P.S. I note the police officer quoted managed to do give several sentences without either misgendering or referring to the scumbag as ‘she’. Perhaps the Fail should try harder.
PIE made submissions to the Home Office that there should in fact be no lower limit to the age of consent. Patricia Hewitt had to apologise for lobbying that it be reduced to 10.
Risky old sun, your reading comprehension still needs work: “A search of the claim on Twitter also brought up earlier tweets ( here , here) mentioning the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), which campaigned in the UK to allow adults to have sex with children ( here ). The group operated between 1974 and 1984 ( here ).”
Chill I think you'd support this individual being kept out of a woman’s prison right? Think I recall you saying if prisoner could be risky should be a limit on self id in this context?
Chill I think you'd support this individual being kept out of a woman’s prison right? Think I recall you saying if prisoner could be risky should be a limit on self id in this context?
clive - in the interest of good faith (and tbh i think we did this article a few weeks back?) sure - if she’s determined to be a danger to other prisoners i’d 100% say it’s the wrong decision to place her in a womens prison
and because i know the inevitable comments - i haven’t seen any decisions from the prison service (i don’t think it’s the judge that makes that call?) to determine if they’ve properly weighed up the relevant factors, and i don’t know (as i assume anna will immediately raise) how far she’s gone through transition - the mail article says she started transitioning 18 years ago so no idea if she’s got a willy or not
'An earlier reply to a comment on Twitter was inconsistent with our usual style of engagement; we apologise for this and have removed the comment. We recognise the rights of the public to express themselves freely within the boundaries of the law.'
That site is crap at fact-checking. It doesn’t specifically say reduce it to 4, so I suppose they feel they owned those Twitter commenters!
From their own link:
“7. In around November 1975, PIE composed and submitted a paper to the Home Office Criminal Law Revision Committee, which proposed the abolition of the age of consent and the removal of sexual activity between adults and children from the criminal law.”
I thought the law on deception / consent was clear - see the transman who had sex with a number of women with a prosthetic penis and was convicted of i think sexual assault (not rape as no penis) because no true consent.
CPS: "Prosecutors are asked to consider issues such as how the suspect perceived their gender at the time of the offence and assess whether there has been an active or deliberate deception."
Are the CPS saying that they are considering adopting a policy of simply not prosecute something which as a matter of law is a criminal offence, in future, if the person telling their sexual partner they are male (or female) perceived that they really were male (or female)? Surely this would require legislation, the CPS can't just adopt it as policy?
It is. Stonewall have been lobbying for this for some time, and there have been various legal scholars attached.
Alex Sharpe (who may be familiar from a cameo in the Allison Bailey tribunal, tweeting about “terfs”) from 2017:
“Deception: a claim of deception, especially in relation to trans defendants, should concern us. After all, if we accept that a trans man is a man then how can we entertain a deception claim. Understood in this way, ‘deception’ is possible only because law allows a complainant’s interpretation of a trans man’s gender identity to trump his own. Moreover, we should not assume ‘deception’ to be the purpose of non-disclosure of gender history. It may be motivated by a concern for privacy and/or self-preservation.
This leads on to the other mens rea requirement in sexual fraud cases, namely the need to demonstrate a lack of reasonable belief in consent. The main difficulty here is that there is a cultural tendency, indeed conceit, to think that no cisgender person would knowingly become intimate with a transgender person. This view, which is both empirically false and offensive, produces a situation where the only ‘credible’ trans defendant emerges as a self-loathing individual, incapable of imagining himself as the legitmate object of cisgender desire.”
Are the CPS saying that they are considering adopting a policy of simply not prosecute something which as a matter of law is a criminal offence, in future, if the person telling their sexual partner they are male (or female) perceived that they really were male (or female)?
Yes. It seems they are looking to substitute sex for “gender” so if you wilfully pretend to be the opposite sex even if you don’t “identify” as such, you are committing an offence, but if you do have that gender identity (and given there is very little gatekeeping around when exactly someone can be considered “trans” it might make little difference) then you have not committed any offence because trans women are women/trans men are men.
Not only to check, but to have to justify their conclusion, if it ends up in court, I suppose
And imagine if 1 of those justification is "on the dating website, they listed themself as a seeking b", and the dating sites get brought into the matter
Anna, I don't think they are considering "decriminalising" anything. This is not a consultation with a view to amending statute.
The consultation says "Deception as to Gender: proposed revision to CPS legal guidance on Rape and Serious Sexual Offences"
They are considering simply changing the guidance so the CPS does not prosecute trans people for rape or sexual assault by deception if they genuinely believed they were of the opposite gender.
The proposal appears to be that regardless of whether as matters currently stand it is a criminal offence as a matter of law, the CPS wouldn't prosecute. Secondary legislation by Stonewall, if you like.
Yes it might be in practice but - sorry, I know you don't like being disagreed with! - it's WAY more fvcking outrageous in theoretical terms.
You can't have the CPS change the law - as it is currently being applied by the Courts - by the backdoor by bringing in a policy in relation to prosecutions, which is nakedly political in nature, when Parliament hasn't passed legislation saying any such thing. Just because the CPS has been ideologically captured by Stonewall.
It's completely undemocratic. Imagine if the CPS was lobbied hard by industry and then brought a consultation to consider just not prosecuting industry for strict liability environmental crimes if they didn't really mean to do them, or something.
It really is quite shocking... I mean, it's bad enough when well meaning but (some might say, I couldn't possibly comment) misguided organisations try to unilaterally implement gender related policies without properly thinking them through / consulting with their employees. But for the CPS to do so, with the result being, as Spurius says, a change of the law by stealth, is absolutely staggering.
it's WAY more fvcking outrageous in theoretical terms.
You can't have the CPS change the law - as it is currently being applied by the Courts - by the backdoor by bringing in a policy in relation to prosecutions, which is nakedly political in nature, when Parliament hasn't passed legislation saying any such thing.
this is a good point tbf
serious question spurius - if the cps in the 1960s decided to issue guidance saying they wouldn’t prosecute for buggery even though parliament hadn’t legislated?
(i’m only asking if this is a principle matter for you)
Yes I would have supported that, so I would accept the principle can't hold in the most extreme circumstances. (Although frankly, the CPS would only have got away with doing that in circs where everyone knew parliament was already in the process of decriminalising).
A good example of an exception to a similar rule is the one where the then House of Lords, now Supreme Court, does not overturn criminal law which is settled as a matter of the common law. The reason for the rule is that retrospectively criminalising someone who thought his or her act was lawful at the time, is generally unjust.
In 1990 it was still the case at English common law that a husband was entitled to have sex with his wife. He did not need her consent (she had contractually consented by marrying him) and therefore he could not rape her. A husband was prosecuted for raping his wife and relied on this defence. The House of Lords felt it was so unconscionable that they disregarded centuries of settled criminal common law and convicted him, without parliamentary intervention. This tore up the rulebook but they did it anyway.
See how this example of an exception to the rules fits in with the ones discussed above? True consent good. No true consent bad.
They are considering simply changing the guidance so the CPS does not prosecute trans people for rape or sexual assault by deception if they genuinely believed they were of the opposite gender.
There is no such thing as the opposite gender. There is such thing as the opposite sex.
There are at least 80 genders, none of which are directly related to the other. People also claim to be "genderfluid" or "genderfvck", meaning even what they understand of their own gender isn't fixed at any given moment. Which is absolutely fine for them to believe and crack on with, but not fine when making law and policy.
All throughout the judgment gender is used when they mean sex.
"7. If, which is denied, [M] did not consent to the acts complained of, the [appellant] will contend that she reasonably believed [M] consented to all such acts as took place and in the knowledge that the [appellant] was a female. "
It really isn't the same thing at all [trans panic as a defence to physical assault / murder] because noone can reasonably argue that killing someone is a proportionate response to, essentially, embarrassment, or to an unwanted advance from someone of the same sex.
That is an entirely different thing from deliberately concealing your true sex from someone, and having sex with them knowing, or certainly, suspecting that if they knew the truth, they wouldn't consent to sex (after all, if it really wasn't an issue, why hide the truth at all)?
It takes 2 people to have sex, and 2 people to give consent, so ones person conviction in the "sexual identity" just isn't good enough. Hiding one's biological sex deprives the other person of the right and ability to consent; I just don't see how it can sit alongside the fact that you must have a reasonable belief in the other person's consent - how can a person possibly consent if something as fundamental as their actual sex is hidden from them?
Interesting Chill. Think that does show divergence between you and some TRAs. Know some people who say trans individuals have no obligation to tell partners about their previous gender.
i think my issue (and tbh i accept i may be tunneling here) is that you know anna has said many times that everyone “just knows” when a trans person is around them just by seeing them, and yet somehow shes now outraged that someone might have sex with someone else without knowing what their genitals are
doesn’t make sense to me tbh - surely they’d just know immediately?
but tbh if you accept people can pass and date (and get physical) while passing - i dunno i can completely get the consent point but still find it hard to balance it
entirely different thing from deliberately concealing your true sex from someone, and having sex with them knowing, or certainly, suspecting that if they knew the truth, they wouldn't consent to sex
wouldn’t you quickly apprehend their ‘true sex’ when they whip it out and suggest a game of hide the salami?
I agree with the points made by Tuesday. Also thanks to KatiB for pointing out the information on PIE in the IICSI papers. There is also more about the links between LiIberty and PIE among the papers.
Interestingly Liberty which is now officially 'trans-affirmative' has said nothing about this case.
These hiding things cases are always interesting. If someone has sex with you only because they thought you were worth £500k or £2m or a doctor not a night porter - that kind of lying is probably not a criminal offence; whereas if you do not disclose you have an STD or the person only consented to a kiss not sex it would be. It is a huge can of worms. If you consented to sex with one identical twin man but not his twin then presumably that is an offence.
As for whether you can see who is trans or not I think you usually can. I suppose it is not 100% of the time but I do think I can normally tell.
I don't think we should start to force people (cotton ceiling etc) to have sex with people they aren't attracted to however, even if one group of people (eg incels who play computer games all day and never go out) think they are entitled to sex with women or because the person refusing has a "wrong" reason to refuse "eg they are only attracted to tall dark and hansom men or blonde men or straight men or funny or clever or white or black men.
0
0
ROffers should ask LIberty what they think.
After all Liberty is now 'trans-affirmative' and opposed to the Equality Act and women-only spaces.
It also previously alllowed the affiliation of the notorious Padeophile Information Exchange while it also employed a paedophile staff member.
PIE demanded an age of consent of four
0
0
Age of consent of 4 for what? What are you talking about?
0
0
“Dixon began transitioning 18 years ago and carried out the offences against seven children from 1989 to 1996 while she was living as a man.”
Obviously the Fail agrees with the idea that this criminal should not be misgendered.
0
0
That seems nuts.
1
0
‘While he was a man’ doesn’t make any sense jim
1
0
But “hike he was living as a man” makes perfect sense Risky.
0
0
*while
1
0
P.S. I note the police officer quoted managed to do give several sentences without either misgendering or referring to the scumbag as ‘she’. Perhaps the Fail should try harder.
0
0
Perhaps you should Jim.
0
0
PIE demanded an age of consent for sexual relations. It demanded the age of four.This was debated at Liberty AGM some yars ago.
5
0
What a fvcking scumbag.
2
0
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-age-of-consent-idUSKBN2613…
Right. Bloody conspiracy theorists wasting our time.
0
0
Thanks Octo. Always good to have the facts.
0
0
That is a reference to some
weird us thing.
1
0
I shan't admit to being any kind of expert on this subject.
0
0
Nothing to do with PIE which was a uk group on the 1970s.
1
1
PIE made submissions to the Home Office that there should in fact be no lower limit to the age of consent. Patricia Hewitt had to apologise for lobbying that it be reduced to 10.
0
0
Risky old sun, your reading comprehension still needs work: “A search of the claim on Twitter also brought up earlier tweets ( here , here) mentioning the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), which campaigned in the UK to allow adults to have sex with children ( here ). The group operated between 1974 and 1984 ( here ).”
7
0
the police recording these as crimes by a woman is ludicrous.
In fact it's just a manifest error to do so.
I despair at this nonsense, I really do.
4
0
oh, for once I agree with Braverman
0
0
suella:
they… did catch the criminal?
1
0
They don’t even analyze it Jim. Not much of a fact checking site is it?
1
0
No nonce sense policing.
0
0
wAs iT mEGHaN??!1
Hur hur
4
0
🙌🙌🙌 Suella got it spot on!
4
0
He doesn’t even have a GRC. What a joke.
2
0
Chill I think you'd support this individual being kept out of a woman’s prison right? Think I recall you saying if prisoner could be risky should be a limit on self id in this context?
0
0
clive - in the interest of good faith (and tbh i think we did this article a few weeks back?) sure - if she’s determined to be a danger to other prisoners i’d 100% say it’s the wrong decision to place her in a womens prison
and because i know the inevitable comments - i haven’t seen any decisions from the prison service (i don’t think it’s the judge that makes that call?) to determine if they’ve properly weighed up the relevant factors, and i don’t know (as i assume anna will immediately raise) how far she’s gone through transition - the mail article says she started transitioning 18 years ago so no idea if she’s got a willy or not
0
0
all of those should be relevant factors imo - this could easily be a huge mistake by the prison service
0
0
the plus of course is - she’s a convicted paedophile and is now in prison, which is good for society
0
0
Cheers Chill. I'm not sure re this article b4 tbh.
2
0
The police have had to apologize
'An earlier reply to a comment on Twitter was inconsistent with our usual style of engagement; we apologise for this and have removed the comment. We recognise the rights of the public to express themselves freely within the boundaries of the law.'
1
0
That site is crap at fact-checking. It doesn’t specifically say reduce it to 4, so I suppose they feel they owned those Twitter commenters!
From their own link:
“7. In around November 1975, PIE composed and submitted a paper to the Home Office Criminal Law Revision Committee, which proposed the abolition of the age of consent and the removal of sexual activity between adults and children from the criminal law.”
https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/17579/view/allegations-child-sex…
0
0
Tuesday- have you seen the CPS consultation about changing the law around sex by deception as a criminal offence to accommodate gender identity?
https://twitter.com/bluskyeallison/status/1574376616498708480?s=46&t=xo…
1
0
I thought the law on deception / consent was clear - see the transman who had sex with a number of women with a prosthetic penis and was convicted of i think sexual assault (not rape as no penis) because no true consent.
CPS: "Prosecutors are asked to consider issues such as how the suspect perceived their gender at the time of the offence and assess whether there has been an active or deliberate deception."
Are the CPS saying that they are considering adopting a policy of simply not prosecute something which as a matter of law is a criminal offence, in future, if the person telling their sexual partner they are male (or female) perceived that they really were male (or female)? Surely this would require legislation, the CPS can't just adopt it as policy?
0
0
It is. Stonewall have been lobbying for this for some time, and there have been various legal scholars attached.
Alex Sharpe (who may be familiar from a cameo in the Allison Bailey tribunal, tweeting about “terfs”) from 2017:
This leads on to the other mens rea requirement in sexual fraud cases, namely the need to demonstrate a lack of reasonable belief in consent. The main difficulty here is that there is a cultural tendency, indeed conceit, to think that no cisgender person would knowingly become intimate with a transgender person. This view, which is both empirically false and offensive, produces a situation where the only ‘credible’ trans defendant emerges as a self-loathing individual, incapable of imagining himself as the legitmate object of cisgender desire.”
http://legalvoice.org.uk/oppose-gender-identity-fraud-prosecutions/
0
0
You can read about the proposed changes here:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/deception-gender-proposed-revision-c…
0
0
Are the CPS saying that they are considering adopting a policy of simply not prosecute something which as a matter of law is a criminal offence, in future, if the person telling their sexual partner they are male (or female) perceived that they really were male (or female)?
Yes. It seems they are looking to substitute sex for “gender” so if you wilfully pretend to be the opposite sex even if you don’t “identify” as such, you are committing an offence, but if you do have that gender identity (and given there is very little gatekeeping around when exactly someone can be considered “trans” it might make little difference) then you have not committed any offence because trans women are women/trans men are men.
0
0
Sorry meant to quote Spurius. Haven’t figured out how to quote properly yet!
1
0
Not only to check, but to have to justify their conclusion, if it ends up in court, I suppose
And imagine if 1 of those justification is "on the dating website, they listed themself as a seeking b", and the dating sites get brought into the matter
0
0
Anna, I don't think they are considering "decriminalising" anything. This is not a consultation with a view to amending statute.
The consultation says "Deception as to Gender: proposed revision to CPS legal guidance on Rape and Serious Sexual Offences"
They are considering simply changing the guidance so the CPS does not prosecute trans people for rape or sexual assault by deception if they genuinely believed they were of the opposite gender.
The proposal appears to be that regardless of whether as matters currently stand it is a criminal offence as a matter of law, the CPS wouldn't prosecute. Secondary legislation by Stonewall, if you like.
4
0
Yes it might be in practice but - sorry, I know you don't like being disagreed with! - it's WAY more fvcking outrageous in theoretical terms.
You can't have the CPS change the law - as it is currently being applied by the Courts - by the backdoor by bringing in a policy in relation to prosecutions, which is nakedly political in nature, when Parliament hasn't passed legislation saying any such thing. Just because the CPS has been ideologically captured by Stonewall.
It's completely undemocratic. Imagine if the CPS was lobbied hard by industry and then brought a consultation to consider just not prosecuting industry for strict liability environmental crimes if they didn't really mean to do them, or something.
3
0
It really is quite shocking... I mean, it's bad enough when well meaning but (some might say, I couldn't possibly comment) misguided organisations try to unilaterally implement gender related policies without properly thinking them through / consulting with their employees. But for the CPS to do so, with the result being, as Spurius says, a change of the law by stealth, is absolutely staggering.
0
0
Can't Optimus Prime do something about this?
0
0
this is a good point tbf
serious question spurius - if the cps in the 1960s decided to issue guidance saying they wouldn’t prosecute for buggery even though parliament hadn’t legislated?
(i’m only asking if this is a principle matter for you)
5
0
Erm, Mr Feminist : buggery criminalised a consensual act between adults. This would be quite literally seeking to do the opposite. Do you get it now?
2
0
Yes I would have supported that, so I would accept the principle can't hold in the most extreme circumstances. (Although frankly, the CPS would only have got away with doing that in circs where everyone knew parliament was already in the process of decriminalising).
A good example of an exception to a similar rule is the one where the then House of Lords, now Supreme Court, does not overturn criminal law which is settled as a matter of the common law. The reason for the rule is that retrospectively criminalising someone who thought his or her act was lawful at the time, is generally unjust.
In 1990 it was still the case at English common law that a husband was entitled to have sex with his wife. He did not need her consent (she had contractually consented by marrying him) and therefore he could not rape her. A husband was prosecuted for raping his wife and relied on this defence. The House of Lords felt it was so unconscionable that they disregarded centuries of settled criminal common law and convicted him, without parliamentary intervention. This tore up the rulebook but they did it anyway.
See how this example of an exception to the rules fits in with the ones discussed above? True consent good. No true consent bad.
3
0
There is no such thing as the opposite gender. There is such thing as the opposite sex.
There are at least 80 genders, none of which are directly related to the other. People also claim to be "genderfluid" or "genderfvck", meaning even what they understand of their own gender isn't fixed at any given moment. Which is absolutely fine for them to believe and crack on with, but not fine when making law and policy.
What they mean is SEX. The opposite SEX. The Court of Appeal continued the batshit confusion of sex and gender in the case that kicked this off. R v Justine McNally [2013] EWCA Crim 1051 https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2013/…. Because they couldn't bring themselves to say sex they say gender. But they mean sex. Words fvcking matter you pricks. Sex matters.
All throughout the judgment gender is used when they mean sex.
0
0
sorry cru i was asking a question
i think “deception” is a very difficult one and don’t know how i feel about it
thanks spurius for the explanation - not certain if I agree with it 100% but will have a think!
0
0
i don’t disagree with that anna
you’re aware of the trans panic defense to murder though (and gay panic before and tbf still now)?
it’s a nuanced issue
thats why i’m asking the question
i don’t know where i land on it tbh
2
0
OK, I'll bite...
It really isn't the same thing at all [trans panic as a defence to physical assault / murder] because noone can reasonably argue that killing someone is a proportionate response to, essentially, embarrassment, or to an unwanted advance from someone of the same sex.
That is an entirely different thing from deliberately concealing your true sex from someone, and having sex with them knowing, or certainly, suspecting that if they knew the truth, they wouldn't consent to sex (after all, if it really wasn't an issue, why hide the truth at all)?
It takes 2 people to have sex, and 2 people to give consent, so ones person conviction in the "sexual identity" just isn't good enough. Hiding one's biological sex deprives the other person of the right and ability to consent; I just don't see how it can sit alongside the fact that you must have a reasonable belief in the other person's consent - how can a person possibly consent if something as fundamental as their actual sex is hidden from them?
2
0
That should read "one person's conviction in their sexual identity..."
0
0
Megan Fox was great, but Shia LaBeouf really stole the show. Great franchise tbf.
1
0
Interesting Chill. Think that does show divergence between you and some TRAs. Know some people who say trans individuals have no obligation to tell partners about their previous gender.
0
0
yup i don’t disagree with any of that cru
consent vs “deception” is a difficult one for me
i think my issue (and tbh i accept i may be tunneling here) is that you know anna has said many times that everyone “just knows” when a trans person is around them just by seeing them, and yet somehow shes now outraged that someone might have sex with someone else without knowing what their genitals are
doesn’t make sense to me tbh - surely they’d just know immediately?
but tbh if you accept people can pass and date (and get physical) while passing - i dunno i can completely get the consent point but still find it hard to balance it
0
0
yeah i dunno clive - there probably should be some obligation but i’d imagine it should be social rather than criminalising them for it
but then you come back to informed consent
so it’s difficult
1
0
Interesting parallel here.
Robots In Disguise!
3
0
Chill, can you please stop using this childish "dunno" expression
Doesn't make you seem cool and edgy
Just retarded
Ta
0
0
Does trans or gay panic actually exist as a defence in the UK?
0
0
Is this a defence for a young girl in the cubicle?
1
0
wouldn’t you quickly apprehend their ‘true sex’ when they whip it out and suggest a game of hide the salami?
2
0
Read the case linked above.
0
0
Obviously cba to read it - why didn’t she know?
0
0
it was dark. And she was wearing sunglasses.
1
0
I agree with the points made by Tuesday. Also thanks to KatiB for pointing out the information on PIE in the IICSI papers. There is also more about the links between LiIberty and PIE among the papers.
Interestingly Liberty which is now officially 'trans-affirmative' has said nothing about this case.
1
0
These hiding things cases are always interesting. If someone has sex with you only because they thought you were worth £500k or £2m or a doctor not a night porter - that kind of lying is probably not a criminal offence; whereas if you do not disclose you have an STD or the person only consented to a kiss not sex it would be. It is a huge can of worms. If you consented to sex with one identical twin man but not his twin then presumably that is an offence.
As for whether you can see who is trans or not I think you usually can. I suppose it is not 100% of the time but I do think I can normally tell.
I don't think we should start to force people (cotton ceiling etc) to have sex with people they aren't attracted to however, even if one group of people (eg incels who play computer games all day and never go out) think they are entitled to sex with women or because the person refusing has a "wrong" reason to refuse "eg they are only attracted to tall dark and hansom men or blonde men or straight men or funny or clever or white or black men.
1
0
If you consented to sex with one identical twin man but not his twin then presumably that is an offence.
Rape, no?
0
0
I think it comes under “sex by deception” in the same way.
Re: trans/gay panic, could someone use the partial defence to murder of “loss of control”?
Join the discussion