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

Yes, agree.

JamieCannister:

Well that is the stats that I have come across. But youre are right, it's probably closer to 100%. But it's almost impossible to get statistics to say 100%.

A multitude of issues here.

These stories are as old as time, films like Boys Don't Cry and Trainspotting have had these scenarios.

The difference now is how the courts handle the matter and this is forever changing, particularly with the Supreme Court ruling that sex relates to biological sex.

What you also see is from many activists is the assumption that they are above the law no matter what the allegation is.

It might be "almost impossible to get statistics to say 100%" but (IMHO) sexual orientation has precisely nothing to do with gender, and that by definition a self-identified straight man is bisexual if he dates trans women. He might even be a bisexual whose preference is for women and post-op trans'women', but that is still 100% bisexual, because post-op trans'women' are men in every single way.

There are a number of people who believe that having a 'sexual orientation' that excludes anyone on the basis of sex is 'exclusionary' or 'bigoted' or wrong.

Nancy Kelley's 'sexual racists'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10225111/amp/Stonewall-brands-lesbians-sexual-racists-raising-concerns-sex-transgender-women.html

Veronica Ivy/Rachel McKinnon's 'genital preferences are transphobic'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385

' Riley J Dennis argued that dating "preferences" are discriminatory.'

This.

Why not? It's a mainstream news source even if not to your personal preference.

But I think in these cases it is the "passability" test, with people being mislead or thinking that someone is of the opposite sex when they aren't. They're not aware of the trans status.

For many trans people it is a badge of honour to sleep with the opposite sex without being found out. And time and time again this just leads to more trouble, and can be very dangerous for the trans people involved too, due to violent reprisals.

"The defendant had concealed from the man that she had a penis, during their brief relationship,' Mr Reid told the jury".

It never ceases to amaze me to be alive in these times.

"A 2019 study asked 958 online participants, mostly young adults in Canada and the United States, which gender identities they would be interested in dating. In the sample, 3.3% of heterosexual men, 1.8% of heterosexual women, 11.5% of gay men, 28.8% of lesbian women, and 51.7% of bisexual, queer, and non-binary people (grouped together for analysis) reported they would be interested in dating a transgender person, and the remainder were not interested."

This I found on wikipedia, I'm sure trans activists would have had it removed if the study wasnt sound. Hehehe. That's like a new way to confirm gender research: If the trans activists is not able to discredit a piece of research in their disfavour, you know for a fact that the reasearch is of the noblest standard possible.

But I digress. My point is that the stats, that only 96,7% of hetero males would not even consider dating a trans woman, let alone sleeping with one, has another implication. It also means, the way I see it, that the trans woman that knows nothing of the potential partners desires, statisticly almost certainly is on a fraudulent path from the very beginning by not stating that it is a trans woman.

I'm not saying that this should be the first sentence when you match online, that would just be weird. But it certainly should be clear before you meet up. (To be honest, it should probably be very clear in the profile itself. That would be a best practice).

I work in criminal law. And here is what I feel about this: If it's not disclosed before kissing, that would for me feel like a mild form of sexual deceit. But probably not worthy any criminalization. But to be fooled into doing stuff together in bed would make me feel like I have been wronged in the most intimate setting. And the knowledge that the other person probably had the act of deceit as a strong sexual motive makes it even worse. So I think it should be illegal. It's basically not illegal in most of the world. I think it's illegal in Israel and Britain. I think the punishment could be somewhere in the line of 6 months to 2 years of incarceration - depending on the concrete circumstances of the case. Actual jail time. The situation Im thinking of is that of a "passing" (post operative) trans woman deceiving a hetero guy or lesbian woman into sex. If a trans man actually uses his neo penis to penetrate a natal lesbian women that would make it more severe than the situation im thinking of.

Yet still, the trans community would probably just read all this, shrug, and think, "What are they talking about, it's well established by now that a trans woman is a woman, so their argument or feelings is therefore invalid", and still conclude with "no moral obligation to tell, whatsoever =)".

To be honest, as a bisexual male I don't think I'd feel much different to you.

If I'm having sex with a woman then I don't expect to be confronted by a penis, and vice versa. If I were to suddenly find out during or after sex that I'm actually sleeping with someone male rather than female (or vice versa), then I'm going to feel, tricked, and quite frankly, assaulted. While it's probably not going to do as much long term damage to my identity as it would a heterosexual person, it's still not something I'd accept. I'm attracted to either men, or women, and I like my men to have male parts and my women to have female parts. I'm simply not attracted to trans people and so would not choose to have sex with them.

I did read the article but didn’t quite understand the charge although a kind poster has explained it too me now.

I’ve posted this link to that study many times on here. The actual paper is linked in the article but paywalled.

https://www.them.us/story/cis-trans-dating

This is important too though the pro trans researchers and article writer pretend they found it “surprising” 🙄

Similarly, 50% of trans-inclusive straight men and 69% of trans-inclusive lesbians said they’d date a trans man, even though both groups are presumably only attracted to women.

I am not convinced he didn’t know

I’ve met a number of men in Thailand who apparently didn’t know that felt disgusted with themselves and played the victim I think it was more likely they wanted to experiment and than felt bad about it. Yes the Thai ladyboys were certainly more feminine than western trans women tend to be but you could still tell

It's almost as if sexual orientation has something to do with biological sex!

He is the victim in this.

The joking, shaming and disbelief of the victim on this thread is dreadful.

Don’t worry, it’s not radioactive.

Unfortunately, the Daily Mail has been one of the few news outlets who will actually cover these events, certainly in any depth. lt’s a fact that left-leaning news organisations such as The Guardian don’t usually cover any stories that show trans people in any kind of negative light.They just don’t report them usually ,or if they do, put their own spin on them where the trans people aren’t at fault for Reasons. Ditto the BBC, who won’t do any analysis on this, if they mention it at all it will be as a very short article online.

The Daily Mail definitely puts a particular spin on things, but is actually very accurate as to facts. As somebody with critical thinking skills I feel confident to read the DM and take the facts from articles, while being able to spot the spin and make up my own mind.

And in any event, it’s healthy to read widely, take in other views even where they conflict with your own, and not put yourself in a bubble where your own thinking and opinions are never challenged.

Agree we shouldn’t victim blame.

From what @ArabellaScott has posted upthread, though, the degree to which the alleged offender ‘passes’ will have a bearing on whether the deception charge is proved.

Sex by deception is one of those areas that's so interesting it often comes up in law exams.

When I was studying, there was a problem question which put the following scenario: You have two women who are identical twins. One twin fancies her sister's husband. She pretends to be her sister to get the husband into bed. On getting him into bed, it turns out that he has a taste for rather rougher sex, including anal, than she had bargained for.

In this scenario, who's liable?

The man might be liable if the woman clearly says no to being penetrated anally and he ignores that, but he might also have a defence if he reasonably believes this is his wife and they have an agreed safeword.

The woman is definitely liable because her premeditated deception goes against him consenting to sex. Even if he's enjoying it, he's been suckered into it under false pretences.

(Disclaimer: my legal ken may be slightly out of date, but I think I've got the gist)

The clear issue here is informed consent. That applies to a man (maybe young, naive, drunk) who doesn't realise his partner is male. It applies to a woman who pretends to be a man so she can get other women into bed.

I think one of the things that first set off major alarms for me on the trans issue was the campaign to amend the law on sex by deception - am I remembering right, or didn't Stonewall explicitly argue for that at one point? It was a clear signal that a certain caste of people feel that the need for consent doesn't apply to them.

Interesting that Watkin (the transwoman) was the one who contacted the other man to tell him about being transgender ("I have a big secret"). If he hadn't done that nobody would have been the wiser and he wouldn't now be in court accused of sexual assault.

I don't condone the behaviour, obviously, but he sounds like a confused young person.

It says "96,7% of hetero males would not even consider dating a trans person" not "trans'woman'". In other words for all we know 100% of hetersexual males would not date a trans'woman', and only 3.3% would date a trans'man' (even if they were 100% unmedicalized and no different to any other woman).

And that is before we get to the cold hard fact that a straight man who dates men (eg trans'women') is not a straight man in any way at all. By definition no straight man is willing to date any other man.

Obviously any trans person who does not reveal their sex is disgusting / coercive / rapey. The only possible exception is if they meet someone who says "I am bisexual and I am happy to date people who may or may not be trans and therefore whose sex I do not know".

I think any sort of unwanted sexual contact is deeply wrong and worthy of a prison sentence. And not only that it is incredibly risky to the point that I could not convict a man of assault or murder if it was in response to sexual deception.

I think rape should start at 10 or 20 years (no parole, longer if parole is on offer) and that sex by deception is as rapey as any other type of rape.

And the other 50% of trans-inclusive straight men are men who think trans'women' are women who are trans.

So you're playing the "don't believe the claimed victim of sexual assault" game?

I don't care if he did know to be honest. If he did know the man pretending to be a woman did not know he knew, so it was attempted sexual assault at minimum, and I have no problem with people who try to commit sexual assault being punished as if they did actually commit the offence.

Forgot to quote poster - please delete