Transwoman accused of sexual assault after concealing male genitalia on date

This reminds me of another case- the one where a transgirl was filmed giving someone a blowjob, and he didn’t realise?

I still feel very sad for the 13yr old boy who got lashes and lips and thought he could be a woman.
Clearly a drug user.
Makes an exceptionally ‘ugly’ transwoman.

Clearly also assault though.
And his victim who may also have been under the influence, has to live with it while seeing these photos and wondering how the hell it happened.

The victim may well have known (and it is pretty difficult not to know), if it is victim blaming so be it, I judge every case on its own merits, questioning the victim here does not mean we have to question girls who have been duped by much more convincing FtMs.

It was the text messages that incriminated Watkin, and from that evidence it's an open and shut case. There should've been explicit statement of trans status, all we have is written evidence of the announcement after sexual activity.

The moral of the story is to be open about it and not to think that announcing it afterwards is a laugh.

Yes, and it's why I think some things should be off-limits for defence teams, e.g. insinuations that a victim "asked for it" because she was wearing a short skirt or was out alone late at night.

Transgender Reddit are up in arms about how unfair this is on trans people in that they either have to disclose their transness (which is an assault on their human rights) or risk being put on the sex offender register.

The absolute low is a poster who claims "Watkin moved the man's hand away when he went to touch her breast and thigh and told him she was on her period to stop him feeling below her waist, the court heard" means Watkin was sexually assaulted and is therefore the true victim here. The DARVO is real

To be fair, it's their job to try and pull apart the victim's testimony/prosecution's case and I doubt they had much else to work with.

Which is what they also have to do with rape victims 😧

ETA:Spelling

Very glad this sex offender has been found guilty. Worrying that the judge says the prison service needs to think carefully where they place this male offender. Hopefully in a male prison.

To be fair, it's their job to try and pull apart the victim's testimony/prosecution's case and I doubt they had much else to work with.

But it will be interesting to see what our resident scolders have to say - is it now a case of "TWAW unless it forms part of their defence"?

That was what I thought. Since the SC Judgement though there should be no special cases/exemptions, no need for Complex Case Boards and Minister approval or anything else.

The male prison estate is where they should go full stop.

I wish people would stop saying "how did this person not know" and would be more careful about a sexual assault victim who probably is beating themselves up somewhere for that.

It is interesting how the victim in this case is allowed to be examined (and faintly criticised).

Wow, there's an outbreak of misgendering going on on that sub! How strange.

Just checked, and it seems unlikely he'll go to a women's jail.

It shouldn't even be a remote possibility, though.

Since the SC judgement, it seems it would clearly be breaking the law to hold any male in the female estate, as it should be understood by anyone with a modicum of rationality that women should not be incarcerated with men.

'The presumption is that all male prisoners who identify as women with intact male genitalia, or who have a current or previous conviction for any violent or sexual offence (not just against women or girls) should not be held in the general women’s estate. This applies equally to those with and without a GRC: those without a GRC will be held in the male estate; those with a GRC may be held in E Wing at HMP Downview.
Exemptions to this can only be considered on recommendation of a Complex Case Board where there is a high level of confidence that the individual poses a low level of harm to women in prison. Recommendations must be referred to the HMPPS Director General of Operations for consideration and to the Secretary of State for Justice for a final decision.'

kpssinfo.org/prisons-in-england/

Bloody hell but the tide has turned somewhat in the Reddit unitedkingdom sub! The usual suspects are trying to whip up screams of transphobia and defend the rights of trans people to rape by deception and they are not getting the response they want. What with this and the short lived thread there the other day about sex testing for boxing competitors, which before it was deleted attracted mostly approving comments and scorn for the few posters trying to pretend this was heinous abuse of the poor little trans victims, I am starting to think a wave of sanity is breaking...

I thought the 'new' rules included whether or not they had male genitalia?

However, since the SC Judgement there should not be ANY males in the female prison estate whatever their offence, presentation, identity or GRC status.

Will be interesting to see what happens here, the law is clear, will it be abided by?

@chinup123 r.e. (2) a transwoman having sex with a cis woman.

There's already precedent I think for when a transwoman pretends their penis is actually a strap on.

Even the Alex TrA agrees that is and should illegal.

I wish people would stop saying "how did this person not know" and would be more careful about a sexual assault victim who probably is beating themselves up somewhere for that.

I'm glad Ciara was convicted. I wonder what would have happened if they hadn't actively concealed their biological sex.

I.e. someone who hadn't lied (by saying they were on a period), or taken active steps to conceal. But performed sex acts on them nevertheless.

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/ciara-watkin-sex-assault-trial-32322776

'The court heard how Watkin couldn't remember what happened during the couple's second date, telling police: "I was pregab'd out of me head"'

From comments made by the assailant, drugs were involved.

I wonder what Reddit thinks of this, given that this horrible man was happy for his special identity to be denied in an attempt to avoid jail.

shoulda capitalised HEAVY too

Couple of thoughts on this.

1. How he didn't realise that is a man is amazing, however, as some posters say, to imply that the victim should have known is victim blaming and if the case was the other way round, we would be calling out victim blaming. There could be a lot of circumstances where the victim could have been vulnerable or attracted to the 'presumed woman' that led to them disregarding or being blind to what seems to be glaringly obvious to some.
2. I'm glad this went to court but would it have been the same if it was the other way round. Considering the utter bile I have seen by transwomen towards lesbians for not accepting them as women or not wanting to sleep with them as 'women'. From this case can we accept that a transwoman wanting to sleep with a lesbian or attempted to do so would be assault and against their will?

We know virtually nothing about the victim, nor the circumstances. There could be any number of things that haven't been reported on. Vulnerability and/or other factors.

I'm not sure it is. Another way of looking at it is that his victim must have been the type of person for whom blindingly obvious things aren't blindingly obvious. Meaning his sex offence must have been against a mentally deficient victim. This is even worse.

I've just realised that as this offense wasn't violence directed against a woman, it is possible that Ciara is sent to a woman's prison, should he be convicted.

It seems so.

"Watkin's lawyers said she saw and presented herself as female but was "visibly and audibly" male, so it would have been "blindingly obvious" to the man that Watkin was not biologically female."

From the BBC article.

The dissonance is very clear.

We have been told as a society, and our children taught, that acceptance with no exception. To believe that someone is who they say they are.

And yet, recently there has been this contradiction where we are seeing the very same people telling us that any male person who states that he has 'an understanding' (to use what we are told is the correct language) that they are experiencing life where they understand they are female has to be treated as if they were female. Even though it is true that logically that 'understanding' is not a female one.

But then we get these court cases. Including the nazi convicted in Germany.

Those same people who tell us all about these male people's understanding, then will arbitrate who is and isn't 'really' transgender according to political expediency, in my opinion. Watkin's has maintained that they are female since they were 13 years old. So, for 7 years!

How is it that it becomes expedient in court to declare that Watkin's is a woman yet that the victim should have known that this woman was biologically male because of appearance and voice?

It is like foundations of shifting sands. This is one fuckton of harm coming to light about the destruction of boundaries. This victim potentially has been taught to believe these lies and therefore had non-existent boundaries. And yet, there are people crowing that this generation is the 'most inclusive' and 'most tolerant' without an inkling of understanding as to what this means for this generation's boundaries.

I use that term 'crowing' very deliberately because it is quite something to see those claims and the belittling that comes from those people towards the people who are pointing out the issues.

Good. I hope that his victim gets the support he needs.