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.

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.

It is utter nonsense, but stand by for the numbers of transwomen working as prostitutes being murdered in South American countries....

This thread should be linked in a psychological glossary under "DARVO".

I'm not. I would like to think that 'Don't have sex with vulnerable people whose ability to consent is diminished.' is to be considered a given regardless of sex or gender or any other factor. Obviously don't do that.

Is a requirement to disclose a protected characteristic demonstrative of a lack of care for a prospective sex partner? Why the fuck are you arguing it must be mandatory for people with a medical history of transition then?

Trans people are very likely to come to harm from opening themselves up to intimacy with people who hold negative views toward them. This is hardly a controversial point.

It's about deceiving people about your sex Butterfly, zero to do with the Equality Act.

Whether you like it or not, having sex by deception on the grounds of pretending to be the opposite sex is a criminal offence and people (women) have gone to prison for it. It's a form of sexual assault.

So you can use all the sophistry you like, it doesn't change the facts that people need not to lie about their sex when having sexual relations with others.

Sex is also a protected characteristic and yes not disclosing your sex is deception.

It certainly gives the lie to the oft quoted mantra of trans people wanting the same, equal rights as everyone else to be arguing that they can remove the right of another person to give free and fully informed consent to sex.

I actually think it might be very useful for politicians, lawyers and decision makers to hear exactly the arguments being used, to put forward the idea that people should be 'allowed to have sex' with people without full and informed consent.

Sex is also a protected characteristic

It is, but the Equality Act is not relevant to criminal law, Butterfly is equivocating with sophistry that you should have to declare philosophical beliefs etc.

Statements by ButterflyHatched such as 'being allowed have sex' or 'forbids me from intimacy' are fundamentally at odds with my understanding of honesty, trust, consent and human intimacy.

Quoting very rare medical conditions is not useful - laws have to work on a general population level, and if a consent-related case involving a person with a DSD comes to court, that would be looked at on an individual basis, I guess.

Trans people are very likely to come to harm from opening themselves up to intimacy with people who hold negative views toward them.
Ummm.... so don't do it then??

Most people have a sexual identity which means they only like to have sex with people of the opposite sex to them; or people of the same sex as them.

Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, a trans person 'opening themselves up to intimacy' with somebody who does not know what the trans person's biological sex is is likely to encounter negative views toward them.

That's just basic common sense, isn't it? I don't go around 'opening [myself] up to intimacy' to women I know are straight because it would make them feel negative about me, and it would make me feel negatively about myself for being [a] insensitive [b] an eejit [c] rejected and [d] shouldn't have had that nth g&t

Can't transpeople exercise adopt the same approach? what's the problem?

I would have thought that as a matter of safety trans women would be better off disclosing their sex up front. Why would you take the risk of getting into an intimate situation, probably in a private place, only for someone to twig and then a) shrug and carry on, b) reject you (nicely or not), or c) react violently and aggressively? That’s a pretty big risk that you could avoid by being honest. If most people aren’t transphobic you’ve got nothing to worry about. If someone doesn’t want to shag you because you’re trans, why would you want to shag them?

"I'm not. I would like to think that 'Don't have sex with vulnerable people whose ability to consent is diminished.' is to be considered a given regardless of sex or gender or any other factor. Obviously don't do that."

And yet, you don't post anything that shows this at all. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say, you designate people who you support not disclosing as being more vulnerable than any one else in that interaction.

In fact, quite the opposite. Your posts, which you write with the intention to position anyone who wants to know the sex someone is as being a bigot, or transphobe, often indicate that you are indeed telling vulnerable young people to choose sex partners from people who they don't believe will take them to court. These are your own words below aren't they?:

'My standard advice to young trans people intending to go stealth is 'don't fuck bigots or those even faintly vulnerable to bigoted ideologies; they can and will send you to prison and there is legal precedent supporting them doing so' with a side order of 'you can't know if someone is a bigot until they show you. Make sure the first time they show you isn't in court'. Schrodinger's bigot is something we have to factor into our daily lives.'

and

"my advice is thus 'don't fuck cis transphobes if you decide to go stealth'."

and

"And this is why we advise younger trans adults intending to go stealth to avoid 'bigot' bad vibes; not only is there a very real direct risk of personal harm, but also a risk of prosecution from anyone seeking to punish them for being trans."

and

"Nah mate, I warn them not to fuck cis people who hate them"

and

"Well it would be pretty fucking irresponsible to recommend to vulnerable young people who are trying to escape a lifetime of prejudice that they put themselves in danger in order to test a legal precedent, wouldn't it?
So we just advise them not to let bigoted cis people fuck them as it's safer all round. Maybe in a world where it isn't dangerous to be publicly trans we wouldn't have to worry about privacy quite so much."

None of the above could be considered balanced advice to be given to a young person using safeguarding principles.

"Why the fuck are you arguing it must be mandatory for people with a medical history of transition then?"

Because what you keep ignoring or dismissing is that in having sex with someone, it can be highly relevant for many people because of their sexual orientation. Plus it is highly relevant for the quality and even the type of sex that a person is about to have. There are quite a few essential factors around the sex of a person.

You keep denigratingly referring to my 'ideology', however, I think you have it backwards. You, personally, have redefined the meaning of sexual orientations to suit yourself away from those commonly understood by society. That is ideological.

"Trans people are very likely to come to harm from opening themselves up to intimacy with people who hold negative views toward them. This is hardly a controversial point."

This is not denied. However, if a person is going to put themselves into a position of having sex with someone, surely the 'safe' advice is to be upfront before sex is agreed to. Not disclosing the sex you (general you) are is absolutely like to increase the likelihood of harm.

Oh... that's right.... unless you (general) are a person who believes that what a person doesn't know can't possible harm them.

The law in question makes it clear that gender reassignment is a valid reason for a person to consider themself to not be the sex they were assigned at birth and that it can be a relevant mitigating factor.

The bizarre bit comes where it then contradicts this with odd language about disclosure and presentation. It just completely ignores the existence of trans people who aren't immediately identifiable as trans and implies that acting perfectly naturally as the sex we're allowed to and otherwise protected from discrimination for transitioning to constitutes active deceit - despite volunteering that it isn't deceit earlier in its own text.

It reads as a loophole that has deliberately been kept open in order to punish trans people who are ambiently read as their congruent sex.

I know we just banned the treatment that makes this a likely outcome for trans women, but at least a thousand or so of us already exist. We really aren't that much of 'a huge problem for a sane society'.

Well said TooExtraImmatureCheddar - I'm envious of posters who come on here and say more or less the same as me but in less than a third of the words I used.

If I had to describe myself in five words or less, it wouldn't be 'SUCCINCT'!

"fundamentally at odds with my understanding of honesty, trust, consent and human intimacy."

Yes.

If you cannot trust a sex partner to be upfront about the sex they are, or vice versa, there is no trust there at all. There seems to be a very detached view of sex coming through in those posts.

And I would hope to fuck that a male person with that detached view of sex would never be giving any advice to vulnerable young people about sex. And yet... apparently this is happening. And apparently it is a 'respected elder' in the community giving this advice.

Exactly Cheddar. This point has been raised before and, surprise surprise, no response has been forthcoming.

Just to emphasise these crucial bits of your post again:

That’s a pretty big risk that you could avoid by being honest.
If most people aren’t transphobic you’ve got nothing to worry about.
If someone doesn’t want to shag you because you’re trans, why would you want to shag them?

Any thoughts BH?

Oh I completely agree with everything but your first point. Disclosure is itself inherently dangerous. It isn't safe to do so, because being trans in society isn't a neutral state where you are free from discrimination and harm. We are protected by law from having to do so in every situation other than intimate ones where suddenly we are prosecutable if a partner decides we weren't convincingly trans or incongruent enough.

We can't know whether a prospective partner holds negative views toward us that would encourage them to harm us. You can't always tell.

Yes. There's a word for that.

The law in question makes it clear that gender reassignment is a valid reason for a person to consider themself to not be the sex they were assigned at birth and that it can be a relevant mitigating factor.

It can be. It depends on the specific circumstances of the case.

Great, so you agree with Cheddar when they said That’s a pretty big risk that you could avoid by being honest.

Good to know.

Disclosure creates more risk. It isn't a neutral act. We don't live in a utopian future where transphobia doesn't exist.
By transitioning, we are being honest. That's the entire point. The text of the law makes it very clear that it supports this stance.
We can't tell who the transphobes are - a partner could come out as transphobic long after we've allowed ourselves to be intimate with them. They might have presented as a perfectly normal safe person at the time.

By transitioning, we are being honest.

By not informing others of your transition you are not being honest.

ETA: in this specific context

• may be relevant. For instance, even though the suspect fails to disclose their sex and / or gender identity they may reasonably believe the complainant consented due to: the degree to which the sex, trans or non-binary identity of the suspect is apparent; the opinion of the complainant towards lesbian / gay / trans people etc (depending on which is relevant to the case) and the suspect’s knowledge of their opinion; the length and nature of the relationship or their communications; the nature of and the circumstances in which the sexual act took place; evidence that the complainant expressed doubts, asked questions, or made assertions relating to the suspect’s sex and / or gender identity; evidence that the complainant was exploring their own sexuality.
• Where there is evidence of coercion, manipulation, or exploitation of the complainant, it is less likely that the suspect held a reasonable belief.
• Where there has been a deliberate deception by the suspect, it might be evidence that they know the matter is of importance to the complainant and a condition of consent. In these circumstances, it is less likely that the suspect held a reasonable belief.
• The suspect may admit that the complainant was unaware of their sex and / or gender identity but claim that they believed it was not a matter of importance to the complainant i.e. a condition of the complainant’s choice or consent. Whether the suspect has a reasonable belief that the complainant consented in these circumstances will depend on all the evidence.
• There may be circumstances where the suspect deceives the complainant initially but, because of the long passage of time between the initial deception and the sexual activity during which, for instance, the suspect and complainant meet and interact on numerous occasions, the suspect reasonably believes that the deception no longer operates on the complainant. Such circumstances may also be relevant where several sexual offences are alleged over a period of time.

These are some of the considerations which may be a factor in particular cases. The golden thread running through it all though is that you do not have the right to lie about your sex in the knowledge that they would turn you down otherwise.

Which is why, for avoidance of doubt (since we already know it is not safe to disclose and open yourself up to transphobic abuse as a trans person) and it isn't possible to know if a partner holds negative or discriminatory views toward trans people that would affect their consent, it's safest for the holder of negative or discriminatory views toward trans people to practice disclosure with any new partners, or if their views change. That way there is no ambiguity and trans people aren't required to endanger themselves by outing to the very people likely to harm them.