Transmen committing 'gender fraud' / in women's spaces - thoughts?

[YetAnotherSpartacus]

This idea for a topic was spurred by a previous thread in which I wanted to bring up the issue of transmen committing crimes against women but didn't because the thread had undergone several massive derailments anyway.

Basically, the gist of it is that I'm curious re what people think re transmen (FtMs) who are attracted to women tricking girls / women into sex. There have been a few cases of this all successfully prosecuted - R v Gemma Barker [2012], R v Chris Wilson [2013], R v Justine McNally [2013], R v Gayle Newland [2015] and R v Kyran Lee (Mason) [2015]. This is generally known as rape by deception or 'gender fraud'. The FtM's used strap-ons.

I'm curious partly because there has been an increase in the number of girls identifying as 'trans', suggesting that ethical and legal issues re this group may come to the forefront in coming years, and partly because when learning about the trans phenomenon I came across a number of FtM sites where the women concerned were blatantly sexist, misogynist, considering of women as lesser beings and saying that they understood the world from a man's POV.

A bigger question given the above is whether FtMs should be welcome in women's spaces.

Some links, for those who are interested.

www.lawbot.info/blog/2016/11/8/criminal-injustice-3-heteronormativity-and-transgender
www.plymouthlawreview.org/vol8/childs%20trans%20article.pdf
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/12/gayle-newland-sentenced-eight-years-prison-duping-friend-having-sex

Yes, transmen should be allowed into women's spaces, seeing as they have a vagina.
These sorts of crimes are somewhat of a rarity and girls will always be more at risk of being raped by a man than a woman (Biological not trans definitions).

From what I remember, the only other widely reported cases were those undercover policemen who had relationships (including children, which I do think is completely unsupportable)

Personally, I fall on the side of the line where lying to get someone into bed is rape - and that includes telling a woman that you're a man, as much as telling a woman that you're a hedge fund manager when you really work on the checkout at Sainsburies.

I think that that is an unusual opinion however, and the cases I've seen where a man lies about himself, that have made it to court, have been dismissed (both legally, and in comments by people).

Oh, and yes, I do think that they should still be welcome in women's spaces - because even though lying in order to have sex with someone is rape, it's deception rather than overt violence, and I don't think that places are sex segregated to stop women lying to me, but to protect against men's violence

Let's flip it the other way around. Suppose a straight man told you he was a transman, hence no fear of pregnancy, yes, didn't they do a good job, amazing what surgeons can do nowadays................and then ejaculated inside you. Would I consider that rape? Hell yes, just as penetration without a condom when you had made it clear you were only consenting to it with a condom would be non-consensual, hence rape.

If someone obviously thought a transman was a biological male, and consented to sex under that assumption, just as when a straight bloke consented to a blow job from someone he thought was a woman, not a transwoman. Because it's all about the biological and physical reality of the person and the sex act. Because we all know, frankly, that to most people it will matter whether someone is a woman or a transwoman, a man or a transman. And because it certainly matters biologically in terms of who can or cannot get pregnant or cause a pregnancy!

As regards Gayle Newland BTW, she has had her conviction quashed. And AFAIK she isn't a transman, but it was instead claimed that she claimed to be a man, and claimed a dildo was a penis (that alone, for me would have been the clincher, since the woman concerned would have consented to sex with a penis not to sex using a dildo).

Yes, transmen should be allowed into women's spaces, seeing as they have a vagina. These sorts of crimes are somewhat of a rarity and girls will always be more at risk of being raped by a man than a woman (Biological not trans definitions).

HOUSE !

Transmen shouldn't be allowed in women's spaces. I am not comfortable with someone who has a beard and who looks to all extent like a man. I can't tell if they are a transman or male. How does that keep me safe?

"I am not comfortable with someone who has a beard and who looks to all extent like a man............"
You are confusing two different things. Being an actual 'threat', versus being perceived to be a threat. So, I have various flat-chested lesbian friends who are frequently challenged going into the ladies. My wife, who is far from flat-chested, is frequently challenged. So, should the criteria for the right to enter be 'looks sufficiently female', or 'is actually female'?

I'll stick to the latter, thanks very much, and any gender non-conforming dykes or transmen or detransitioned females will have to deal with being challenged as we always have.

The issue I have is that it seems OK to take a FtM to cOurts on the ground of gender fraud.
But if a MtF is having sex with someone and that person realises they are in fact a man and isn't happy, then it's transphobia (usually when the other person is a woman). Maybe it's just me who has never heard about gender fraud about MtF trans but only with FtM....

Fwiw I believe that any trans (MtF or FtM) should declare it to their sexual partner. Regardless of whether they've an op etc.. it will look different and not what the partner would have expected.
From that POV, to avoid any deception, it should always be clear.

It should also be clear that anyone is allowed to choose what the genitals of the sexual partner look like, trans or not btw.
E.g. A man has had an accident and has had their penis chopped off. I believe that some women wouldn't be happy to date them because of that.
Same if someone is planning to have sex with a transp person, they should know if they will be faced with a penis, a strap on, no testicules and so on.

Being an actual 'threat', versus being perceived to be a threat

How do I know if they are a threat or not? I can't tell if they have a penis or not. If they look male. then I perceive them as a threat. I don't want a man saying 'I'm a transman, it's ok' - because how do I know if they are telling the truth?

Transmen should stick to male spaces.

So by that logic transwomen should stick to female spaces.

So by that logic transwomen should stick to female spaces

You can always tell a transwoman. Most do not pass. I don't want a transwoman in a female space as they might well have a penis and be a threat.

The onus is on the trans-individual to be honest about their self.

I.E. Not lie about being of the opposite sex, so that as a society we can trust a person entering a woman's space who has a beard and double mastectomy, knowing they are being honest about their trans status and were born a woman.

The problem is, transpeople do not want to be honest. They want to play pretend.

I understand id Danielle Muscavato were to enter a woman's space he could claim to be a transman. But he don't does he. He claims to be a woman. He is lying.

I am happy for any biological woman to be in a female space and Choc that was an excellent point you made.

You can always tell a transwoman

Tell a transwoman what? To get out of woman's space? Yeah because that's working out well.

You can't always tell if a man is trans btw. You need to be able to trust the person this is the problem.

I am happy for any biological woman to be in a female space

How do you know they are a biological woman?

Trans men also take a lot of testosterone. What effect does all this testosterone have on them?

(Sorry point about DM lying is that he's a man not a TM or woman)
So the onus is to be able to trust transpeople in sex segregated spaces.

So amisparticus should women have women only space, then all men, transwoman and transmen have a separate male space in your opinion?

Transmen seem to have just as high a crime rate as men

By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males. The same was true regarding violent crime

Testosterone must have an effect on transmen and their behaviour.

Testosterone must have an effect on transmen and their behaviour

More of a nature rather than nurture thing going down then ? Slippery slope that one.

Btw, I think it's essential that the same rule applies to everyone.
If a MtF is allowed in women spaces and this is where she is supposed to be, then FtM should be in males spaces, not women.

If a MtF isn't allowed in women spaces, then a FtM isn't allowed in a men spaces and should be in the women's.

This WILL always create an issue because, yes, how do you know if the man in fornt of you is a man or a woman? And yes it does open the system to abuse too.

Actually, I have always wondered about that one Spartacus.

I personally think that this idea that gender is entirely a construct from society a but too much. I am sure that hormones have a play too (just see the influence of hormones on women with PMT etc...). And it makes sense that you see an increase of aggresivity in FtM who are taking testosterone.
What would be interesting is to do the same study with MtF who have had the surgery (testicules removed at least plus hormones) and see the effect on their behaviour.
I suspect that some of the aggressive behaviours will have calmed down in these people.

"What would be interesting is to do the same study with MtF who have had the surgery......"
Criminality rates the same as I recall. There was a study that has been referred to several times on these boards.

As regards the 'how am I to know' stuff, this is just the same pseudo-argument repeated again and again (and with transmen rather than transwomen thrown in for a bit of variety). A rule/law/social convention based on internal, personal, subjective criteria (such as what a person thinks their own gender identity is), or your personal interpretation of what someone elses gender presentation means, is just not workable or 'safe'. You have to have a criterion based on something objective, and the only objective thing we have here is sex and biology, even if that may be obscured or difficult to determine on a quick glance, that doesn't invalidate the objective reality of sex/biology. The deterrent effect of a prohibition, after all, only works if the facts are determinable.

You have to have a criterion based on something objective, and the only objective thing we have here is sex and biology, even if that may be obscured or difficult to determine on a quick glance

So maybe we should assign everyone born one sex a colour (let's say pink) and the other sex a different colour (let's say blue)? That we would easily be able to tell them apart.