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.

This is certainly revealing.

So 46XY CAIS women have to pretend to be men in order to be allowed to have sex as well? Gosh. What a sensible green and pleasant land.

“in order to be allowed to have sex”

The language is telling, it really is.

If being up front and honest about your (general you) body means the person you are about to have sex with would not consent, then that act of ‘sex’ is not yours to just take. Not one person on this planet owes you sex or should be used as a ‘prop’ for sex. There really seems to be entitlement highlighted in all these types of posts.

'Allowed to have sex'

What a very odd framing.

It's not 'allowing'. You don't get a certificate that allows you to have sex with whomever you choose, as if the other party/parties were empty vessels with no agency.

The key word is 'consent'. Which comes from a potential partner. Which requires full and informed consent, which requires honesty.

I read that phrasing and it comes across like a petulant child/adult complaining that they can’t do something they demand to be able to do but have been thwarted. It has entitlement seeping from every letter. I wonder if I have ever heard a female person in real life discuss sex in that way? I know some who dehumanise it like that but most I know don’t.

And to leverage another group’s medical condition adds to the impression.

So… Butters & friends can trust a person enough to get naked with them in private, but don’t trust or respect that person enough to be honest with them about something very fundamental, because then the person might not want to have sex with them?

And Butters views Butterself as the victim here?

Butters has not picked 46XY CAIS for no reason.

It is definitely an attempt at a 'gotcha'.

Yes. This has been explored across three threads without perception changing. Apparently healthy sex is about having sex with whoever is attractive to you regardless of their sex, only presentation matters, and it is abhorrent to expect that the person you are about to have sex with to care as to the sex you are.

It was a transparent leverage attempt.

Allowed to have sex'

That is very revealing framing, re-classifying not being able to deceive, trick or mislead a potential partner as to the sex of the person they are entering into a sexual relationship/encounter with as not being allowed to have sex.

Respecting the person you are about to have sex with enough to be honest with them and gain full consent based on them having all the facts and information required to give that consent freely is a pretty basic human right, unbelievable that someone would argue for the opposite of that, to remove that person's human rights.

• A person whose sex is male and gender identity is male (a non-trans man).
• A person whose sex is female and gender identity is female (a non-trans woman).

Not impressed with their definitions.
I am not a on-demand woman. I attend not a in-game woman (autocorrect).
I am trying to state that I am a woman, not a non-trans woman. I dont appreciate being defined by what I am not.

Well said. Never was the phrase "the word woman is taken" more appropriate. It does show how captured the CPS is by trans extremist ideology that they can use such offensive terminology.

That is very revealing framing, re-classifying not being able to deceive, trick or mislead a potential partner as to the sex of the person they are entering into a sexual relationship/encounter with as not being allowed to have sex.

Isn't it.

To be clear: You're the one talking about people not wanting to be intimate with members of marginalised minority groups with protected characteristics because the complexities of their harmless medical history and metaphysical classification offends your ideology.

That's fine. Nobody has to have sex with anyone and consent can be withdrawn at any time. People are allowed to just not be into someone else. Heck, people can pretend just to not be into someone even though their entire existence is a secret source of seething rage and disgust.

I'm simply pointing out that it's the marginalised minority group who is the one who has to either perform exaggerated maleness or femaleness that is not congruent with their own sense of self (effectively lie about their own identity and conform to unambiguous birth sex stereotypical presentation), or alternatively to out themselves as having a trans or intersex/dsd history, if they want to be safe.

That seems...wrong? I would expect that a forward thinking and compassionate society - which already has some laws to protect these vulnerable, harmless people just trying to live their lives, giving a clear indication of intent - would be taking steps to protect them.

The law here seems to be having the opposite effect - it serves to embolden those who hold negative regressive views about trans people or transness in general and say that they're not only right to be disgusted by the marginalised minority group that draws their ire, but that those minorities can never truly be safe even in a loving intimate relationship; that they must always be watching over their shoulder and fearing their past catching up with them.

I suppose it comes with the territory, since nearly half of trans people experience domestic violence. We're no strangers to having to deal with abusive behaviour from partners - it's just disappointing that the government has chosen to double down with the transphobic policy yet again when they had the opportunity to make a clear statement against transphobia instead.

It's quite something to put forward an argument that you should be allowed to have sex with someone if there was even a scintilla of doubt that that person would not consent if they were fully aware of the sex of the person they were about to have sex with.

To argue that a particular cohort of people should be exempt the law on deception/trickery/misleading in regard to sexual relations is quite staggering.

It's revealing that you have concluded that 46XY CAIS women are men and should be considered to be breaking the law if they do not disclose their medical history to intimate partners.

What a strange stance to take. I wonder if the light of experience has ever shined upon your opinion.

No.

I am talking about people who would like to know the sex of the people they are about to have sex with.

I believe that you are trying to present this as being whatever you can present it as to make your position look better, but I don’t think you are succeeding with anyone.

Oh it's quite a different social landscape nowadays - in my experience at least, most normal people don't hold raging anti-trans views anymore, which certainly wasn't the case a decade ago and prior where you really couldn't trust that anyone you met in normal life wouldn't be schrodinger's bigot and had no choice but to protect yourself through complete silence and great caution.

I suppose this is a tradeoff of the positive change since and the more recent culture war that is trying to roll us back to the Bad Old Days - the number of reasonable people has increased significantly, but the number of highly radicalised holders of negative views toward trans people or transness in general has also increased. As a trans person minding your privacy and trying to remain safe while having a healthy, active sex life, you can now be fairly confident that most people you meet will at worst consider you to be a bit of an unusual curiosity.

The dangerous anti-trans culture warrior factor, however, is much more prominent now, and this is doubly relevant if your preferred partners are men since male violence against people they perceive to not be male remains disturbingly high, and that threat does not reduce if the victim is transgender.

In the bad old days, we lived under the shadow of Trans Panic defences and all bets were off. If you chose the wrong partner, they could choose to murder you for being trans and would probably get away with it.

Nowadays, that's less likely as transphobia is less socially acceptable and has increasingly retreated into the realm of dogwhistles and concern trolling demagogues. People who hold negative views toward us have gotten better at hiding them, and the reasonable expectation from everyday life is that most normal people no longer hold these kinds of views.

Because of this, I think it's probably safest if those who hold negative views toward trans people don't go stealth amongst the population; the risk of harm is way too high.

There is literally nothing stopping a person from asking 'Do you hold the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment? My Gender Critical ideology is also a protected characteristic which forbids me from intimacy with the marginalised minority group this applies to, so I need to know if it applies to you.'

That seems quite reasonable to me. The holder of the Gender Reassignment protected characteristic can then choose whether to disclose or not, and has the option of simply declaring that they'd rather not be intimate with someone who holds Gender Critical views without having to disclose - after all, disclosure is noted in the GRA as being potentially extremely harmful.

You have to wonder why people want to be able to have sex with someone who hasn't fully consented. A very strange thing to advertise about themselves

It certainly is.

It's revealing that you have concluded that 46XY CAIS women are men...

Medical scientists have swathes of evidence to prove conclusively that they ARE men, she hasn't just pulled it out of her ear.

Also, do you have any evidence of transw being murdered in the UK and their partner getting away with it? It sounds like utter nonsense.

"You're the one talking about people not wanting to be intimate with members of marginalised minority groups with protected characteristics because the complexities of their harmless medical history and metaphysical classification offends your ideology."

Seriously? No matter how you try to present this with whatever wording you think makes it look like it is a view intellectually supported, it is not about the discrimination of minorities angle that you persist in pushing. It is only about a person wanting to know what the sex of the person is that they are having sex with because it is a fundamental requirement for that person.

You can try to then position this as 'harmless'. But the reality is, if any person has prioritised their own demands to not have to disclose over another's need to know the sex of the person, that is the very opposite of 'harmless' and can be viewed as preying on those who in that moment are vulnerable to because they have not realised that the person they are about have sex with is not the sex they believe that sex partner is.

To me that behaviour is the very opposite of 'harmless'.

And again, you are dismissing people who are vulnerable. I am happy to explain this to you again and again and again, just as many other will be happy to as well.

"There is literally nothing stopping a person from asking 'Do you hold the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment? My Gender Critical ideology is also a protected characteristic which forbids me from intimacy with the marginalised minority group this applies to, so I need to know if it applies to you.'"

This above is complete and utter fuckwittery and it shows exactly your lack of any care for a prospective sex partner if this is really what you believe.

Please keep going because you each and every post on this topic has been like a beacon to those reading along that this very law is vitality important to protect people vulnerable to this behaviour.