Woman jailed after posing as man and duping partner into sex

[TERFisTHEnewTREND]

Guardian link: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/20/woman-jailed-posing-as-man-cambridge-crown-court

A woman has been sentenced to 10 and a half years in jail for sexual assault after pretending to be a man to dupe a woman into sex using a blindfold, a sex toy and a “wholly fake persona"

He [the judge] added: “To engage with others in those fantasy lives is also not inherently wrong, not criminal, unless or until you start to use that fantasy life to deceive another person in the real world. Your deception, skilfully carried out and maliciously maintained, was acted out in the real world with appalling consequences.”

But legally you'd have to provide a accepted definition of what a man and woman are. You can't argue a man is a male in some situations and anyone with manly feels in another. TRAs could well argue that she did have sex with a man (I disagree, obviously, but that's where we are going).

Weird isn't it? Stories like this always remind me of one of those Shakespeare plays, French farces or classical operas where people dress up as someone from the opposite sex and get up to all sorts right up next to each other without anyone having a clue. Even stranger when you're doing the deed together.

It's right that it should be illegal - there seems to be a precedent that making someone commit a sexual act they haven't consented to by pretending it's one they have consented to (eg, taking off a condom when the partner thinks you're still wearing one) counts as sex without consent, and this woman didn't consent to having sex with a strap-on clad woman.

The sentence seems wildy disproportionate though.

Thats not it at all though.

Yes we all know the technical definition of rape is "The Sexual Offences Act 2003 says that someone commits rape if all of the following happens: They intentionally penetrate the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with their penis. The other person does not consent to the penetration. They do not reasonably believe that the other person consents."

penetration with penis

Person in question was penetrated by what she believed was a penis, so while it is not the same it is comparable

Other reports in Yahoo news, and Cambridge News.

@ImFloatingInAMostPeculiarWay Yes, I understand that, that wasn't the point I was making :)

My point was, if you believe consent is dependent on the other person being a "man" (not "male", or "penis-haver" or whatever) or being a "woman" (not "female", or "menstruator" or whatever) then you will need to define those words and explain what it means to be one.

Surely being penetrated by a pretend-penis is less 'serious' than a real penis since the real penis also comes with the risk of pregnancy and STDs?

(both are abhorrent, of course, but I do think a penis is worse (unless the object used is something that would cause significant damage) so I think rape should, if anything, be punished more severely, not less.

So is rape less serious if the man uses a condom?

I don't think that way of constructing consent is really viable if you want to maintain a clear definition of rape.

There are all kinds of things someone could lie about in order to make them seem like an attractive sexual partner. Who else they have had sex with, marital status, how much money they have, etc.

The tendency to want to make these very general, flat definitions around sexual crimes isn't helpful, I don't think.

I would compare to how we think about theft. There is a difference between mugging someone, extortion, burglary, mugging, financial abuse, for example. All can be very serious, but we do differentiate between someone who embezzles money from an employer, and someone who threatens someone with a weapon to mug them, maybe even using direct violence. Even when the amount of money is larger in the former instance.

There is even stuff we recognize as immoral but not necessarily a crime, like hard sells to people who are a little vulnerable, or some kinds of telemarketing.

But UK law already recognises deception by men - if sufficiently severe - as a form of rape. Consent is recognised as conditional on not being deceived as to the conditions under which you are consenting. Deception of sufficient severity vitiates consent.

Yes, I think that's reasonable potentially. But I don't necessarily think it's an easy line to draw.

Consent isn't that simple, as much as people would like it to be.

I'm not sure anyone is arguing that consent is simple. They are arguing that a woman committing sexual assault by penetration, using deception, is analogous to a man committing rape by penetration, using deception.

Why aren’t Stonewall all over this? This is a trans man being treated by the court as if he is not a man. If he says he’s a man he’s a man. There’s no crime here. Stonewall: come on, get angry!

LOL - they must have somehow missed this story, in the Christmas rush...

I am puzzled by the responses in this thread - it is wrong to deceive others. I definitely would classify this as rape.

It is the same in principle. The UK is very much an outlier in defining rape as with a real penis by a male. In most countries in the western world, Europe, US, etc. women can also be prosecuted for rape. The uk has a very unusual narrow legal definition.

Rape and sexual assault by penetration carry the same sentence. So it's really down to how the victim wishes to describe what happened to herself. In many ways it was the manner of deception that makes it worthy of the sentence.

The sentence for both is life imprisonment so both are taken equally seriously.

There have been several of these cases - women posing as men, convicted for 'sex by deception'.

Yes I did post upthread where these cases have been discussed on FWR, which include how the trans lobby responded to the consultation on this law..

In other countries (usually men) have been prosecuted and convicted on sex by deception, eg a woman agreeing to sex on the understanding they were to be married, but in fact the man was already married, at least one based on the man lying about his ethnic identity, so have also understood the law to be about as it says "deception". ie if consnsual sex was only arrived at based on lies, then it isn't consensual. https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4888757-court-extends-custody-of-rabbi-suspected-of-rape-by-deception-of-32-women

Sorry hit post too soon.

So if the sex is no longer consensual isn't it either rape or sexual assualt?

I think UK law is still that rape is about and can only be committed by biological males as it is about the penis.

Rape
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape

Why are the CPS keen on prosecuting women for these sex by deception cases, but not men for raping women?

Is it because they think they're more likely to get a conviction? And why is that?

I suspect that many men deceived into sex would not want to go public about it.

And the main failure to prosecute rape is because the CPS doesn't want to have a low conviction rate, and even when the police have done a good job, and the case has been presented well, it is just as likely a jury wont convict. Even juries with women on them are more likely to be concerned about the impact on the man's reputation.

This is why Scotland is proposing holding rape trails without juries, and instead just allow a Judge to decide.

Great point!
It's a really interesting precedent to set.

Would have been interesting to see how the case would have unfolded if the defendant had insisted they were a man (because identified as one).

Obviously goes without saying unacceptable behaviour.

how the hell did the victim not realise? Blade does not have passing privilege. They have a female face.

Depending on the nature of the alleged cancer, I don't find it completely out of court that the victim was deceived about the perpetrator's sex (e.g., impact of steroids, standard chemo, immunotherapy, maybe a claim of androgen suppression etc.). (I've only seen the photo in the Guardian, I've no idea of overall body habitus/size.)

The consequences on the victim could be even worse. Not that I think a man using a condom would make it less traumatic for the victim at the time obviously, but the consequences afterwards could be significant, which I think needs to be acknowledged.

You make a very good point.

While you'd think a woman would notice if she was being penetrated by a strap on rather than a penis.
Its probably more difficult for a man to be dubbed in the same way. A trans-woman, doesn't really have anywhere for the penis to go and I'd doubt you can get a realistic strap on fanny!

@Iamtheelephantintheroom
These cases are bizarre, how does the victim have no clue? The Newland case js beyond odd; they spent over 100 hrs together with the victim blindfolded??