TRANSGENDERIt’s a trap! No, it’s sexual assault or rape! Prosecutors to decide whether gender identity changes consent, after cases of trans-trickery.

submitted by ClassroomPast6178 from (dailymail.co.uk)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ClassroomPast6178[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I took it to mean that they’re considering making it an offence not to declare your trans-status before sexual activity, and making disclosure part of consent.

I expect there to be considerable wailing and gnashing of teeth as the fetishists who dream of tricking men or women have their fetish criminalised.

This seems to be a good thing.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I just took it to be a better thing and them finally getting around to closing the loophole of "under UK law, it only counts as rape if a man uses his penis to penetrate a woman", and catching on to "well, what if a woman/trans man uses a toy on an unwilling partner, or a trans woman uses her penis to penetrate an unwilling woman?"

[–]ClassroomPast6178[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

A transwoman using their penis IS rape. The pronoun HE in the law is not a loophole for transwomen to escape being charged with rape.

The act of penetration with a penis, whether traditional or “feminine” without the reasonable belief that the person being penetrated has consented, is rape under the law in England & Wales.

You’re right about toys, using them to penetrate without consent would fall under the most serious level of sexual assault not rape.

[–]LyingSpirit472 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

While that is the case, the fact laws change is in large part because there's lawyers who are willing to play fast and loose with technicalities. The fact that we're seeing rape cases by transwomen in England and Wales get thrown out of court because the victim refused to use "she" pronouns for their attacker means that we're closer and closer to some asshole lawyer deciding to test that loophole by waiting until the victim referred to their attacker as "she" and then saying "she called my client she! She admits my client is a woman! That means that this is merely sexual assault, and since you didn't charge her with sexual assault and only charged her with rape, you have to throw the whole case out!"- and it's likelier and likelier that would WORK right now.

So, better to formally close it up and say "don't even think about it. They have a penis, even a feminine penis, they raped them"- and while you're at it close up a bunch of other backwards parts of the law as well.