Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

May I have your opinions on this please

22 replies

Charliethefeminist · 04/09/2018 16:30

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6130021/Transgender-sex-attacker-no-penis-tricked-two-women-sex-jailed-three-years.html

I think the person was absolutely wrong

There seem to be double standards however because this is the reverse of trans XY not revealing penis before intimacy, which Stonewall says is fine.

OP posts:
Charliethefeminist · 04/09/2018 16:33

Shouldnt Stonewall be complaining about this?

I think it's absolutely wrong to have sex with someone while lying about what sex you are. Those women did NOT consent.

OP posts:
WarmWishes · 04/09/2018 16:35

There was a notorious similar case in Liverpool, where a woman did the same. She wasn't transgender but would never allow her victim to see her and made her wear a blindfold. She pretended to be a man because her victim was straight. I think.

Basically, it's awful and yes women do bad things too. It's equally as bad as when men do it, but statistically, comparatively rare.

VickyEadie · 04/09/2018 16:35

There seem to be double standards however because this is the reverse of trans XY not revealing penis before intimacy, which Stonewall says is fine.

What Stonewall 'say' is not at issue here though, is it? The law is the law and Stonewall don't (yet) make the law. It would only be "double standards" if the law agreed with Stonewall.

carceralfeminist · 04/09/2018 16:39

www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/stw-vision-for-change-2017.pdf

Stonewalls "Sex by Deception" Aims:

Recent ‘sex by deception’ cases involving trans people and gender identity issues have revealed an alarming lack of clarity around trans people’s rights and obligations to disclose or not disclose their trans history to their sexual partners. These cases demonstrate that it is possible for non-disclosure of a person’s trans status to impair the validity of consent. This leaves a great many trans individuals at risk of prosecution for a criminal offence.
...........
Judicial clarity of ‘sex by deception’ cases to define the legal position on what constitutes sex by deception based on gender, and to ensure trans people’s privacy is protected.

WarmWishes · 04/09/2018 16:40

Sorry I didn't read your question properly. Ignore my reply and I see what you mean.

This is the case I was referring to. Quite bizarre.
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/29/gayle-newland-found-guilty-at-retrial-of-tricking-female-friend-into-sex

Maybe in future she could just self id as a man and in that scenario for herself off on the technicality, that stonewall have paved the way for.

carceralfeminist · 04/09/2018 16:41

Let me say this loudly:
Please have the conversation openly about genitals/orientation/etc with a prospective partner before having intercourse.

HotRocker · 04/09/2018 16:42

If you do not know who or what you’re having sex with then you can’t give informed consent. It’s quite simple really. There are no exceptions.

Mrbatmun · 04/09/2018 16:43

Isn't this what happened in that Hilary Swank film, 'Boys Don't Cry?'

BarrackerBarmer · 04/09/2018 16:49

It's horrific and appalling.

And yes, Stonewall are in favour of a trans person of either sex being able to have sex with a nonconsenting partner by hiding their actual sex, so they ought to be assisting the perpetrator in getting 'his' conviction overturned, as they would do if this 'man' were actually the sex 'he' claims to be, rather than the sex that we all know Stonewall does not care about.

Charliethefeminist · 04/09/2018 16:53

I'm sorry I should make clear : this is NOT a 'women do it too' thread.

The hypocrisy gets me. This is sex without consent and I think this is equivalent to rape, whether by a man or a woman.

What gets me is, as pp have said, because it's a WOMAN the usual TRA haven't bothered to kick up a fuss.

OP posts:
Charliethefeminist · 04/09/2018 16:54

Just proves the TRA know you don't change sex, know this is a woman and hence don't care a bit to defend her.

OP posts:
VickyEadie · 04/09/2018 16:55

What gets me is, as pp have said, because it's a WOMAN the usual TRA haven't bothered to kick up a fuss.

Oh, I see.

Turph · 04/09/2018 16:59

Stonewall should be opposed to this conviction. I'm not opposed to the conviction, and have to say I am baffled as to what the defendant was using that caused that amount of damage to his partners? Confused
Boys Don't Cry was an odd one, obviously Brandon Teena should not have been murdered, but likewise transmen should be honest with their partners about their status.
California has reduced the offence of knowingly having unprotected sex whilst HIV positive from a felony to a misdemeanor, this following link is supportive of this: link
The thinking is that HIV is not a big deal now and having to disclose status is stigmatising.

Turph · 04/09/2018 17:10

The point of my last post is that increasingly, anything that may affect consent after the initial affirmative is seen as a bit of a cock block.
I'm reminded of the Brock Turner case. The female may well have gone off with him for sex, but when she passed out and he continued assaulting her, getting debris inside her etc that consent was null and void, although his father saw it differently. Turner’s father had called on the judge to grant his son probation, saying that he had already paid “a steep price ... for 20 minutes of action "
link
Or the Jian Ghomeshi case (he was found not guilty) where a wokebro was accused of choking and punching women who went to bed with him willingly.
acquittal
wiki

Turph · 04/09/2018 17:20

And I guess the point I'm slowly coming to is that this conviction is noteworthy because it goes against the trend of yes means yes...to everything and you wont be asked again at any point until I'm finished. Ghomeshi was acquitted, Turner got six months (serving three in prison) when the maximum possible sentence was 14 years.
I wonder what's so different about this case? I'm not being facetious - is it because the defendant was born female, because the victims were female, because it was tried in Scotland (but where self-id is further ahead)? And why am I so surprised that justice was actually served? Confused

PedantWithAnAxeToGrind · 04/09/2018 17:30

The trans aspect is a bit of a red herring here, surely?

The actual issue has got to be that sex should only actually happen given informed, enthusiastic consent of all parties involved - and it's the 'informed' bit that's sorely lacking here.

Yes, granted, that has implications for trans people in that it basically implies they've got to disclose what their partner is to expect in terms of genitals. It's got implications for the rest of us, too:

If, hypothetically speaking, I just really get off on giving a bit of tooth, I genuinely believe that my male partner is entitled to know that this is what I have in mind before I sink my biters into his penis. And if he happens to not be into that I don't get to bite him. Somewhat understandably, most people (regardless of sex) are just not that into stuff that hurts them.

That's not particularly revolutionary, surely? It's part and parcel of people having a right to say what does and doesn't go where their own bodies are concerned. The most basic tenet of self-determination. It's not transphobic. It's not anti-biter or bigoted against folks that really enjoy anal or whatever. It's not saying that you generally don't get to penetrate women with vegetables or give chili pepper blow jobs or participate in group sex. It just means you're going to actually have to have to make the effort to find partners that are interested in the same thing and - preferably, I suppose - you happen to also find attractive.

Surely that's just called 'not being a sexual predator'?

Turph · 04/09/2018 17:58

The trans aspect is a bit of a red herring here, surely? The actual issue has got to be that sex should only actually happen given informed, enthusiastic consent of all parties involved
Yes, that's it

busyboysmum · 04/09/2018 22:16

Does anyone know whether this person has been sent to a male or a female prison?

Turph · 04/09/2018 22:18

Would be a female one I'm sure, didn't the fair play for women document state there were no transmen in the female estate?

busyboysmum · 04/09/2018 22:18

Therefore trans women should be sent to male prisons surely.

OlennasWimple · 04/09/2018 22:32

I'd love to be wrong, but I think that the defendant was sentenced more harshly because she is female (and foreign).

I feel desperately sorry for the poor victim who went to bed with them ten times after being left bleeding and in pain the first time, and she has got support to develop her self-esteem. Well done to both women who were brave enough to go to the police over this

keefthebeef · 04/09/2018 22:44

"Sheriff Stirling told Delacruz he had caused 'physical and psychological harm' to both women by repeatedly sexually assaulting them with 'a flesh and blood penis' over the length of their relationships."

WTF does 'flesh and blood penis' mean in this context? It was a prosthetic and still rape but not a flesh and bloody penis.

I think that this proves that if a straight woman does not have to accept a fake penis when she consents believing it to be real, then lesbians do not have to accept any penis EVER!

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread