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.

Just because you might normally include that sex in your dating pool, it doesn't mean that you've consented to sleep with that sex, that time.

Indeed.

Try putting that on a lesbian dating site and you'll be banned.
Also it's not the responsibility of a victim of fraud to ask are you trying to defraud me, why because fraudsters are liars and would lie.
The person who has a legal and moral duty to disclose their biological sex is the person who is trying to disguise their sex, and because so many transpeople (apparently) don't want to/don't think they should have to disclose their biological sex, the guidance around gaining fraudulent consent for sex by deception has been strengthened so that there's no confusion about the fact that transpeople must be proactively honest about their biological sex before sexual contact or they are predatory sex offenders, if as you say the silent majority of transpeople don't want to be sex offenders or have sex with someone who has a basic understanding of both biology and their own sexuality then what's the problem with them being honest upfront about their sex?

the guidance around gaining fraudulent consent for sex by deception has been strengthened so that there's no confusion about the fact that transpeople must be proactively honest about their biological sex before sexual contact or they are predatory sex offenders,

I meant, it's fairly bloody basic, isn't it.

transactivistivism has really done a number on people, implying they can get away with all sorts of things. Voyeurism, indecent exposure, cheating at sport, and now sex by deception.

"See my reference to bisexuality, where if the person thinks they're sleeping with a man, they want it to be a man.

Just because you might normally include that sex in your dating pool, it doesn't mean that you've consented to sleep with that sex, that time."

I imagine that the people who have no issue with trans people hiding their trans status before, during and/or after sex, have a sexual orientation where sex isn't any more significant than something like having or not having an intact appendix. It is these people saying that it isn't important enough to declare.

There are people (which includes me) for whom a person's sex is very important and my consent is void if I have been deceived about a person's sex.

The key thing is, when it comes to consent, one cannot assume anything and so the first group must treat everyone as thought they belong to the second, unless explicitly told otherwise.

The key thing is, when it comes to consent, one cannot assume anything and so the first group must treat everyone as thought they belong to the second, unless explicitly told otherwise.

Yes, exactly.

I have met many transmen who do pass but once their trans status has been shared, I have spotted 'tells'. I haven't knowingly met any transwoman for whom I haven't at least had a strong inkling they were trans.

And I agree with this too.

There really seems to be a determination for prioritising gender over sex.

The thing now is apparently if a person is ‘living congruently’ in their ‘gender’ they must not be expected to be honest about their sex. Because to do so interrupts their gender experience. And remember that is based on philosophical belief. This group truly believes that their philosophical belief over rides everyone else’s.

And that their decision to have extreme body changes, with different body parts substituted for others that will be involved in sexual acts, never have to be disclosed to a sex partner.

I genuinely cannot imagine someone thinks not disclosing their flayed inverted penis or ‘backpack’ or transplanted bowel before someone is about to have sex with that body part, is either righteous or moral. But hey, all part of ‘living congruently’, eh!!!

The other thing to point out is that in the UK, the number of trans people who have had bottom surgery is quite low. So the sexual partner is going to find out pretty bloody quickly once clothes come off - so then how does stealthing work? It sounds like a weird mad fantasy - oh wait…

Crumbs, I wasn't expecting to get deleted. The gist of my comment was; can anyone explain what "stealthing" is in this context? Does it mean a TW saying they are a W and not saying they are a TW?
I am really disturbed by this thread; in the wake of Gisele Pelicot's immense bravery, I am shocked that women still have to explain what consent is.

you got it. It means that male people who claim to be female don’t feel they ever have to disclose they are male. And vice versa. The stealth element indicates that they know they have deceived the person into believing that how they present is the sex they are.

The thing now is apparently if a person is ‘living congruently’ in their ‘gender’ they must not be expected to be honest about their sex. Because to do so interrupts their gender experience. And remember that is based on philosophical belief. This group truly believes that their philosophical belief over rides everyone else’s.

yes, and I wouldn't mind so much, but the people doing the banging on, are completely upfront about being trans!

If you're going to fight for your right to be trans, on all the social media going, you're not exactly stealth anything.

Thank you @Helleofabore . Your last sentence means that this is more horrible than I had imagined.

What problems do you face that are not faced by men?

You will find people dismissing this as occasionalnamechanger most recently did as an ‘over dramatisation’ because surely people are going to have sex with a person they are attracted to rather than genital configuration and surgically installed genitals are equal to those someone is born with. They cannot see what the fuss is about. Some people can’t see what the fuss is about from either side.

We have male people who declare they are female who dismiss the people who want to know as being automatically transphobic because to them there is alternative - either you don’t care at all or you hate trans people.

But the thing is that either the people presenting as opposite sex fully believe their potential partner knows and doesn’t care or the potential partner doesn’t know and they have successfully deceived them.

I'd also be interested to know. BH seems to believe that there is at least one difference between men and women, yet hasn't been able to give any examples of anything that's unique to either.

So this could turn out to be one of the defining factors, which would help me understand what BH means when they refer to "men" and "women".

"It is an ill-fitting and over-simplified brute-force metaphysical label you are forcing onto us."

No. Sex (male or female, man or woman) is not metaphysical. It is physical. The confusion of physical and metaphysical is one of the many linguistic tricks that make this conversation so difficult. Gender may be metaphysical; that's not something I had previously thought about. Gender identity certainly seems to be a metaphysical concept.

But the thing is that either the people presenting as opposite sex fully believe their potential partner knows and doesn’t care or the potential partner doesn’t know and they have successfully deceived them.

Yep. Either consent matters, or it doesn't. Or, what would appear to be more explicit, is that it does matter, but it doesn't matter for 'transphobes'.

So it matters for people whose views I agree with, but not for those I don't.

Nice.

Pretty much. Yeah.

If you are massively only attracted to certain chromosomes, surely you just say that early on? Either have that in your dating profile (I dunno "proud GG feminist looking for natal man/woman")

It’s been widely reported that you get kicked off gay / lesbian dating apps now if you state you are only interested in dating a person of the same sex. It’s considered to be transphobic.

Not only do lesbians get kicked off lesbian dating apps if they say they are only interested in female lesbians, straight men have joined gay dating apps to predate on females who say they are men.

Yes, the penis people must always be supported to oppress the vulva people. It doesn't matter what gender someone claims to be, the end goal is always penis 1, vulva 0

I'm really scared by this prosecution guidance.

I'm a woman, and bi. I have PCOS, and as I've got older, I've got more hair on my face. I pluck it, but sometimes when it's growing back, I have visible black stubble coming back across my chin and cheeks. PCOS also means that I gain muscle more easily than many women.

I come from a tall family, so I'm tall for a woman, pretty average for a man.
I've always struggled with feeling like I'm not feminine enough, but I'm coming to terms with being me.
I had a high familial risk of breast cancer, and took the really difficult decision to have a double mastectomy and reconstruction. Mostly to make sure I am around to bring up my child. It means that I have scars and lack of sensation on my breasts - it's obvious that I have had surgery.

I dress pretty femme, but I guess it wouldn't be unreasonable for someone to think I was a trans woman. I'm never trying to look trans, never trying to trick anyone, but now i'm having to consider the risk that people could think that.
If I kissed someone in a club (a sexual act), couldn't they claim that I deceived them into thinking I was trans? Indeed, if things were to go further, and they saw my scars, couldn't they say that's also deception? Do I need to explain than my breast reconstruction was because of a familial risk of breast cancer, to avoid the assumption that this was trans surgery? Feels like quite a lot of personal medical history to disclose.
I know some trans people only want involvement with other trans people. Some people are particularly into trans women, like a fetish thing.
Couldn't this law be used against me? Even if they didnt actually think I was trans, they could make the allegation against me if stuff turned bad between us. Basically, do I have to declare that "I am a cis woman" before any sexual contact?
It seems pretty messed up that the law could mean that if I don't tell people "I'm a cis woman", I could be found guilty of rape by deception.
But someone could tell me they are single, when really they have a spouse and kids at home. I wouldn't consent to sex with them if I knew that. In fact, it makes me a party to adultery, and until 2022 I could have been named in divorce proceedings. But that's not rape by deception.
An undercover police officers can get into a sexual relationship with a women. She wouldn't consent if she knew he was a police officer. But that's not rape by deception, according to the courts.
It just feels like this hasn't been properly thought through at all.

Just don't lie about your sex, Amanita. It's not difficult.

It's not about being trans or how you dress or your medical history. You simply have to be honest about your sex before sleeping with someone. That's it. If you know you have been mistaken for male by a potential sexual partner then you should put this person straight before becoming intimate with them. It's really not that difficult.

Personally I can't fathom why the police spies cases don't amount to rape by deception. This was state sanctioned abuse of women and it's utterly repugnant. The fact that the courts don't recognise it as such is just a sign of how misogyny is still rife within our society and institutions.