Guardian Article regarding Gayle Newland

[YetAnotherSpartacus]

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/15/gayle-newland-retrial

This raises so many hot topics - rape / sexual assault (by women), trans, homophobia, single-sex schools, that I could not resist posting and asking for comments!

I tend to agree with the jury. The person was a compulsive liar, had form, was inconsistent with their statement and they're own testimony was fairly implicating.

'Person ?, their ?, they're ? Let me guess, this a woman you are writing about - otherwise you might have written this...The man was a compulsive liar, had form, was inconsistent with his statement and his own testimony was fairly implicating

And I vehemently disagree with the transgender lobby saying that disclosing your sex should not be a legal requirement.

well, well

I feel desperately sorry for the victim - how low must her self-confidence have been to have accepted a sexual relationship where she was always blind-folded and hands tied back and basically rammed with a large dildo?

I'm perplexed why the perpetrator didn't understand why the sentence included being placed on the sex offenders register. I hope she gets a proper psych evaluation in prison and the support that she needs

Surely homophobia is an element, if the accused had been able to identify as a lesbian there would have been no need to masquerade as male

And what is preventing a middle class , university educated woman in the UK identifying as a lesbian?

Not sure what you are going on about cad. I have consistently been fairly gender neutral talking about they, the person, etc, in terms of both the victim and perpetrator.

It wasn't deliberate. Perhaps I showed bias?

And I vehemently disagree with the transgender lobby saying that disclosing your sex should not be a legal requirement.

"well, well"

Perhaps you think it is okay to deceive somebody about your sex in order to get them into bed?

Had it been a man - you'd have been naming 'male violence'.

Perhaps you think it is okay to deceive somebody about your sex in order to get them into bed?

No, it was a reference to you not disclosing the sex of the person in the first paragraph.

*Had it been a man - you'd have been naming 'male violence'.

Let's say you're right. And?

Your second point isn't worth much of a response, other than there is a difference between disguising your sex in order to trick someone into having sex, and talking about someone in neutral terms in a court case.

Not sure what you are going on about cad. I have consistently been fairly gender neutral talking about they, the person, etc, in terms of both the victim and perpetrator

Why a need to be gender neutral? There is no suggestion that either are not women or are trans. Newland was pretending to be a man but there is no suggestion she is trans.

The attempted hijacking of the case by the trans activist lobby (no-one should have to have their human right to sex violated by having to disclose their actual genital setup before the event) does lead me to ponder once more something that's been raised on these boards before: what do you have to feel about sex and about the person you're having sex with in order to think their views on the matter are irrelevant?

Even supposing we conceded the (ridiculous) Riley Dennis type argument that it is transphobic to prefer one type of genitals over another, rather than the person's "gender presentation", what would have to be going on inside your mind to have sex with someone you believed to be deeply prejudiced against you, prejudice at a level akin in your own mind to the worst forms of racism? Why would you want to have sex with such a person? Why wouldn't you just think "bullet dodged"?

I can only presume that to think you ought to be allowed to have sex with someone who would be disgusted by your genitals were you to disclose what they actually were, there would have to be a mixture of (a) self-loathing; (b) a belief that in fact they weren't actually even human, simply an orifice to be penetrated, thus their belief set didn't matter at all; (c) and obviously a mindset as rapey as fuck.

Because any normal person, confronted with someone who didn't like having sex with "people like your sort" (whether that was sheer prejudice or simply sexual orientation) would just say "your loss, I'm going to go and find someone who is desperately keen to have sex with me, because that's what sex ought to be like."

And? there are none so blind as those who will not see their own prejudice.

lass

Me speaking of the people
in this trial wasn't a conscious or deliberate attempt to be gender neutral. If I can, I'd rather facts spoke for themselves.

cad

Male violence is epidemic and rife. Female violence isn't. That's just facts. Male violence, for me, is an issue. Female violence just isn't. I have no problem condemning females who are violent, as I stated, when I condemned the perpetrator of this crime.

Also, to be absolutely candid, I couldn't be bothered to remember all the names. So 'victim' and 'perpetrator' was just easier.

I did, mentally, double check that I was indeed satisfied that there was indeed a victim and a perpetrator.

M0stlyBowlingHedgehog

I know. Personally I can't imagine a more awkward or degrading circumstance than coercing someone to have sex with you who doesn't want to.

But one quick glance at the relationship and sex boards on here will tell you that there are many men who have absolutely no problem with that.

Finding out that the person you are about to sleep with has a funny birthmark on their upper thigh, or a hairy back, or a third nipple is one thing.

No one should have a "seven inch surprise" or similar when they get into the bedroom - it's just gaslighting.

Having said that, I do feel sorry for transwomen, whether they are early transitioners like Jazz Jennings or later transitioners like Kelly Maloney, who find that their pool of potential partners has shrunk exponentially. I don't know the ins and outs of gender reassignment counselling, but I do wonder whether anyone rebuffs the TRA line that it doesn't matter what's in your pants, because for the vast vast majority of people it really does

but I do wonder whether anyone rebuffs the TRA line that it doesn't matter what's in your pants, because for the vast vast majority of people it really does

Well precisely. I don't think it's a surprise to anyone, especially women. If there really was a whole pool of people queueing up to date transwoman, they so wouldn't be bothered in campaigning to get people to sleep with them if they don't want to.

It's very telling that on the trans dating websites, all the transwomen write 'no trans'.

One really shouldn't have to pick this apart. It's blindingly obvious.

I watched a discussion between Theryn Meyer and Professor Jordan Peterson (the Canadian academic who was getting in to trouble over pronoun use and was one of the opponents of the C16 Bill.

Peterson actually put that point to Meyer - that there isn't a huge dating pool for trans women. Meyer agreed , took no umbrage at it and acknowledged it is her problem, not anyone else's.

she got 6 years- also convicted of fraud

newtlover

Bloody hell.

Newland admitted creating 10 fake identities to raise fraudulent payments when she worked for an online marketing agency in 2015, when she was awaiting her first trial for sexual offences.

He offered little mitigation for the fraud charge but said Newland had since been diagnosed with a range of mental disorders that were “linked to the commission” of her sexual offences.

A psychiatrist had since diagnosed her with gender dysphoria, a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there is a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity.

She had also been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, a form of autism, as well as eating disorders, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder and depression.

Autism, some kind of psycho sexual disorder, other mental health issues, eating disorder, gender dysphoria.

It's almost textbook trans.

No wonder transactivists were hi-jacking it to campaign to have non-disclosure of one's sex made legal.

I can't help feeling sorry for her though. She sounds messed up.

I'm curious to know if she ever self-identified as trans? I don't recall reading anywhere that she did.

Buggers off to read some Ivan Illich.

YetAnotherSpartacus

I don't think she did. I haven't read any mention of it.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if she does now though.

Datun

'Some kind of psycho sexual [sic] disorder'.

Are you referring to her gender dysphoria?

No. The "range of mental disorders that were “linked to the commission” of her sexual offences."

I wouldn't be at all surprised if she does now though

Very probably. I wonder how many 'trans' people are in similar circumstances.

Datun.

You've misunderstood (deliberately?) the sentence you quoted.

hasitcometothis33

Have I? Apologies if so.

In addition to that sentence, he said she had a range of psychological issues, and mental problems connected to her sexuality and sex.

I thought psychosexual disorders are defined as a disorder of the mind, rather than the body (like ED, for instance).

Happy to be corrected though.

How do you read it?