CPS change the proposed 'sex by deception re gender' legal guidance

[Chariothorses]

Following public objections, the CPS announced yesterday they have changed the proposed legal guidance on Rape and Serious Sexual Offences (RASSO), specifically the guidance on “Deception as to gender”, which can be found in Chapter 6 Consent, to 'Deception as to sex'. Rape and Sexual Offences - Chapter 6: Consent | The Crown Prosecution Service.

The outcome of the consultation is available here: Consultation on the Deception as to Gender section in the Rape and Serious Sexual Offences (RASSO) legal guidance | The Crown Prosecution Service.

summary of consultation responses here: Consultation on CPS guidance on Deception as to Gender - Summary of Responses | The Crown Prosecution Service.

There are ongoing problems re ideological capture by trans lobbyists and misogyny within the CPS so thanks to all who contributed to the changes they have reluctantly introduced.

Thanks OP for posting. It's good news although I got bogged down in the CPS definitions of gender and gender identity

"... gender is commonly used to refer to social or cultural differences or the way in which someone is perceived or experiences themselves (commonly known as “gender identity”). This guidance uses the term “sex” to refer to birth sex and “gender” to refer to gender identity."

Yet we are always being told by TRAs that gender and gender identity are not the same thing. And if gender identity can be something that is perceived by others of you, how can it be the internal gendered soul that can be mismatched with the body? My head hurts.

Thanks, OP. How interesting, there have been discussions on this the past week on here. I had wondered what happened to the missing consultation.

Well. Good luck to anyone trying to make head or tail of all that.

I've read through the Summary once, and all I've got so far is that they seem to have decided that 'sex' is a more useful term than 'gender' - hurrah, I thought.. but on reflection I can't make out what the difference between “deception as to sex”, and “deception as to gender”.

• Whether a deception as to (however that deception is operated) is sufficiently closely connected to the performance of the sexual act that the complainant cannot be said to have made a free choice to participate in it.

This seems to refer to hooking up with someone and only finding out when you're about to have sex with them that - OMG what's that😱- a situation which has been recounted by posters on this board.

At this point, your consent is vitiated. But wouldn't it be vitiated anyway, if you just decided 'I don't want this to continue', for any reason, not just that you've noticed that your companion is not the sex you thought they were?

But in the McNally case, the knowledge of deception was retrospective, so consent at the time was later vitiated.. my head hurts now too, Fenlandia!

If they just decided that 'sex' is the only relevant term, and that 'deception by sex' is what the law is concerned with, and removed the term 'gender', wouldn't it be easier? How are they going to prove 'deception by gender' as opposed to 'deception by sex'.

'My client was deceived into believing the defendant was butch in the sheets, whereas in fact she was only butch in the streets'

I looked up what 'vitiate' means, a new word in my vocabulary so at least that's a positive

Does this have implications for the Supreme Court case?

The jurisdiction of the document is England and Wales only and applies to specific criminal offences therein.

Edited to add: But who knows in this utterly batshit world we inhabit.

I think the deception of gender is also due to the Gemma Watts case
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/twisted-gemma-watts-jailed-eight-17545627

So it seems that it has to be shown by the prosecution that there was a deliberate deception.

The defence being that the defendant held a reasonable belief that it was consensual sex?

Not happy about the word deliberate at all on a first read of that.

social or cultural differences or the way in which someone is perceived or experiences themselves

So do any one of such differences constitute a "gender"?
I experience myself as shy or outspoken - that's what my gender is?

Or is it something to do with biological sex?

I am not a lawyer, but from my reading of those guidelines, I am not allowed to have sex if I just wear my normal everyday clothing when meeting someone and don't change my completely normal everyday behaviour around them, but I am allowed to have sex with them if I wear a fake moustache, cut my hair short and do a comically overblown impression of masculinity, or risk great harm and danger of discrimination by broadcasting the sensitive and intensely private medical treatment I had in my teens and early twenties.

That seems...strange.

You just have to make sure the person you have sex with is consenting in the full knowledge of what sex you are. No more, no less, not difficult.

It really isn't that difficult as you say Eresh.

If a person is about to engage in sex with someone, then the reality is they should have been upfront with them prior to getting to that point of sex that they are a male or female if the person has been under the impression the person is the opposite sex to what they materially are.

There is a great amount of dismissal about this particular fact. Surely it is a sign that the relationship is one that should be continued if it is based on honesty? And even a partner of a fleeting sexual interaction deserves the respect of knowing this so they can absolutely make an informed choice.

If knowing this limits the pool of potential sex partners, surely this was discussed with all those people who claim to live as the opposite sex to what they materially are. And that those people did so with that knowledge.

No, Butterfly all you have to do is be honest with the person you are about to enter into a sexual relationship with.

I know it is a difficult concept for you to understand that other people have human rights too and one of those is to give full consent to sex having the knowledge beforehand of the sex of the other person, not to be tricked or misled in any way as this would/could invalidate consent.

There are, quite rightly, no exemptions to this - no-one is nor should they be above the law, it applies to everyone.

No-one needs your medical history they just need to know the sex you are.

No-one needs your medical history they just need to know the sex you are.

Yeah, I thought the 'broadcasting my medical history' thing was a bit of a overreaction! Just tell them what sex you are. If they fancy you they won't care anyway will they? Fake 'tache optional.

So, let's see where we are at.

Someone is of the mind that when they have sex, it is just with any person's body that they find attractive and that knowing something as basic and abiding as a person's sex category is meaningless for some people. And that this is something that some people believe should be normalised ignoring the fact that to many people this comes across as just someone dehumanising a person for sex, ie. making someone a prop for a sex session.

But, apparently, that is supposed to be seen as progressive and that knowing someone's sex category is supposed to be regressive.

I'm not looking forward to passing that news onto my 46XY CAIS friends.

How very expected that you leverage someone else's difference of sex development to progress your own political agenda.

All I can manage is an almighty eyeroll 🙄 @Helleofabore

Not sure why you’d want to infer these alleged “friends” are all currently being dishonest with sexual partners. Unless, of course, it’s an attempt to both derail the thread and force team DSD with TQ+ when the former has told the latter in no uncertain terms not to do that.

ButterflyHatched · Today 17:42

I'm not looking forward to passing that news onto my 46XY CAIS friends.

Why? They're male and they know that perfectly well. Are they in the habit of duping heterosexual men into sexual intercourse with them, by pretending that they're female?

It's not just a serious sex offence, but if the duped man realises, it could go horribly badly.

Really, you are far from covering yourself in glory here.

You aren't looking forward to telling your friends not to get sex by deception? So you know they already are getting sex by deception? Crikey. That's quite a revelation.

It is indeed.

I remember a clip from someone who immigrated to the UK as a male person but the documentation was female and they married someone and still hadn’t told them they were male. It was a remarkable story and I think it was on a documentary.

That is quite the moral morass.

Pressed the wrong button. Given that 0.018% at most have a DSD and there are a number of different DSDs, your 46XY CAIS friends are barely more common than hen's teeth. But hey, let's leverage them as well. Just get your head around the fact that sex by deception is a crime. Full stop. End of. Deceiving people into having sex with you when they believe that you are not the sex that you actually are is a crime. Just don't do it.