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.

If a brain from a female body was transplanted into a male body you would literally have a brain from a female body (presumably with the consciousness also transplanted) in a male body. How does this in any way relate to trans women who have their own male brain in their own male body.

If this impossible situation happened to me there is no way I would attempt to enter female spaces because I would be acutely aware of how uncomfortable it would make the women in those spaces. I’m also fairly certain I would not attempt to turn my new male body into a facsimile of a female body.

And of course, this type of whataboutery is just another foray to the boundaries. It is just another type of wheedling.

It is a discovery foray to work out just where the acceptable line is to use that in the future.

“Whatabout if I did this, would I be a woman? Whatabout if I did this other thing, would I be a woman? Whatabout if I did this impossible thing, would I be a woman? Whatabout if I use this pseudoscientific theory? Whatabout if I leverage in this group of people that I don’t belong to? I know I can convince you that I am a woman too, despite being a male person.”

Wheedle, wheedle, wheedle.

The answer is always ‘no male can ever be a female person no matter what extreme body modification that male person has done’.

Such a bizarre question to ask. Does BH assume we would all attempt to disguise our new male bodies squeezing ourselves into poorly fitted clothing designed for women and force our way into women’s spaces? Why would we do that when we know how uncomfortable it would make the women using those spaces.

I expect if you found yourself victim of a forced brain transplant or opting to have one, you'd have much bigger issues to deal with than identity issues.

I would be really interested to read studies about the impact war, famine, natural disasters etc have on gender distress. I imagine survival instinct would supersede it- but maybe not.

Because signal, there is a ‘male’ brain and a ‘female’ brain and of course, a ‘female’ brain goes to the female toilet and acts all ‘female’ like.

The happy outcome of the last chunk of this discussion (for me) has been realising it's at least ten years since I watched Star Trek TOS, and I plan to revisit it all, Turnabout Intruder - the Janice Lester shaped body and the Jim Kirk shaped body shouting 'I am the Captain' at each other - In Search of Spock's Brain - where it has to be put back where it should be after being removed by women wearing excellent examples of William Ware Theiss's costumes (designed on what Wikipedia describes as what came to be called the "Theiss Titillation Theory": "The sexiness of an outfit is directly proportional to the perceived possibility that a vital piece of it might fall off." ) and all.

So thanks for that. Nothing to do with thread topic, but something to look forward to in the new year.

But I won't be solemnly discussing the viability of daft 1960s Sci Fi storylines.

This debate isn't even about men thinking they're women, the examples given were of females pretending to be male and using dildos to perform penetrative sex. Of course there are issues around males pretending to be female to have sex with men.

But not sure why we are getting wrapped up about definitions of being a woman (if a man's brain is transplanted and other science fiction nonsense), it is about either sex pretending to be the opposite and engaging in sexual activity under false pretences.

If a trans woman has sex with a man without disclosing trans status, do you think there's going to be a conversation about theoretical brain transplants that will calm the angry man down?

The reality show There's Something About Miriam went down this route and it didn't end well for anyone.

I know everyone is sick to death of the brain transplant hypothetical, but I'm going to answer this.

In the unlikely event that I wake up tomorrow with my mind (formed in an XX brain housed for many years in an XX body) magically transplanted into a normal XY body and retaining its character and memories, here is what I would do and not do:

I would not alter my ID from M to F, because its purpose - of enabling others to identify me by looking at me - would be undermined.

I would not throw a hissy fit if people debated publicly whether I was 'really' a man or a woman - it's an interesting question, but maybe has no definitive answer. So what?

I would not alter my body with drugs and surgery, because I have a healthy body already and don't want to damage it.

I would not use women's single-sex spaces, shortlists etc, because I have a male body, with the privilege that goes with it, and I would want to avoid harming or frightening women.

I would be open about my 'condition' with potential sexual partners, in case it would affect how they feel.

Butterfly, are your answers the opposite of mine? If so, why?

Not to mention we can use the urinal and avoid the queue....

There have been a lot of posts for me to catch up on!

It all appears to revolve around one person's desire to lie to people despite the law.

Why can't you just be honest Butters?

The only ‘conversations’ I have ever had or seen about the ludicrous abstract kind of stuff that this poster is persisting with, is by men with autistic traits. It’s not a conversation with two-way dialogue that they listened to - more a fantastical lecture where they got increasingly excited feeding off their own voice. It reminds me a bit like Elon Musk and his powered sub he wanted to experiment with in Thailand when everyone else was concentrating on reality - and the time limited emergency of getting people out.

Elon also has grand ideas of experimenting with brains and AI. It’s the ultimate power and control fantasy.

Meanwhile, in reality…..

The Spock's brain one is just called Spock's Brain, I was getting confused with the movie title. In SB the women and the men dress like this, respectively. Such a good thing that no-one would apply such regressive stereotypes now, 60 years on.

It seems very much like an autistic way of thinking, it's very black and white, and being very focused on definitions and language and obsessed with finding one particular loophole (that requires science fiction).

It's the 3 Ls; Labels, language and loopholes.

It's very simple, not disclosing trans status before sex is deceptive sex.

Yes, lies are lies, and in personal relationships, not just sexual ones, truth matters.

I think this law has to be aimed mostly at female to male people because, after my curiosity got the best of me, I spiralled down a subreddit called ‘do I pass?’

I was really actually quite shocked to see that there were hundreds of pictures of mtf trans people asking if they ‘passed’ as women.

Honestly, not ONE of them did and I don’t say that from the perspective of prejudice as I am not transphobic.

I was just astounded that all the comments were ‘yeah you look great you definitely pass’ and they definitely definitely looked nowhere close.

What was more disturbing, was the only ones that I thought looked remotely female, were the ones they called androgynous and advised to either ‘get a fringe, longer hair, bigger boobs, more makeup, hrt etc.’

It was honestly like their whole perception of what makes someone look female was skewed and they were all just confirming each others warped perception. Sorry to change the subject. Just a very strange observation.

Nobody else 'devised' this. I'm not working from some kind of external playbook of canned talking points. I've been considering these kinds of scenarios since I was about 10 years old because I've had to find ways to understand what I was experiencing and articulate what I needed.

I'm sorry you find it difficult to say the obvious and clear answer. You are likely, as technology improves, to find the next few decades quite distressing if you are having difficulty with an incredibly simple thought experiment like this one.

Your hostility to a simple and earnest request to work through this example explains why you find the idea of early intervention blockade so deeply sacrilegious - it tests the definitions of 'male' and 'female' and forces us to consider people as more than a singular, all-encompassing and static point of origin.

I think I understand you a little better now. Various comments over the years have hinted at this, but I think this confirms it. You seem to be assuming that I'm reading off a script; that I'm just repeating a 'brief' that I got elsewhere, told to me by clinicians who have drunk the Gender Ideology activism kool-aid.

This could not be further from the truth.

We need to consider these kinds of thought experiments, even if you find them tedious and don't like the conclusions they inspire, because like it or not, we are going to have to break out of this 'on rails' mindset of sex as a singular, all-consuming definition tethered solely to a single chromosomal point of origin. Development does not work that way.

Clinical trials of GnRH agonist treatment may well be allowed to actually happen. More people with difficult biology like me are going to exist, and some of them are never going to have been exposed to even a drop of endogenous sex hormones to inform their development.

People in this situation already exist today. Some of them, we don't define as 'transgender' at all.

We must learn to deal with this facet of reality in a compassionate fashion. We cannot refuse to answer the question.

These people exist. More will exist in future. Those definitions are not going to become more concise over time and even if you ban treatments here, we will still have to deal with visitors from overseas who interact with our justice system.

I understand that it's hard and you don't like some of the answers. I get it. I don't like some of the answers either. We have to engage with them, though, as a society.

Have a look at reality. The news coming out of France as you type.

Forced teaming, pompous lecturing, scolding, arrogance, absurd exhortations to obey, and unpleasant insinuations. That's sure to win the hearts and minds of everyone.

@ButterflyHatched

Law is based on the reality of today, not hypothetical questions based on science fiction.

Reality =/= Fiction.

Do you think discussions around brain transplants are going to cut it in a court of law over a MtF not disclosing their trans status before sex? Do you think an angry man who has just realised that the woman he had sex with is actually male is going to be calmed down over a discussion of brain transplants?

Why are you going to such lengths to justify sex by deception?

Is it also not counterproductive to the safety of trans people for them to conceal this information and risk the potential violence of someone who feels as though they’ve been tricked?

Why would a trans person want to have sex with someone who wasn’t accepting of their identity?

If I could have sex with someone without them knowing I was black I definitely wouldn’t want to. Why would I?

All good questions Bex, all asked before at various points and all remaining unanswered!

That is a concern for a lot of male homosexual transsexuals who are concerned about stronger male partners and the threat of violence or even murder.

For a MtF transsexual not to be worried about lying to a sexual partner, seems to say to me that they are confident enough to be physically stronger than their partner (so either female partners or that they have retained their typically male traits such as strength and feel confident in fighting).

"I'm sorry you find it difficult to say the obvious and clear answer."

There is no 'obvious and clear answer', except to maybe your '10 year old self'.

"You are likely, as technology improves, to find the next few decades quite distressing if you are having difficulty with an incredibly simple thought experiment like this one."

I don't believe I will find the next few decades distressing, however, it seems that you will continue to find the next few decades distressing because you seem to honestly believe that some body parts are plug and play and that AI will miraculously enable this.

I mean, I have been watching nearly every sci fi fantasy series and movie out there and read many of the books. And I can safely say that I will not find the next few decades distressing in the way you state. I mean, I have been waiting for a hoverboard for decades!

"Your hostility to a simple and earnest request to work through this example explains why you find the idea of early intervention blockade so deeply sacrilegious - it tests the definitions of 'male' and 'female' and forces us to consider people as more than a singular, all-encompassing and static point of origin."

And again with the hyperbole and the catastrophising.

No. I am not hostile. I HAVE worked through your 'simple and earnest request' and have been blunt in telling you that it is just as flawed and false as your 'Dudley - Berwick' analogy and you “ a constellation of statistically linked attributes - including genotype - that together match a pattern we identify as sex.” definition. Both of which you thought were useful and accurate.

"it tests the definitions of 'male' and 'female' and forces us to consider people as more than a singular, all-encompassing and static point of origin."

Just because you want it to be so, doesn't make it so.

Your suggestions don't force anything because they are not relevant and there are quite a few excellent posts on this thread as to why that is. But I will continue to say to you that 'your' definition of a female person requires to you use falsity to support your definition. Your definitions are not coherent and they fail at the first analysis.

Just because you want those definitions to be true, doesn't mean they are or will ever be.

"I think I understand you a little better now. Various comments over the years have hinted at this, but I think this confirms it. You seem to be assuming that I'm reading off a script; that I'm just repeating a 'brief' that I got elsewhere, told to me by clinicians who have drunk the Gender Ideology activism kool-aid."

And if you have finally understood this, can you then work out the next step? I wonder.

"We need to consider these kinds of thought experiments, even if you find them tedious and don't like the conclusions they inspire, because like it or not, we are going to have to break out of this 'on rails' mindset of sex as a singular, all-consuming definition tethered solely to a single chromosomal point of origin. Development does not work that way."

No. We don't need to consider these kind of thought experiments. Because they are irrelevant to the material reality - people cannot change sex, sex without a person disclosing their sex is engaging in non-consensual sex, and female people need single sex spaces away from all males above the age of 8 regardless of that male person's extreme body modifications.

"I understand that it's hard and you don't like some of the answers. I get it. I don't like some of the answers either. We have to engage with them, though, as a society."

Yeah? Nah! No thanks. You don't 'get it' and it is not because 'I don't like some of the answers either'. "We have to engage with them, though, as a society." Not in the way you demand though.

TL/DR

That whole quote above was a wheedling 'cope' statement. I think the cope part is just projection by now.

It is really like a beacon, isn't it?

All because people reject an identity is anything but a philosophical belief. And no person has to comply with another's philosophical belief.

However, the desperate attempts to convince people to comply is always fascinating.