Transwoman accused of sexual assault after concealing male genitalia on date

[BunfightBetty]

Could be interesting. Consent is surely only consent if you know what you're consenting to...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15019143/Trans-woman-sexually-assaulted-man-concealing-male-genitalia.html

@ArabellaScott Thanks for sharing that. Gender ideology falls apart right in front of ones eyes reading that. Apparently there are some people who pretend to be the opposite sex, but who are not trans, who also do this?????

And part of the test of deception or otherwise, is whether one can tell what sex the accused really is. (A bit subjective then ha ha)

No, a ‘transgender woman’ is a male who identifies as a woman.

Of course it’s sex by deception. It was a bloke deceiving another bloke into thinking he was a woman.

Read the link I posted, with the CPS guidelines on consent in relation to the Sexual Offences Act. It's lengthy.

Cue even more indignant Reddit and Twitter threads asking "How are we supposed to get laid if we tell them in advance?!" Its usually 'lesbian' TiMs hoping to slip one (a penis) past a woman, though.

No, mate, you have to give them the whole spiel about a female penis, etc. See how that flies.

All the cases I've read of 'sex by deception' (Which apparently now seems to have shifted into 'deception as to sex', unless someone can correct me on that?) were instances of women pretending to be men. There have been three or four in the news, at least. And as far as I recall none of these women claimed a trans identity.

The difference is whether the perpetrator mouths the words, I assume. A woman using a male name and claiming to be a man to have sex with another woman is 'not trans' unless she says she is.

Your victim blaming is pretty horrific. You have very scant details of the case except that the victim was a teenager and a male. Yet you’re conclusion here is to blame the victim for the situation that he was put into by another person.

You and all the others on here with your disgusting comments need to have a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourselves why you think it’s acceptable to blame and laugh at victims of sexual assault.

I am finding that very concerning Arabella.

That really does remove the onus of seeking full consent from the person who is not disclosing their sex. It also now puts people in the situation of declaring upfront that they would not have sex with someone of the opposite sex to which they understand the person they are about to have sex with as a disclaimer.

It does seem less clear than previously. I suspect that the campaigning has created this mess. It now will be hard to protect victims. Because they then have to have every single conversation they have had with the person they are claiming harmed them analysed to access whether they had any understanding of the trans status of that person.

What a mess. All because support groups decided that a group of people should live as if they had done the impossible and changed sex or that their ‘gender identity’ superseded their sex.

I do think a small part of the problem is that so many young women are so full of fillers and covered in makeup that it makes them all look the same. In my opinion it makes them look older too. It’s easy for a man to look like a woman when women don’t look like women.

The photo is totally filtered, I have seen a real photo of him and there is no comparison. So many girls filtering photos like this to the point they are totally unrecognisable IRL

Arabella, has the offence changed to 'deception as to sex', or is this a muddled attempt to address a single aspect of 'sex by deception'?

The 2003 Act still looks pretty straightforward to me. Haven't re-read the whole thing recently, though.

History of the CPS guidance page. I'll post the first two archives available, the first archived April 2024, the second December 2024. The first section on 'Deception as to gender' is three paragraphs. The second on 'Deception as to Sex' is very, very long:

Archived 2nd April 2024 (page dated May 2021):

https://archive.ph/73w3z

Archived December 2024:

https://archive.ph/SCCtS

The trans woman gave him a blow job.

He's complaining HE was penetrated BY the TiM, @Falseknock. Anally, by definition in this case, as he hasn't got a vagina. Assault by penetration carries the same penalty as rape, which must be done with a penis.

I'm trying to work that out! It's ... opaque.

ISTR digging about in here before and getting confused.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents

No, that's not assault by penetration if the victim was the recipient.

Sorry Sea it is confusing. This was a trans woman - a man who says they are a woman - but many people on FWR have got fed up with calling them women and call them Trans Identified Men - TIM. Hope that helps.

There was a consultation preceding the updated page:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/consultation-cps-guidance-deception-gender-summary-responses

'Consultation on CPS guidance on Deception as to Gender - Summary of Responses'

'The offences under sections 1-4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 require the prosecution to prove absence of consent. Section 74 of the Act defines consent as follows: “for the purposes of this Part, a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice”.

This statutory definition has been examined in a number of cases, where ostensible consent was considered not to be true consent, and consent was therefore vitiated or negated. These cases are said to give rise to the developing concept of conditional consent. Deception as to gender is one of these areas of conditional consent. In the case of McNally v R. [2013] EWCA Crim 1051 the Court determined that “depending on the circumstances, deception as to gender can vitiate consent”.

The revision to the guidance on Deception as to Gender is intended to address in more detail some of the complex and sensitive issues around this area of law. This will provide more support for prosecutors when dealing with these cases.'

'The guidance does not represent a change in the law.'

Technically its sexual assault and sexual assault by penetration by deception as they didn't have sex

As far as I can tell, 'Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent' is the heading from the SO Act under which the offence - what I'd understood to be called 'sex by deception' would fall.

And this info would be clarified/expanded under the 'consent' guidance section.

Which is what the CPS goes on and on about, what the consultation was about. The law hasn't changed. I still don't understand it. And the CPS guidance still doesn't make a lot of sense.

Sorry. Maybe a legal bod can help clarify.

I hope the courts throw the book at this man and it acts as a warning to all trans people who stealth that not only do they risk serious assault from the men that they deceive but a hefty jail term and being registered as a sex offender for life

Couldn't agree more!

When & why are transvestites now called transwomen?

Agree. Especially lines like: 'The defendant had concealed from the man that she had a penis'. In a case about identity deception, it surely perpetuates that.

I've been researching this topic on various trans subreddits. I would say most of the online trans community doesn't consider that trans women have the slightest moral obligation at any point to share (to lesbians or hetero males) that they are biologically male, even if they are post-op.

The typical answer to a question of "Should we share that we are trans when dating or taking someone home? is always this:

1. You don't have any obligation to share it, it's private health info, and besides, trans women are women.
2. You should share it, but only for your own safety or your own feelings(getting rejected at a later stage=hurts more for the trans).
3. Or that saying they are trans early may filter out the ones not interested, thus making their online dating game more successful.

Only when there is talk about long term relationships some of them admit that it should be disclosed. Incredibly, some of them don't even admit any moral obligation even in long term relationships.

I have seen almost no replies where the concern for the partners feelings are considered. It's always for their safety or other considerations concerning them that is the priority.

For a group of people which whole life seems to evolve around feelings about identity, I find it wildly egoistic and narcissistic to totally ignore that the partners feeling of sexual identity in most cases evolves around what sex they are attracted to.

For a heterosexual male like me, it would feel like a sort of existential crisis to be tricked into having sex with another male. It's something that can't be undone. (And Im pretty liberal and have high self confidence etc, must be worse for a young insecure man). I don't know if the feeling is the same for a lesbian, but I assume so after what I have read. And Im sure the trans community have seen the polls/statistics that state like 95-98% of natal people wouldnt have sex with someone trans.

As a narcissistic male myself I do recognize the thinking pattern and the logic of these trans women. And let me tell you I am 100% sure that tricking someone into going all the way with them with them not noticing they as a trans woman is the ultimate achievement for them. They probably get off just thinking about it. At least the autogynephilic ones. So they won't accept to hear that this is morally wrong, it's probably phobic just if one of their own suggest such a thing.

Thank god most of them don't really look like women, or dating would be like a penis mine field.

"And Im sure the trans community have seen the polls/statistics that state like 95-98% of natal people wouldnt have sex with someone trans."

My knowledge is that precisely zero people globally, including trans people, dates outside of their sexual orientation which is always straight, gay or bi. (Caveat, maybe some people experiment a bit when young, or don't realize they are bi til they are older).

So if the stat is suggesting that 95-98% of straight men would not date a man who claims a trans woman identity then it is 2% to 5% underestimating

If the stat is that 95%-98% of straight men would not date someone trans full stop - not even a non-medicalized straight woman who claims to be a gay man with a vagina - then that might well be accurate... but it might be over-stating.