Does gender matter when it comes to sexual consent?

[MyHumpsMyLovelyBabyBumps]

www.salon.com/2013/07/06/does_gender_matter_when_it_comes_to_sexual_consent/

I don't know if this specific case has been linked but I realize this has been kind of done before. One of the comments says this

You're unwilling to accept your personal responsibility to inform your partner of any dealbreakers that would invalidate your consent, but you still want to have sex regardless, so it's on their shoulders. Get bent. If you don't want to have sex with any trans people, TELL YOUR PARTNERS. If they're trans, telling them that will ensure that they don't want to have sex with you either, and you get EXACTLY what you want.

I feel like the message of "yes means yes" is just not getting through. I'm supposed to make a list of things I don't consent to and first take action to tell my partner I don't consent and if not that's my personal responsibility. Take gender confusion out of the picture if I came online and told you my dh and I were having sex and then he pulled out and then stuck a random household object in me with out asking me first, we'd all be in agreement that it was sexual assault.

Why is this different? I don't know I get really irritated because whenever I see it discussed online you get called transphobic for saying that a woman has a right to know what she is being penetrated by. And I don't think I am transphobic, I'm just pissed off people aren't expected to get informed consent.

And for the record I do agree with the sentence that "scot" receives for sexual assault.

AFAIC a transperson is the gender they present as. The ruling is ridiculous and transphobic, and probably stems from latent homophobia.

So if your partner penetrates you with something you haven't consented to it you would not be upset? The onus is on you to warn you partner that they are not allowed to shove s dildo/cucumber etc up you?

Does it make a difference that this person also hadn't had a reassignment surgery so was not even using a sort of penis

What a terrible story, I feel sorry for both the young people involved. It's interesting that the article states "concealing one?s marital status, wealth, age or HIV diagnosis from a sexual partner does not invalidate consent"I'm not sure I'm clear on the point you're trying to make humps. If a partner penetrated me with anything with out asking first, I would be upset, sure, but I don't know what this has to do with being trans? The two things are separate issues as far as I can see, not linked confused

I was surprised that you were allowed to hide HIV status, I don't agree with that at all.

My point was that the girl thought she was having PIV sex buffy. that she was consenting to PIV sex, but she wasn't. She was being penetrated, but by something else. Because whenever this happens it is seen as a trans issue and not a rape issue. If I consent to one thing and someone swaps it for something else.. I have been assaulted I don't just hereby give my consent to anything placed inside me. It again puts the onus on the women to say no to all possibilities rather than for the other person to gain a yes.

I can see how those two issues can become conflated in very specific cases confused. I assume the girl in this case argued that she'd consented to be penetrated with a penis but was actually penetrated with something that she argued wasn't a penis? But I think the legal ruling was wrong, in this instance. Morally, I mean, I can't comment on the legal technicalities.

In this case at least the person claiming to be a man had not even had reassignment surgery. So she was most definitely penetrated by something that was not in any way a penis. Maybe that's what I'm hung up, I'm not sure. I have no problem with two people dating first and then eventually the other person (before sexual contact telling the other person when they feel comfortable about their birth status) but I do think for proper consent to happen with the person knowing exactly what is penetrating them. And that to not do so is to perpetuate the women must say no, not yes argument

"

It doesn't say anywhere in the article that "PIV" sex took place. What is suggested is that the girl thought she was having sexual relations with a boy, but it turns out to be a transexual person born female. Isn't that what the issue and court case were about? Not about swapping one thing (a penis) for something else?

i dont know how the court arrived at what constitutes consent but for me I'm saying that's what I consider to be sexual assault. There have a been a few high profile cases where a person born a woman has used something other than a penis to penetrate another woman. Where the second woman thought she was being penetrated by a penis. and usually it's where a young woman who wouldn't necessarily know the difference is involved.

The implication that PIV sex was had as they have discussing precoital contracts and at what point genitals stop being the correct genitals etc

That was also, probably her first PIV sexual encounter.
It must have been hard for her to separate the sense of betrayal after such a long relationship, the huge emotional responses of a teenager and the deception involved from McNally's intentions, and if he indeed did love her.
What a horrible mess for both of them, but he was 18 and an adult who chose not to be honest.

He was 17 and she was 16 at the time of the offence.

OK, they were both children, without counselling for McNally or emotional support in any way, there are two victims here. But one deceived and one didn't.
What do you think he thought would happen? That she would fall for the belief that he was born male, despite the anatomical evidence to the contrary? Or that she would love him after they had sex, and that would solve all the problems and doubts?

There seems to be some confusion as to what sexual acts occurred, so here are the relevant paragraphs from the actual judgment.

"Scott" was collected from Euston Station by M and her mother. At the time the appellant was aged 17 years and she presented as a boy wearing what the complainant thought was gothic clothing (although the appellant denies wearing such clothing). Under her trousers, she was also wearing a strap-on dildo which resembled a penis.

Over the following months, the appellant visited the complainant on four occasions in total. On the first occasion, they watched a film together and kissed. They went to a bedroom where it was dark and the appellant began to rub M's vagina with her fingers and gave her oral sex. The complainant then went to get condoms which she had purchased intending that they have intercourse. She was nearly naked but the appellant kept clothing on: it was difficult to see because it was so dark. M offered to give the appellant oral sex but the appellant declined. It was alleged (this being the count that was denied and not pursued) that M was penetrated with the dildo.

On the second visit, there were lots of occasions of oral penetration and occasions of digital penetration, always of M. They were apart so much that when they were together they wanted to engage in sexual activity all the time. On the third visit, although there were difficulties in the relationship, they had a party. They still talked about having sex but the appellant was not interested in trying again.

"Scott"/Justine claims that M knew she was trans back in 2009, but this is rejected by the court based on the evidence (why would M have bought condoms?, why would "Scott" keep his clothes on?, etc.). So it does seem that Justine 'deceived' M.

I'm massively irritated by this article! The author's general claims about the legality of consent obtained through deception are ill-informed and specifically wrong on the transmission of HIV.

When an adult consents to sex with another adult, it is not blanket consent. Specifically, "In circumstances where penetration is initially consented to but consent is later withdrawn, the person responsible will have committed rape."

When I agree to sex with a person presenting as a man, I expect them to have a functioning, biological penis. If you agree to sex with someone presenting as a woman, you expect them not to have one. These are reasonable expectations, based on the presentation of the would-be partner. I'm not obliged to provide an exhaustive list of things I don't wish to be penetrated by, neither am I required to establish that the person is a human, penis-owning male as he purports. If he isn't one, he's committing fraud. And fraudulent penetration of another person's body orifice is rape or sexual assault, depending on whether they used a biological penis.

The article is bollocks and I'm fed up with trans people trying to twist common decency and the law to get laid under false pretences.

If you are a F2M person who wants to have sex with me, you have a responsibility to tell me your genitalia may not match my reasonable expectation. If you don't - why won't you? Why would I want to have sex with someone who's misled me thus?

"I'm fed up with trans people trying to twist common decency and the law to get laid under false pretences."

Does this happen to you a lot?

Oh dear, it's such a complicated issue when applied to a court room.

Morally I think it's rather simple, if you think that you know something about yourself that would mean your partner would not want to have / continue sexual relations you should tell them first.

That covers quite a range of things std status, marital status, sexuality, gender.

Consent is not blanket consent. Personally I believe in reaffirmed consent. Active, informed, repeated yes that is affirmed again and again as each level of intercourse is reached.

I think the article is very misleading, and gives the impression that the sexual offence committed was not being entirely honest about gender.

The sexual offence committed was penetration by an object that the victim did not consent to. I don't think there is anything complicated about that at all. It is not similar to issues of marital status or sexuality. The background of the case is relevant in court because establishing the events leading up to it help demonstrate that the victim did not consent to penetration by an object.

The same situation could occur if a man was impotent and told a woman he was going to have sex with her and use a condom, and then without her consent penetrated her with an object because he could not get an erection. It would be a sexual assault.

The article is making out that being transgender is the legal issue by not referring at all to the actual assault carried out.

I'm glad someone has already pointed out that the article is completely and utterly wrong about HIV transmission.

On that basis, I wouldn't trust any of the other facts in it.

I completely agree that it has made a big issue over gender. Freya said it perfectly.

Buffy, I think there isn't one simple answer to what combination of sex and gender (or neither) each person is attracted to.

I don't think we can work out very much about attraction in general from a girl who from 13 years of age built up an attraction to somebody based on three years of talking to each other on the internet and very small periods of time in each other's actual company, and was then assaulted.

I think it is a really interesting question, but I am uncomfortable discussing the question because it is a thread about the assault of a 16 year old girl. I'd feel happier if it was on another thread without her being used an example (for which I am not blaming you).