplemented with panlesbian (attracted to females and males who identify as female) and transgay (attracted to males and females who identify as male).

Trans people can make it known they only date/hook up with people with pan-sexual orientations. This means they don't have to disclose anything other than their sexual orientation - which is standard practice for everyone

I don't think anyone should or shouldn't do anything. I think for a lot of people their orientation is based on what someone looks and feels like. I am pretty sure mine is. I don't look at a woman across a room and wonder what kind of gametes she produces. I look at her and think "Oh, nice hair and cute tummy" or similar.

But when it comes down to having sex, the ultimate destination of sexual attraction, where we're naked and hair all mussed up, then the sex of that person is what matters, not how they look when they're dolled/duded up. And when you're both naked, that's when your sex is most obvious. It's reprehensible to wait until then to reveal that you've been deceiving someone.

By all means be attracted to a 'type', but don't discount that sexual attraction exists by suggesting it's all about chromosomes. Vulvas just don't do anything for me, I wouldn't want to have sex with one, no matter what that person was wearing in the pub earlier, or how attracted I was to them if I thought they were a man. And that's fine - that's called sexual orientation.

I think in a longer relationship, even the most naive person would have inklings about the sex of the most passing trans person, and be persuaded (either by themselves, or that person) to ignore them - just like we do all the other red flags in relationships - the difference being that being a controlling cocklodger isn't a protected characteristic, and sexual orientation is.

This.

I'm heterosexual. I appreciate that women are beautiful, but I don't find them sexually attractive.

That said, I only find a very small proportion of men sexually attractive.

I'm not going to say it's absolutely impossible that I could fancy an apparent 'man' who turned out to be biologically female - but there's no way I could contemplate sexual contact once I knew. The idea would repel me.

I don't think that's an unusual POV. Anyone who conceals their birth sex until some form of contact has taken place is hiding a really pivotal piece of information that would instantly result in a NO from most of their prospective partners. Not giving the chance to say no is rapey and disgraceful.

The sad, mangled attempts at constructing male genitalia on a female body make 'stealth' pretty near impossible, so the 'but post-surgery?' gotcha attempt doesn't really work in the same way as for male bodies. But even with a modified male body it's a shitty disregard of boundaries and consent. And an illegal one.

I mean this isn't hard. "Trans women" aren't actually women, they are male. A woman is a female human being. It's just a noun, like a mare is the noun for a female horse. Why do genderists get it so back to front?