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.

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.

Then surely that's all the more reason to be up front about their biological sex and transition before 'intimacy'- to make sure that they're not having sex with people who may hold negative views towards them?

The trans person stays safe, and the person who may not want to engage in sexual activities outside of their orientation doesn't have their consent undermined. Seems fairly simple, unless you hold the view that the trans person's right to sex with a particular person overrides that person's right to informed consent?

It isn't safe to disclose and our privacy is protected by law.

We have no interest in having sex with dangerous people who mean us harm, and nor do we have any interest in having sex with people who hold negative views toward us. We're obviously never going to be safe in such a relationship, and nearly half of us are victims of domestic abuse.

The safest way of ensuring we never accidentally enter into an intimate relationship with someone who holds negative views toward us is for the holders of those negative views to disclose whenever meeting new prospective partners. Don't worry - we won't be able to get out of there fast enough when we find out.

Edited for clarity: entering into an intimate relationship can take many routes of course

We have no interest in having sex with dangerous people who mean us harm, and nor do we have any interest in having sex with people who hold negative views toward us.

Which you don't know if they have because you haven't told them

It isn't safe to disclose and our privacy is protected by law.

Not in circumstances of sex by deception as the guidance makes clear. This legal privacy protection is about GRC, and the guidance here states that a GRC is largely irrelevant in these cases.

Needs to repeated and repeated it seems.

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.

No, there is no reversal to DARVO here. People are not as the law currently stands obliged to declare political or philosophical views to potential partners in the same way. Maybe you should start a campaign.

The safest way of ensuring we never accidentally enter into an intimate relationship with someone who holds negative views toward us is for the holders of those negative views to disclose whenever meeting new prospective partners.

Do you know at what point I disclosed my views about trans people when I met my new prospective partner?
Never.
It just doesn't happen like this in the real world.

It's just sophistry, no need to indulge this line of argument @Greyskybluesky

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.

Then why would you trick someone into having sex with you, if they may pose a physical threat to you, if they find out?

Disclosure
Isn't
Safe.
Our privacy is protected by law.

We can't know people hold negative views toward trans people unless they tell us. How can we avoid something we don't know about?

We're pretty good at working out when someone is prejudiced against us but sometimes people can be good at hiding it! Sometimes they keep it secret for years and years!

It's dangerous to enter into a relationship with someone inclined to do you harm and for similar reasons it's dangerous to out yourself in general life so for safety reasons I think it's probably best to get clarification that a prospective partner doesn't secretly hold negative or discriminatory views toward you.

It would be nice if the bearer of these negative views volunteered them, but I suppose if we normalise asking then it removes all ambiguity. I would suggest that trans people pursue that conversation early in a relationship and check in periodically just in case those views have changed.

This guidance interprets 'sex' as sex registered at birth (presumably including any ex tunc correction for DSDs), so @ButterflyHatched 's gotcha fails. CAIS women are registered female, and it's unknown for them to apply to alter it.

People with 5-ard might be more interesting Someone who keeps his female birth registration will, without medical intervention, become an adult of the sex class that is large, powerful, aggressive, and commits the majority of the sex crime. I wouldn't want any of that if I was a lesbian. But maybe I wouldn't be deceived either, having eyes in my head.

I know, you're quite right.

However, I recall people saying on here that they provided responses not for the person arguing but for all the lurkers reading along. Sunlight! 🔆

Disclosure
Isn't
Safe.
Our privacy is protected by law.

No. Not in cases of sex by deception or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I will be countering Butterfly's misinformation every single time.

Do you know at what point I disclosed the medical treatment I had in my youth when I met prospective partners in the past?
Never.
It just doesn't happen like this in the real world.

It's normally something I'd open up about later, when it's safe and I'm comfortable sharing such an intensely personal and traumatic part of my past.

Fascinating...

It's normally something I'd open up about later, when it's safe and I'm comfortable sharing such an intensely personal and traumatic part of my past.

Great, but just make sure you do it before you have sex with someone else.

Herberts gonna Herbert.

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.

It's simply saying that people have the right to know who they are having sex with, to be able to give informed consent. Those who struggle to understand consent and that other people matter and have rights too, should not be having sex.

Being 'marginalised', 'vulnerable', 'oppressed', a minority, or whatever other buzzword you can think of, doesn't give you the right to deceive someone in to having sex with you. The world doesn't revolve around you and what you want.

You don't even know if it's safe to disclose your medical history to a partner until they tell you, which does make the whole exercise rather tricky.

I'll be sure to check if they hold negative views toward trans people or transness in general well in advance of any prospective intimacy, don't worry. I suppose if they lie and choose to start an intimate relationship with someone for whom it is clearly important enough to ask about, then there isn't much I can do about it.

You do as you see fit @ButterflyHatched but the onus is on you to gain meaningful consent to sex without deceiving people, not them.

Yes @larklane17

I'm not secretly holding "negative and discriminatory" views by going about my daily business being a heterosexual female. Being heterosexual means not shagging a person of the same sex; this is not "secretive". I'm not endangering a trans-identifying female by confirming that I'm not a lesbian. This is just getting ridiculous.

ButterflyHatched I'm puzzled by your insistence on 'danger' and 'harm' and transpeople 'having sex with dangerous people who mean us harm' here on a board which is called Feminism/Women's Rights where 90.something% of your interlocutors are women. Biologically female, for the sake of clarity.

The element of danger and harm in intimate relationships has a very clear bias - 94.4% of perpetrators are male [UK 2024 stats].

So a transperson in a relationship [I'm not clear from your posts whether you are referring to sexual encounters, or longer relationships or both] is most likely to come to harm if they their partner is male.

If a transwomen, a.k.a. a biological male, sets their sights, unluckily, on a woman who turns out to be one of those awful GC terves - who experiences the harm? who is damaged? who is endangered?

If I was GC lesbian terf who was the object of a transwomen's attentions, and belatedly discovered the biological sex of my suitor, my reaction would be negative, but it would not be to do them any damage or harm; they would not be in any danger.

I, on the other hand, finding myself in a vulnerable situation with someone who I initially trusted, but have now found out belongs to the group which represents 94.4% of abusers of women like me - I'd be checking for a clear path to the door.

If you are arguing that transwomen who have sex with men are 'having sex with dangerous people who mean us harm' - well that's a whole other - and sadly familiar to us women - story about male violence, isn't it?

I don't think we are in disagreement here, though I will mention that this board does have quite a few posters who have identified themselves as men.