Sex by deception

[RepeatAfterUs]

Following on from an earlier thread I this point below is in LGBT Labour's manifesto (thanks bd67th who linked)

Point 14: Review the law relating to legal issues of consent to rape and sexual offences to 'sex by deception' in order to remove potential discrimination and criminalisation of trans/gender variant people....

Now I might have heatstroke and I'm not 100% sure what that's saying...

However-Sec 74 Sexual Offences Act talks about consent and consent is:
Agreeing by choice
Freedom to choose (no duress or threats)
To have made a reasoned, informed decision
ALL ELEMENTS MUST BE PRESENT

I think the manifesto is taking issue with the last point-"informed". And consent applies to all sexual activity not just rape. So for instance a lesbian has a sexual encounter with a TW who doesn't disclose that they are a TW so the lesbian thinks it's another woman. Did the lesbian consent to sexual activity with a male? No. So the sexual activity would be an assault on the lesbian.

I think they want to over turn this protection which is pretty sick IMO

d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/lgbtlabour/pages/223/attachments/original/1446055384/Securing_Trans_Equality_(October_2015).pdf?1446055384

Is that the report where the sex of abuser and victim are not recorded?

Yes print off a hand out.

This gets more and more bizarre.
It's almost as if the group behind the scenes driving this forwards have a vested interest in forcing women to perform femininity for fear of being called men, and for them to have fewer one night stands.

It may not be the intended effect. But how marvelous that this is exactly how every patriarchal society behaves.

If I self identify as a male tomorrow am I a virgin?

If I ever find myself single again I think I'm going to have to make "do you believe in gender?" one of my dealbreakers...

That seems an entirely reasonable suggestion to me snappity.

Ooh, nice. So if a lesbian doesn't explicitly ask if the other woman has a penis, it's her fault.

And so on and so forth.

They could call it The Angel Clare offence. And of course as with the odious Angel Clare it would not apply to male non- virgins.

This.

I'm single again (at least I would be if "wants2bex" would fuck off).

I think I might become a lesbian; I'm done with men, and now that same-sex attraction isn't a requisite for being lesbian I rather fancy a bit of companionship and intelligent conversation

Being serious for a moment, the reality is that the biological sex of a potential sexual partner is important to almost everyone in a way that the various other things proposed are not on nearly such a universal level, which is why deceiving partners about your sex is and will most likely continue to be potentially criminalised. If almost everyone agreed that it mattered whether or not their potential partner had ever flown Concorde then perhaps that would be incorporated into law, but they don't, so it isn't.

They could call it The Angel Clare offence. And of course as with the odious Angel Clare it would not apply to male non- virgins.

I like this suggestion! Never have I detest a fictional character as much.

I think the reasonable suggestion covered all universal eventualities.

Biological sex matters to me because I'm heterosexual and my sexual preference is to have sex with a natal adult male who has a fully functioning penis.

Does that make me transphobic? Probably. Sigh.

duck why bother identifying as male? Just cut to the chase and identify as a virgin. No one can reasonably challenge you (that would be literal violence). After all, biology, and thus the presence or absence of a hymen has no bearing on your status.

The point Snappity was making is that all these things don't have to be disclosed. Also an undercover policeman does not have to disclose his history even if he is actively deceiving you.

But in some cases birth gender does need to be disclosed - and this applies before any sexual activity - e.g. if a man wishes to kiss a trans women in a bar, the transwomen might need to have a conversation with him about her history.

Whether all trans people have to disclose their birth gender is not clear in law at the moment. All the court cases of which I am aware, and there have been a lot, have concerned transmen. So from a GC point of view, people born female have been disproportionately impacted.

It is great that the Labour party are proposing to remove the requirement on trans people to disclose their history before sexual activity - I hope that other parties adopt this policy.

I’ve never quite understood this fascination with virgins. There is quite the pressure to ensure the experience is spot on, and something they will look back on fondly. That they aren’t anxious and pressured in any way.

I can see why one might want to avoid people that have dozens of notches on their bedposts, but I think the reasons for doing so apply equally to both men and women.

I think Lass is spot on, most of these issues are avoided if you take the time to really get to know someone. True people can lie and deceive even then, but you are at less risk if you are willing to vet your prospects a bit more.

I think I might become a lesbian; I'm done with men, and now that same-sex attraction isn't a requisite for being lesbian I rather fancy a bit of companionship and intelligent conversation

Maryzsnewaccount the option over being a political lesbian has been available to you since the late 1960s. Enjoy

No one has explained why an undercover police officer has to form a relationship with a woman and have sex with her.

I find it really odd that anyone would argue that failing to disclose whether or not you used to have different genitals or even that your genitals are going to come as a bit of a surprise before you leap into bed with someone is ok. I find it especially surprising given that there has been a fair amount of traction given recently to the idea that trans women have been actively encouraged to lie to prospective sexual partners and, should those partners object, to commit violent acts against them on the basis that refusing consent based on genitals is literal violence. It is not anti trans for anyone to decide that they don't want to have sex with someone for any reason at all, even when consent is withdrawn due to the transwoman's seven inch surprise.

So he can blend in with groups like animal rights

Upstart because women are merely vessels to be used to get to the people you want to interfere with? To make the job more fun? I doubt we'll ever find out why really, but I'd bet my last dollar the basis is misogyny.

->Upstart

I knew one he was a dick

Possibly a lone voice here but from a legal perspective I think I agree the law needs reviewing.

There have been 7 publicised cases of 'sex by deception' in the last decade, all of them biological women who pretended to be men in order to have sex with heterosexual female partners. I think one or two identified themselves (loosely) as trans men. All but one pleaded guilty.

Legally, it would be a lot harder for a trans woman with a penis to do this: if someone saw that they had male genitalia and said 'no I've changed my mind' and sex went ahead anyway then that is straightforward rape, no 'sex by deception' needed.

I don't see how, in law, there is a good way of deciding what is a dealbreaker sufficient to vitiate consent and what is not. The three wealthy male judges in McNally for reasons I couldn't possibly guess at said that

"In reality, some deceptions (such as, for example, in relation to wealth) will obviously not be sufficient to vitiate consent."

But why is that obvious?

So if I say to someone "you say on Tinder that you're earning a six figure salary and I'm only interested in sex with people who are earning that" I might be shallow, but if they turn out to be on benefits, is my consent not vitiated?

If someone holds himself out on Tinder as being single and he turns out to be married and cheating, should that vitiate consent? Because that takes us into disturbing adultery laws.

If not having transitioned is a dealbreaker I think that should be made clear prior to sex. NB - I am NOT talking about rape here but about the specific sex by deception issue whereby sex is entered into with apparent consent, but the consent is vitiated by later discovery of a feature about the person.

I used to work with someone who would get tearful and phone the police about her ex-fiance, because she would never have slept with him if he hadn't promised to marry her, and ultimately he'd never intended to do so. Should he be a) considered a cad of the highest order and disdained, or b) prosecuted under criminal law?

The present state of the law assumes that lesbian sex is so abhorrent that any woman would need to know if her partner weren't a man (one judge in sentencing remarks I now can't find regarded it as a mitigating feature that the defendant was gender questioning rather than seeking lesbian pleasure), but that adultery or lying about STIs are so run-of-the-mill that it's a caveat shaggor situation. It rather strikes me that when we apply 'common sense' we apply common prejudice and that the current status quo only benefits men.

But in some cases birth gender does need to be disclosed

The word is SEX