The dark truth behind the convictions for 'gender fraud'
December 17, 2015 5:40 AM Subscribe
It's not about justice, it's about witch hunts, argues Alex Sharpe "Today, a young transgender man, Kyran Lee, received a two year suspended sentence after being convicted in 2014 of one count of sexual assault by penetration on the basis of “gender fraud.” He is the fifth young LGBT person to be prosecuted for and convicted of so-called “gender fraud” in the UK since 2012. The reason for this recent spate of criminal prosecutions of LGBT youth is unclear and calls for rigorous analysis in its own right. What is clear, is that while these prosecutions have some support, they do not accord with general community sentiment concerning the meaning of consent and the proper reach of criminal law."
What the hell is happening in the courts over there?! Reading this article and then I read this one just two days ago:
posted by Fizz at 5:52 AM on December 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
Saudi millionaire cleared of raping teenager after claiming he accidentally fell on top of her. [The Telegraph]I realize N. America has its own problems with how it prosecutes and criminalizes women, minorities and the LGBTQ community, but dear lord. Such depressing and horrifying news.
posted by Fizz at 5:52 AM on December 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
However, the Kyran Lee case is complicated by the use of a prosthetic device by the defendant. For some readers, this might settle the question of consent and clinch the argument in favour of prosecution. However, we should be cautious here for at least three reasons. First, according to Kyran’s evidence, he was much less sexually experienced than the twenty-seven year old complainant and had not wanted to have sexual intercourse with her, agreeing only because the complainant made it clear that the continuation of their relationship was contingent on him doing so (something which, as already noted, was emphasised by the judge in settling on a non-custodial sentence).
What in god's name is going on over there? If this is at all an accurate description of the case, the person who ought to be facing consequences for sexual [something bad, not violence, but coercion] sure isn't the guy. "Have sex with me when you don't want to, and then I'll turn you in to the cops for not having a growing-out-of-your-body penis" is abuse.
posted by Frowner at 6:00 AM on December 17, 2015 [28 favorites]
What in god's name is going on over there? If this is at all an accurate description of the case, the person who ought to be facing consequences for sexual [something bad, not violence, but coercion] sure isn't the guy. "Have sex with me when you don't want to, and then I'll turn you in to the cops for not having a growing-out-of-your-body penis" is abuse.
posted by Frowner at 6:00 AM on December 17, 2015 [28 favorites]
Huh. Obviously the bigger deal here is that courts are refusing to recognize that trans men are men, but I am also really weirded out by the whole idea that courts would prosecute "gender fraud." Do they prosecute other kinds of fraud? Like, if I claim to be an atheist to get in someone's pants because I know they only want to have sex with atheists, can I then be hauled up on charges in the UK if it later comes out that I believe in God? Or is gender presumed to be special in the sex fraud department?
From the article, it sounds like only trans men (and one boy) have been charged with "gender fraud". Any idea why that is?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:05 AM on December 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
From the article, it sounds like only trans men (and one boy) have been charged with "gender fraud". Any idea why that is?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:05 AM on December 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
This is rather disturbing. One could attempt to draw all kinds of conclusions, but I won't because I'm no expert in these matters. However, it is increasingly clear to me that our whole gender recognition thing is ridiculous. Why do you have to be a gender anyway?
posted by mathw at 6:10 AM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by mathw at 6:10 AM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
From the article, it sounds like only trans men (and one boy) have been charged with "gender fraud". Any idea why that is?
Men who have "gender fraud" committed upon them by trans women probably either take the law into their own hands or won't admit to it publicly.
posted by Etrigan at 6:13 AM on December 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Men who have "gender fraud" committed upon them by trans women probably either take the law into their own hands or won't admit to it publicly.
posted by Etrigan at 6:13 AM on December 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Oh my god dysk. This is...I don't have words yet to describe how I feel about this.
posted by Annika Cicada at 6:13 AM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Annika Cicada at 6:13 AM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
The Gayle Newland case is unfuckingbelievable too. How is this the 21st century?
posted by thetortoise at 6:19 AM on December 17, 2015
posted by thetortoise at 6:19 AM on December 17, 2015
Do they prosecute other kinds of fraud?
You mean like the bankers who defrauded us out of billions? No is the simple answer.
This is a pretty shocking prosecution, seeing as he was coerced into having sex. I would ask how is he even guilty, but read that he plead guilty, which is awful.
The other reports of this are pretty awful to read, and misgender Kyran Lee, but this part of the Judge's summing up from the Telegraph shows the Judge knew how difficult it was For Lee:
"That is one side of it. The defendant has a diagnosis of transsexualism. In the psychologist's report she says she had felt different from other children before puberty eventually coming to the conclusion that she was a male trapped in a female body.
"That must have been enormously difficult for the defendant growing up in that way.
"She states the act of penetration only occurred on one occasion and states the relationship would have been over had she not performed sexually.
"I accept this is not a case where this defendant entered into subterfuge so that she could gain sexual satisfaction and gratification from sexual activity with a woman.
"I'm satisfied that the whole motivation, highly selfish as it was, dreadfully deceitful though it was, was to have a relationship, not a physical one, with a woman as a man.
"That is quite clear. It was not a ruse to practise lesbian behaviour. This is a very different case. I fully understand how devastated the complainant feels. I also understand how difficult life has been for Kyran Lee.
"If I had thought for one moment that this was a case where his motivation was to get into bed with a woman to sexually satisfy himself I would have no hesitation in imposing an immediate custodial sentence but it is not that situation."
Telegraph Report
BBC report
posted by marienbad at 6:26 AM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
You mean like the bankers who defrauded us out of billions? No is the simple answer.
This is a pretty shocking prosecution, seeing as he was coerced into having sex. I would ask how is he even guilty, but read that he plead guilty, which is awful.
The other reports of this are pretty awful to read, and misgender Kyran Lee, but this part of the Judge's summing up from the Telegraph shows the Judge knew how difficult it was For Lee:
"That is one side of it. The defendant has a diagnosis of transsexualism. In the psychologist's report she says she had felt different from other children before puberty eventually coming to the conclusion that she was a male trapped in a female body.
"That must have been enormously difficult for the defendant growing up in that way.
"She states the act of penetration only occurred on one occasion and states the relationship would have been over had she not performed sexually.
"I accept this is not a case where this defendant entered into subterfuge so that she could gain sexual satisfaction and gratification from sexual activity with a woman.
"I'm satisfied that the whole motivation, highly selfish as it was, dreadfully deceitful though it was, was to have a relationship, not a physical one, with a woman as a man.
"That is quite clear. It was not a ruse to practise lesbian behaviour. This is a very different case. I fully understand how devastated the complainant feels. I also understand how difficult life has been for Kyran Lee.
"If I had thought for one moment that this was a case where his motivation was to get into bed with a woman to sexually satisfy himself I would have no hesitation in imposing an immediate custodial sentence but it is not that situation."
Telegraph Report
BBC report
posted by marienbad at 6:26 AM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Here are two earlier blog posts by Alex Sharpe also worth reading, if infuriating.
1
2
posted by thetortoise at 6:42 AM on December 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
1
2
posted by thetortoise at 6:42 AM on December 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
If this is at all an accurate description of the case,
Rule 1 of court cases: If at all possible ignore the press reports & go read the Judge’s summing up of the case instead. *Especially* when the case is reported in shocking terms of one sort or another.
NB. Frowner, as I read the Kyran Lee case, the woman simply expected that sex was part of a normal relationship. I don’t think anyone here would believe that that in and of itself was abusive.
posted by pharm at 6:50 AM on December 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Rule 1 of court cases: If at all possible ignore the press reports & go read the Judge’s summing up of the case instead. *Especially* when the case is reported in shocking terms of one sort or another.
NB. Frowner, as I read the Kyran Lee case, the woman simply expected that sex was part of a normal relationship. I don’t think anyone here would believe that that in and of itself was abusive.
posted by pharm at 6:50 AM on December 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
The more I think about this stuff, the more I can't think of a good individual solution, although I'm absolutely sure that this type of prosecution is one of the worst ways to deal with it.
You see this untenable situation for everyone - the woman in the Kyran case didn't consent, let's face it, to the use of a sex toy in her body. We would not, normally, say that if you've consented to one form of penetrative sex you've consented to any other form - that seems like a pretty terrible idea.
At the same time, Kyran Lee was in a really untenable position because of living in a society that doesn't believe that trans men are men, and because of the accompanying danger and stigma associated with that fact.
I would also suggest that trans men are held to a much higher standard than cis men in terms of "you did something that was in the general ballpark of what I consented to but to which I did not explicitly consent". I say this because pretty much every woman I know (and me, not-a-woman) who has had sex with cis men has dealt with much worse versions of this situation at least once or twice - not just "I was expecting penetrative sex but not with a toy" but "I was expecting a condom and I got no condom" or "I was expecting fingers and mutual stuff and I got a bad, painful attempt at anal" (how many times have I heard that? Lots.) And yet those cases do not go to court, even though the material harm (pregnancy, tearing, disease, pain) is greater. Maybe they should go to court, at least sometimes, pour encourager les autres, but it does tell us something that it's the trans man who is prosecuted, and who is prosecuted for gender fraud rather than consent.
It just seems like the legal system is really the wrong place for this particular situation, actually. "Doing a bad thing because you panicked and were in a terrible relationship while also facing a huge amount of social stigma"....what do you do with that?
posted by Frowner at 6:53 AM on December 17, 2015 [35 favorites]
You see this untenable situation for everyone - the woman in the Kyran case didn't consent, let's face it, to the use of a sex toy in her body. We would not, normally, say that if you've consented to one form of penetrative sex you've consented to any other form - that seems like a pretty terrible idea.
At the same time, Kyran Lee was in a really untenable position because of living in a society that doesn't believe that trans men are men, and because of the accompanying danger and stigma associated with that fact.
I would also suggest that trans men are held to a much higher standard than cis men in terms of "you did something that was in the general ballpark of what I consented to but to which I did not explicitly consent". I say this because pretty much every woman I know (and me, not-a-woman) who has had sex with cis men has dealt with much worse versions of this situation at least once or twice - not just "I was expecting penetrative sex but not with a toy" but "I was expecting a condom and I got no condom" or "I was expecting fingers and mutual stuff and I got a bad, painful attempt at anal" (how many times have I heard that? Lots.) And yet those cases do not go to court, even though the material harm (pregnancy, tearing, disease, pain) is greater. Maybe they should go to court, at least sometimes, pour encourager les autres, but it does tell us something that it's the trans man who is prosecuted, and who is prosecuted for gender fraud rather than consent.
It just seems like the legal system is really the wrong place for this particular situation, actually. "Doing a bad thing because you panicked and were in a terrible relationship while also facing a huge amount of social stigma"....what do you do with that?
posted by Frowner at 6:53 AM on December 17, 2015 [35 favorites]
However, Judge Michael Heath made clear he would have imposed an immediate prison sentence had he found Kyran’s motive to engage in sexual intimacy to be one of sexual gratification, rather than the avoidance of rejection and relationship breakdown.
So remember, everyone, so long as you can show that you don't have sexual feelings, and your behavior is because you are a broken human being, the courts will find a way to have "mercy" on you. Holy crap, this is just the most....I don't even have words for it.
posted by xingcat at 6:53 AM on December 17, 2015 [9 favorites]
So remember, everyone, so long as you can show that you don't have sexual feelings, and your behavior is because you are a broken human being, the courts will find a way to have "mercy" on you. Holy crap, this is just the most....I don't even have words for it.
posted by xingcat at 6:53 AM on December 17, 2015 [9 favorites]
The judge's summing up is just as much of a mess, and hinges on there being no deviation from binary gender identity. The conclusion I'm coming to reading about all of these cases is that being trans or gender liminal is prosecutable if you have a partner who presses charges and it can be easily rendered in terms of "deception." Would going around announcing HI I'M TRANS AND/OR GENDERQUEER and, like, printing it on a t-shirt even help? This is just fucking humbling for me reading because I thought of this kind of transphobia as something used against trans women and hadn't realized it could have hit me when I was a complicated transmasculine-ish teenager too (with an unstable gender identity and "psychiatric diagnoses," God forbid). No one is safe from this shit.
posted by thetortoise at 7:02 AM on December 17, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by thetortoise at 7:02 AM on December 17, 2015 [10 favorites]
That BBC article was a nasty thing, missing no chance to misgender Lee, and the whole thing sounds incredibly unjust.
How difficult/expensive is it to have gender legally reassigned in the UK? I was struck by this sentence:
The fact that he does not currently have a Gender Recognition Certificate stating the same is an effect only of his relative youth.
He's been identifying as male for a decade, and that's not long enough?!
What is this guy supposed to do? Not exist as a person until the state gets around to it?
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:05 AM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
How difficult/expensive is it to have gender legally reassigned in the UK? I was struck by this sentence:
The fact that he does not currently have a Gender Recognition Certificate stating the same is an effect only of his relative youth.
He's been identifying as male for a decade, and that's not long enough?!
What is this guy supposed to do? Not exist as a person until the state gets around to it?
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:05 AM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
You might not *like* the Judge’s summation thetortoise, but at least it will be based on the actual evidence brought forward in the case in question & will contain the explanation for the conviction (or not) under current law. You’ll rarely find either in the press reports unfortunately.
posted by pharm at 7:09 AM on December 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by pharm at 7:09 AM on December 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Also, I don't fully understand the concept of the Gender Recognition Certificate, but do I read this correctly that if he'd had a card in his wallet saying he was a man the complainant wouldn't have been able to raise a criminal case? Because that is some head-exploding bullshit.
Like, being a trans man doesn't make you a man but if you have the certificate to back it up you can be a man?
posted by telepanda at 7:17 AM on December 17, 2015 [17 favorites]
Like, being a trans man doesn't make you a man but if you have the certificate to back it up you can be a man?
posted by telepanda at 7:17 AM on December 17, 2015 [17 favorites]
telepanda: someone should make some spoof cards saying stuff like "This person is a man and they have a card to prove it. You can tell this because you are looking at the card right now!"
Also, re: BBC report - they have been atrocious recently on trans* issues. They even gave TERF Germaine Greer a platform to spout her vile views, and put it on the BBC front page, and then gave Catlin Jenner of all fucking people a chance to respond by interviewing her. Very poor form, BBC, I expect better from an organisation such as yourself.
posted by marienbad at 7:33 AM on December 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Also, re: BBC report - they have been atrocious recently on trans* issues. They even gave TERF Germaine Greer a platform to spout her vile views, and put it on the BBC front page, and then gave Catlin Jenner of all fucking people a chance to respond by interviewing her. Very poor form, BBC, I expect better from an organisation such as yourself.
posted by marienbad at 7:33 AM on December 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
That’s definitely an “ask a lawyer” question telepanda.
My suspicion is that the actual charge (sexual assault via penetration with an object IIRC ? ) would still have stood up - the facts of the charge do not depend on whether the accused was (legally) male or female. Meanwhile, the CPS probably wouldn’t have brought the same case against a (gender assigned at birth) man who penetrated a women with a dildo instead of his penis because they wouldn’t see a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution (due to jury biases), even though the bare facts of the case would be the same. Hence the (reasonable) charge that this represents a huge anti-trans people bias via selective prosecution in the law as currently enforced.
(The implication is that the CPS perceives that juries are willing to convict in one case, but not the other & so is oly bringing the cases involving trans people to court. It’s possible that cases involving non-trans individuals are occasionally prosecuted but that we don’t hear about them because they aren’t interesting enough for the press of course, but I’ve never heard of any such cases.)
posted by pharm at 7:34 AM on December 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
My suspicion is that the actual charge (sexual assault via penetration with an object IIRC ? ) would still have stood up - the facts of the charge do not depend on whether the accused was (legally) male or female. Meanwhile, the CPS probably wouldn’t have brought the same case against a (gender assigned at birth) man who penetrated a women with a dildo instead of his penis because they wouldn’t see a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution (due to jury biases), even though the bare facts of the case would be the same. Hence the (reasonable) charge that this represents a huge anti-trans people bias via selective prosecution in the law as currently enforced.
(The implication is that the CPS perceives that juries are willing to convict in one case, but not the other & so is oly bringing the cases involving trans people to court. It’s possible that cases involving non-trans individuals are occasionally prosecuted but that we don’t hear about them because they aren’t interesting enough for the press of course, but I’ve never heard of any such cases.)
posted by pharm at 7:34 AM on December 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
The Gayle Newland case is unfuckingbelievable too. How is this the 21st century?
I almost expected the charges to actually proceed all the way to witchcraft reading that article.
posted by XMLicious at 7:42 AM on December 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
This is definitely true.From the article, it sounds like only trans men (and one boy) have been charged with "gender fraud". Any idea why that is?Men who have "gender fraud" committed upon them by trans women probably either take the law into their own hands or won't admit to it publicly.
But also — there is a really strong societal impulse to persecute trans women as sex criminals. It's just that that impulse gets channeled in other directions. It shows up as the presumption that trans women in public spaces are sex workers, especially if they're poor or they're black or latina, or that trans women who come into contact with children are sexual predators. If you're a cop or a prosecutor who has a problem with trans women, you don't have to wait around for someone to show up with a tenuous and hard-to-prosecute "gender fraud" complaint. You can Get Out There and Do Something about it all on your own initiative, based on much clearer and more widely enforced laws.
posted by nebulawindphone at 7:51 AM on December 17, 2015 [15 favorites]
The last lines of the Gayle Newland article:
A history of low self-esteem and “blurred gender lines” added to a “very troubling picture”, said the judge. But he said he did not agree with Power’s submission that he could depart from sentencing guidelines in such an exceptional case and not impose an immediate custodial term.
He concluded: “These offences are so serious that only an immediate custodial sentence would in any way properly reflect the serious nature of your conduct. As an aspect of mercy, I do not increase the starting point beyond eight years.
God I hope I never have to encounter any court system on a charge relating to having blurred gender lines. What in the holy fucking shit. It seems like there was role-play going on to work out some questions? It seems like there's a deeper story with their relationship that was allowed to be ignored because some reason that feels like massive anti-trans bias in the courts and on the prosecution side?
As far as consent and sexytime goes, I think trans people are better off saying "I'm trans and this is the package I got" when having sex with people who live comfortably unaware in their "assigned correctly at birth" sex binary. Or Trans people should just stop having sex. I can't find an answer here help me please.
posted by Annika Cicada at 8:12 AM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
A history of low self-esteem and “blurred gender lines” added to a “very troubling picture”, said the judge. But he said he did not agree with Power’s submission that he could depart from sentencing guidelines in such an exceptional case and not impose an immediate custodial term.
He concluded: “These offences are so serious that only an immediate custodial sentence would in any way properly reflect the serious nature of your conduct. As an aspect of mercy, I do not increase the starting point beyond eight years.
God I hope I never have to encounter any court system on a charge relating to having blurred gender lines. What in the holy fucking shit. It seems like there was role-play going on to work out some questions? It seems like there's a deeper story with their relationship that was allowed to be ignored because some reason that feels like massive anti-trans bias in the courts and on the prosecution side?
As far as consent and sexytime goes, I think trans people are better off saying "I'm trans and this is the package I got" when having sex with people who live comfortably unaware in their "assigned correctly at birth" sex binary. Or Trans people should just stop having sex. I can't find an answer here help me please.
posted by Annika Cicada at 8:12 AM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
NB. Frowner, as I read the Kyran Lee case, the woman simply expected that sex was part of a normal relationship. I don’t think anyone here would believe that that in and of itself was abusive.
maybe not anyone here but hoo boy let me tell you, friend
as for the situation... what a mess. the existence of gender recognition cards and "gender fraud" as a prosecutable concept in and of itself (or was "sexual assault via penetration with an object" the actual charge? I'm a bit confused on this) is not something I expected to be A Thing but I guess here we are. in this terrible, shitty place.
posted by suddenly, and without warning, at 8:14 AM on December 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
maybe not anyone here but hoo boy let me tell you, friend
as for the situation... what a mess. the existence of gender recognition cards and "gender fraud" as a prosecutable concept in and of itself (or was "sexual assault via penetration with an object" the actual charge? I'm a bit confused on this) is not something I expected to be A Thing but I guess here we are. in this terrible, shitty place.
posted by suddenly, and without warning, at 8:14 AM on December 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
NB. Frowner, as I read the Kyran Lee case, the woman simply expected that sex was part of a normal relationship. I don’t think anyone here would believe that that in and of itself was abusive.
I dunno, that... can in and of itself can be kind of coercy. It's in the same line as saying marital rape isn't a thing. Being in a relationship with someone isn't a blanket affirmation of consent, you still have to talk about what you want with your partner. And I gotta say, "you are dating me, ergo you owe me sex" seems to be exactly what this lady was doing:
First, according to Kyran’s evidence, he was much less sexually experienced than the twenty-seven year old complainant and had not wanted to have sexual intercourse with her, agreeing only because the complainant made it clear that the continuation of their relationship was contingent on him doing so (something which, as already noted, was emphasised by the judge in settling on a non-custodial sentence).
Like. At that point, you talk to your partner and find out why they're feeling cagey, and if you can't deal with not having sex given their reasons, you fucking break up rather than presenting them with an ultimatum like that. Jesus. When men badger women past an intitial "no," we recognize that as an active attempt to erode consent to get what they want. Why is it different here?
posted by sciatrix at 8:26 AM on December 17, 2015 [24 favorites]
I dunno, that... can in and of itself can be kind of coercy. It's in the same line as saying marital rape isn't a thing. Being in a relationship with someone isn't a blanket affirmation of consent, you still have to talk about what you want with your partner. And I gotta say, "you are dating me, ergo you owe me sex" seems to be exactly what this lady was doing:
First, according to Kyran’s evidence, he was much less sexually experienced than the twenty-seven year old complainant and had not wanted to have sexual intercourse with her, agreeing only because the complainant made it clear that the continuation of their relationship was contingent on him doing so (something which, as already noted, was emphasised by the judge in settling on a non-custodial sentence).
Like. At that point, you talk to your partner and find out why they're feeling cagey, and if you can't deal with not having sex given their reasons, you fucking break up rather than presenting them with an ultimatum like that. Jesus. When men badger women past an intitial "no," we recognize that as an active attempt to erode consent to get what they want. Why is it different here?
posted by sciatrix at 8:26 AM on December 17, 2015 [24 favorites]
we recognize that as an active attempt to erode consent to get what they want. Why is it different here?
Because of the widespread societal assumption that men always want sex, all the time, anytime.
Which, to be fair, is mostly promulgated by men.
posted by GuyZero at 8:36 AM on December 17, 2015
Because of the widespread societal assumption that men always want sex, all the time, anytime.
Which, to be fair, is mostly promulgated by men.
posted by GuyZero at 8:36 AM on December 17, 2015
I should add - you're right of course, sciatrix. It's the same. But there there's a narrative about women withholding sex and men demanding it and if a woman offers a men sex and he doesn't go for it, there's something wrong with him.
And I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that's my read of the societal view.
posted by GuyZero at 8:39 AM on December 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
And I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that's my read of the societal view.
posted by GuyZero at 8:39 AM on December 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
So basically, the guy is "man enough" that people assume he can't be coerced/bullied by his partner into having sex that he didn't want, but not "man enough" to escape what is obviously a trans-panic prosecution (since as pharm points out, it's unlikely that a case like this would even be brought against a cis guy, because it would never produce a conviction). You can't win.
posted by Frowner at 8:42 AM on December 17, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 8:42 AM on December 17, 2015 [16 favorites]
Right. So this poor guy gets hit coming and going by a whole fuckload of pressure to have sex he doesn't want for a variety of reasons--not wanting to lose his girlfriend, plus (very probably) feeling threatened in his masculinity, which as he's trans is going to be a extra sore spot because of the shit you get as a trans person. (Especially because the kind of pressure you're talking about, GuyZero, is... well, okay, I'd be surprised if she wasn't directly targeting his manliness when she told him it wasn't okay that he wasn't having sex with her.) Then he gets hit with this extra trauma on top of it.
Frankly, I don't think it's okay to characterize his ex as not abusive. At the bare minimum, she was really negligent in her communication with her partner, and she has clearly handled it in the worst possible way since then. (As demonstrated by the fact that she fucking pressed charges for not getting the kind of sex she wanted when she pressured him into sex.) Whether she's legally culpable is a different question, although frankly the fact that she was able to use the legal system to compound her abusive behavior is appalling.
posted by sciatrix at 8:45 AM on December 17, 2015 [16 favorites]
Frankly, I don't think it's okay to characterize his ex as not abusive. At the bare minimum, she was really negligent in her communication with her partner, and she has clearly handled it in the worst possible way since then. (As demonstrated by the fact that she fucking pressed charges for not getting the kind of sex she wanted when she pressured him into sex.) Whether she's legally culpable is a different question, although frankly the fact that she was able to use the legal system to compound her abusive behavior is appalling.
posted by sciatrix at 8:45 AM on December 17, 2015 [16 favorites]
As far as consent and sexytime goes, I think trans people are better off saying "I'm trans and this is the package I got" ...
Disclosure probably would have averted this whole mess for Lee and the complainant. Uncomfortable perhaps, but, as we see here, absolutely necessary.
posted by MikeMc at 8:49 AM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Disclosure probably would have averted this whole mess for Lee and the complainant. Uncomfortable perhaps, but, as we see here, absolutely necessary.
posted by MikeMc at 8:49 AM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
It sucks being trans for a whole boatload of various reasons and the dysphoria and performance anxiety that comes with genitalia that doesn't match up with how "shit should work down there" can create some additional problems that are sometimes impossible to fully overcome.
This case is WAY WAY more complicated than failure to get proper consent. This is a complete failure of the relationship from the get-go in so many ways.
Which, having dated for a year as an out trans woman before I met "the one"...I can assure everyone that shit is is scary as fuck because people are unpredictable and weird and you just never know how someone is going to react to your body. In every case when it got to the point where I felt like "I wanna be nekkid with you" I had "the talk" about what I have and how it works and where I'm personally a total wreck about it and how I like to "do teh sex". It's all around the best thing to do, but complicate that with stigma and fear and unpredictability, I can see how other trans people are unable to have the courage to say anything until it's too late.
The problem I see is that we are trying to shoehorn trans-bodied people into cis-bodied consent models. And it should not be cis people who get to define 100% how that consent model between trans and cis is negotiated either, which right now it appears to be in the UK courts and that bothers me A WHOLE LOT A LOT.
posted by Annika Cicada at 9:01 AM on December 17, 2015 [25 favorites]
This case is WAY WAY more complicated than failure to get proper consent. This is a complete failure of the relationship from the get-go in so many ways.
Which, having dated for a year as an out trans woman before I met "the one"...I can assure everyone that shit is is scary as fuck because people are unpredictable and weird and you just never know how someone is going to react to your body. In every case when it got to the point where I felt like "I wanna be nekkid with you" I had "the talk" about what I have and how it works and where I'm personally a total wreck about it and how I like to "do teh sex". It's all around the best thing to do, but complicate that with stigma and fear and unpredictability, I can see how other trans people are unable to have the courage to say anything until it's too late.
The problem I see is that we are trying to shoehorn trans-bodied people into cis-bodied consent models. And it should not be cis people who get to define 100% how that consent model between trans and cis is negotiated either, which right now it appears to be in the UK courts and that bothers me A WHOLE LOT A LOT.
posted by Annika Cicada at 9:01 AM on December 17, 2015 [25 favorites]
Disclosure probably would have averted this whole mess for Lee and the complainant. Uncomfortable perhaps, but, as we see here, absolutely necessary.
Uncomfortable, unsafe, stigmatized, extremely shaming and difficult, probably. If someone is in a relationship where they didn't disclose early on, there's probably something extra going on, something bad - plausible fear that, for instance, the partner will not just break up but will out them to family and friends and employer (or go to the cops, for pete's sake; it's not like this partner acted in a sterling manner). Plausible fear that the partner or the partner's friends will hurt them. Shame, dysphoria, untreated mental stuff. Someone who is probably seriously under-loved fearing deeply that he won't be loved at all if he discloses.
I think it's very, very easy for cis people (or even for gender-non-conforming or trans people who move in certain kinds of queer circles) to underestimate how difficult and unsafe it can be to disclose. I am a trans person, and I didn't fully understand this until talking to a friend. If you're a trans person and you're not around a lot of other trans people and you're dating a cis person who doesn't know a lot of trans people, and you're stigmatized and afraid and young, it's difficult in ways that I don't think other folks grasp easily.
This guy's partner basically wanted him to do hard time for having sex with her using a sex toy and probably for being trans. That's the kind of partner she was.
It is common for trans people to get treated really poorly by partners. Again, this is something that you don't even see if you're not trans. I have been shocked, honestly, to see how badly trans women friends have been treated by, like, hip radical lesbians who say all the right words - never mind how people are treated by cis partners who are transphobic.
Disclosure is...probably necessary for most people for body reasons (but what if you had successful gender alignment surgeries? Not to be too detailed, but there are certainly trans women for whom this is a question. For a lot of people, the whole point is to be men or women, not to spend your whole life "disclosing" something, and eventually we're going to get to a point where virtually everyone can "pass" if they so choose. I don't think "if I had known that you were trans - even though I can't actually tell - I would never have hooked up with you" is a legit statement.)
posted by Frowner at 9:08 AM on December 17, 2015 [32 favorites]
Uncomfortable, unsafe, stigmatized, extremely shaming and difficult, probably. If someone is in a relationship where they didn't disclose early on, there's probably something extra going on, something bad - plausible fear that, for instance, the partner will not just break up but will out them to family and friends and employer (or go to the cops, for pete's sake; it's not like this partner acted in a sterling manner). Plausible fear that the partner or the partner's friends will hurt them. Shame, dysphoria, untreated mental stuff. Someone who is probably seriously under-loved fearing deeply that he won't be loved at all if he discloses.
I think it's very, very easy for cis people (or even for gender-non-conforming or trans people who move in certain kinds of queer circles) to underestimate how difficult and unsafe it can be to disclose. I am a trans person, and I didn't fully understand this until talking to a friend. If you're a trans person and you're not around a lot of other trans people and you're dating a cis person who doesn't know a lot of trans people, and you're stigmatized and afraid and young, it's difficult in ways that I don't think other folks grasp easily.
This guy's partner basically wanted him to do hard time for having sex with her using a sex toy and probably for being trans. That's the kind of partner she was.
It is common for trans people to get treated really poorly by partners. Again, this is something that you don't even see if you're not trans. I have been shocked, honestly, to see how badly trans women friends have been treated by, like, hip radical lesbians who say all the right words - never mind how people are treated by cis partners who are transphobic.
Disclosure is...probably necessary for most people for body reasons (but what if you had successful gender alignment surgeries? Not to be too detailed, but there are certainly trans women for whom this is a question. For a lot of people, the whole point is to be men or women, not to spend your whole life "disclosing" something, and eventually we're going to get to a point where virtually everyone can "pass" if they so choose. I don't think "if I had known that you were trans - even though I can't actually tell - I would never have hooked up with you" is a legit statement.)
posted by Frowner at 9:08 AM on December 17, 2015 [32 favorites]
Absolutely, disclosure is a battle against stigma + fear + unpredictability.
“Gender fraud” is a very real transphobic sentiment that's pretty common. My partner has very transphobic parents who are demanding I disclose my trans status to every person I meet, when I first meet them, no less. Because otherwise, I am perpetuating "fraud". (Why, yes, they do misgender me, despite the fact that they used to think I was a cis man. Once they learned I was trans, everything went to hell.)
I disclosed to my partner immediately because I was able to safely, thanks to the distance a LDR provided. It was still terrifying, even though my partner is bigender and absolutely awesome about gender identity. But part of me still instinctively prepared for violence.
posted by Wossname at 9:19 AM on December 17, 2015 [11 favorites]
“Gender fraud” is a very real transphobic sentiment that's pretty common. My partner has very transphobic parents who are demanding I disclose my trans status to every person I meet, when I first meet them, no less. Because otherwise, I am perpetuating "fraud". (Why, yes, they do misgender me, despite the fact that they used to think I was a cis man. Once they learned I was trans, everything went to hell.)
I disclosed to my partner immediately because I was able to safely, thanks to the distance a LDR provided. It was still terrifying, even though my partner is bigender and absolutely awesome about gender identity. But part of me still instinctively prepared for violence.
posted by Wossname at 9:19 AM on December 17, 2015 [11 favorites]
hugs, wossname. I feel what you are going through. My ex outs me all the goddamn time in the most fucked up of situations, sometimes even when I am present with her and I am standing there looking at the stranger she outed me to like "yes, the mother of our children did just out me as trans to you, even though you probably had no clue". And then it's all misgender all the fucking time and...so it goes. It's a fucking nightmare disaster scenario that I have to deal with at least once a month from her. And she's totally unable to clue in to the fact that she needs to cut it out.
posted by Annika Cicada at 9:27 AM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Annika Cicada at 9:27 AM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
I’m really not comfortable with this whole “she blackmailed him into sex” line of thinking.
If someone came into ask.me & said that they loved their boyfriend but for some reason he wouldn’t have sex with them & it was really getting to them, I think the universal answer would be a) you have to talk to him about this and b) if sex is important to you in a relationship then not getting it is a completely valid reason to not be in that relationship any more and it’s OK to say that. In this particular case, we don’t know how the exchange was phrased, all we know is that the accused took it as an ultimatum: have sex with me or I end the relationship. But that baldly it seems pretty shitty, but is it really that unreasonable? I don’t think so & to paint the woman as some kind of abusive harpy for *wanting sex in a relationship* is grossly unfair.
I am also uncomfortable with all the other accusation that the mere fact of the prosecution makes her a bad person. We don’t know anything about her, except that she felt traumatised by this relationship (as the judge’s summing up makes clear). We have spent a long time making the case that people can & will be traumatised by things that others take in their stride. If the woman in this case says she was traumatised by this relationship, then she was. There can’t be any minimising of it, any “oh she’s just transphobic, if she was as forward thinking as me she wouldn’t care about the trans-status of the people she was fucking”. People get to say “I don’t want to have sex with trans people & making me doing so without my consent is abusive, because I will find it traumatic”†. Is this transphobic? Maybe: It’s certainly emblematic of a general attitude to trans people in society that puts them in a really shitty position, and I wish it were otherwise, but being in a shitty position doesn’t give you carte blanche to treat other people badly, no matter how short the straw you’ve drawn is.
†It looks like the courts have pretty much taken this as being axiomatic, which brings it’s own problems & makes things even crappier for trans people, but the point still stands I think.
posted by pharm at 9:54 AM on December 17, 2015 [16 favorites]
If someone came into ask.me & said that they loved their boyfriend but for some reason he wouldn’t have sex with them & it was really getting to them, I think the universal answer would be a) you have to talk to him about this and b) if sex is important to you in a relationship then not getting it is a completely valid reason to not be in that relationship any more and it’s OK to say that. In this particular case, we don’t know how the exchange was phrased, all we know is that the accused took it as an ultimatum: have sex with me or I end the relationship. But that baldly it seems pretty shitty, but is it really that unreasonable? I don’t think so & to paint the woman as some kind of abusive harpy for *wanting sex in a relationship* is grossly unfair.
I am also uncomfortable with all the other accusation that the mere fact of the prosecution makes her a bad person. We don’t know anything about her, except that she felt traumatised by this relationship (as the judge’s summing up makes clear). We have spent a long time making the case that people can & will be traumatised by things that others take in their stride. If the woman in this case says she was traumatised by this relationship, then she was. There can’t be any minimising of it, any “oh she’s just transphobic, if she was as forward thinking as me she wouldn’t care about the trans-status of the people she was fucking”. People get to say “I don’t want to have sex with trans people & making me doing so without my consent is abusive, because I will find it traumatic”†. Is this transphobic? Maybe: It’s certainly emblematic of a general attitude to trans people in society that puts them in a really shitty position, and I wish it were otherwise, but being in a shitty position doesn’t give you carte blanche to treat other people badly, no matter how short the straw you’ve drawn is.
†It looks like the courts have pretty much taken this as being axiomatic, which brings it’s own problems & makes things even crappier for trans people, but the point still stands I think.
posted by pharm at 9:54 AM on December 17, 2015 [16 favorites]
My point isn't that wanting sex in a relationship makes her a bad person. My point is that the way that she handled that desire is abusive. For example, phrasing things as an ultimatum "you have sex with me or I'll leave you" is leveraging a person's desire to not have a relationship to end in order to pressure them into having sex. The ethical way to handle that is to have an honest, minimally pressuring discussion about why someone is avoiding sex and what is or isn't on the table. Then, if that's not enough to make you happy, you break up. You do not offer a weird toxic offer of "have sex that you aren't comfortable with and don't want with me, or I dump you." You don't offer a choice; you see what is and what is not in your respective comfort levels and then you make a decision.
In the same way, if you're dating someone nice but they turn out on the third date to have kids and you hate kids, you don't tell them "well, get rid of the kids or I break up with you." You say "Huh. I'm not sure I can handle that. Let me think about it." and then if you can't deal, you come back and apologetically say that you can't do that and you'll be better off as friends. You don't make people choose like that about sex.
posted by sciatrix at 10:06 AM on December 17, 2015 [17 favorites]
In the same way, if you're dating someone nice but they turn out on the third date to have kids and you hate kids, you don't tell them "well, get rid of the kids or I break up with you." You say "Huh. I'm not sure I can handle that. Let me think about it." and then if you can't deal, you come back and apologetically say that you can't do that and you'll be better off as friends. You don't make people choose like that about sex.
posted by sciatrix at 10:06 AM on December 17, 2015 [17 favorites]
I read "had not wanted to have sexual intercourse with her, agreeing only because the complainant made it clear that the continuation of their relationship was contingent on him doing so".
Which changes the dynamics somewhat. And yes, people can be psychologically coercive and abusive when it comes to sex.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 10:12 AM on December 17, 2015
Which changes the dynamics somewhat. And yes, people can be psychologically coercive and abusive when it comes to sex.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 10:12 AM on December 17, 2015
We don’t know that it was phrased as an ultimatum sciatrix, only that the accused took it to be one as I understand the reporting.
If you have a conversation with someone where they make it clear that, for them, sex is part of a relationship & that not getting any is a problem for you then that’s a totally reasonable thing to express. At the same time the other party might legitimately take it as an ultimatum: “fuck me, or I break up with you” & even if nothing like that was ever explicitly said, it’s clearly implied by the conversation: the sub text is right there to be read by all concerned.
posted by pharm at 10:25 AM on December 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
If you have a conversation with someone where they make it clear that, for them, sex is part of a relationship & that not getting any is a problem for you then that’s a totally reasonable thing to express. At the same time the other party might legitimately take it as an ultimatum: “fuck me, or I break up with you” & even if nothing like that was ever explicitly said, it’s clearly implied by the conversation: the sub text is right there to be read by all concerned.
posted by pharm at 10:25 AM on December 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
The ethical way to handle that is to have an honest, minimally pressuring discussion about why someone is avoiding sex and what is or isn't on the table. Then, if that's not enough to make you happy, you break up.
The emotional labor that's required here bugs me.
This is slightly oversimplified, but there is a class of people I really like and are attracted to -- people I deeply care about -- whom I do not have sex with. I call those people friends. If someone (with whom I am not in a deeply, deeply multi-year LTR) tells me that they're not interested in having sex with me, I don't care why they don't want to have sex with me. I care about the fact that they do not want to have sex. Sex for me is inseparable from a romantic relationship, and it's inseparable in part because, when I've tried to separate it in the past, it's made me miserable.
Perhaps the best way to have handled this situation was just to break up without giving a reason? Having an "honest, minimally pressuring discussion" is for times when your answer might be enough to change my mind. Otherwise, I could see it as all kinds of triggering for me to have a heart to heart conversation and then dump you anyway because the answer you've given is a perfectly good justification for not doing something that I need in a relationship. (Because sex apparently isn't something that's "important" enough for some people to consider unnegotiable, consider children. If I *really* want children, it doesn't matter *why* you don't want children -- I'm going to go and find someone who wants children with me. The only way a conversation about why you don't want children will change my mind about leaving you is if that conversation makes you agree to have children with me, and the amount of emotional labor that's required to make that conversation both persuasive and "minimally pressuring" is mind-boggling.)
posted by steady-state strawberry at 10:34 AM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
The emotional labor that's required here bugs me.
This is slightly oversimplified, but there is a class of people I really like and are attracted to -- people I deeply care about -- whom I do not have sex with. I call those people friends. If someone (with whom I am not in a deeply, deeply multi-year LTR) tells me that they're not interested in having sex with me, I don't care why they don't want to have sex with me. I care about the fact that they do not want to have sex. Sex for me is inseparable from a romantic relationship, and it's inseparable in part because, when I've tried to separate it in the past, it's made me miserable.
Perhaps the best way to have handled this situation was just to break up without giving a reason? Having an "honest, minimally pressuring discussion" is for times when your answer might be enough to change my mind. Otherwise, I could see it as all kinds of triggering for me to have a heart to heart conversation and then dump you anyway because the answer you've given is a perfectly good justification for not doing something that I need in a relationship. (Because sex apparently isn't something that's "important" enough for some people to consider unnegotiable, consider children. If I *really* want children, it doesn't matter *why* you don't want children -- I'm going to go and find someone who wants children with me. The only way a conversation about why you don't want children will change my mind about leaving you is if that conversation makes you agree to have children with me, and the amount of emotional labor that's required to make that conversation both persuasive and "minimally pressuring" is mind-boggling.)
posted by steady-state strawberry at 10:34 AM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
It may be true that we can't know how she feels; we have third hand evidence that she feels that way, but we have no reason to believe she or anyone else making it up. However, at the same time, it's abundantly clear that Lee has been traumatized, not only by what seems like a bad relationship, but a whole set of societal systems that deny Lee the ability to honestly express his gender, then punish him when he tries to have a relationship, which is hardly an unreasonable desire.
I suspect that Lee made a lot of errors in this relationship, but the punishment is way out of line for that failing, especially as it's a punishment that could and would not be leveled if he was vis gendered (or, presumably, had that elusive certificate).
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:36 AM on December 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
I suspect that Lee made a lot of errors in this relationship, but the punishment is way out of line for that failing, especially as it's a punishment that could and would not be leveled if he was vis gendered (or, presumably, had that elusive certificate).
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:36 AM on December 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
People get to say “I don’t want to have sex with trans people & making me doing so without my consent is abusive, because I will find it traumatic”†. Is this transphobic?
Cis people not wanting to have sex with trans people is something that will continue to be a disaster until we are prepared to reconstruct sexual biology so that sexual orientation is accessible for trans people without all the hand-wringing we have today. Because "straight gay and lesbian" are reduced to "what sex part I like" when it's really way more complicated than that.
"I'm not attracted to you because even though you are what I'm oriented towards, you're not biologically cis-oriented enough for me to get past The fact that I've been trained to believe penisis and vaginas are only found on "assigned at bith" congruent sexes."
I loved (not) hearing from lesbians who go into detail about how they engage in strap on sex with their cis partners after they told me "I think you're pretty but i dont like your penis".
We gross most of you out. Just admit it and move on. Just please don't fuck is on the backend by sending us to prison when our bodies gross you out after the fact.
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:59 AM on December 17, 2015 [18 favorites]
Cis people not wanting to have sex with trans people is something that will continue to be a disaster until we are prepared to reconstruct sexual biology so that sexual orientation is accessible for trans people without all the hand-wringing we have today. Because "straight gay and lesbian" are reduced to "what sex part I like" when it's really way more complicated than that.
"I'm not attracted to you because even though you are what I'm oriented towards, you're not biologically cis-oriented enough for me to get past The fact that I've been trained to believe penisis and vaginas are only found on "assigned at bith" congruent sexes."
I loved (not) hearing from lesbians who go into detail about how they engage in strap on sex with their cis partners after they told me "I think you're pretty but i dont like your penis".
We gross most of you out. Just admit it and move on. Just please don't fuck is on the backend by sending us to prison when our bodies gross you out after the fact.
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:59 AM on December 17, 2015 [18 favorites]
I don't think "if I had known that you were trans - even though I can't actually tell - I would never have hooked up with you" is a legit statement.)
If one wants to maintain a belief that sex outside of a monogamous relationship is acceptable, then the entire sexual ethos around it must be, "you are implicitly consenting to having sex with a trans person," rather than making that ethos merely implied. And I suspect that if it is articulated as clearly as that, I doubt there will be much acceptance of that ethos.
Of course the alternative is to claim that if you do not want sex with a trans person, then sex outside of a monogamous relationship with full disclosure is off the table, which I think is a fair argument to make.
posted by deanc at 11:22 AM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
If one wants to maintain a belief that sex outside of a monogamous relationship is acceptable, then the entire sexual ethos around it must be, "you are implicitly consenting to having sex with a trans person," rather than making that ethos merely implied. And I suspect that if it is articulated as clearly as that, I doubt there will be much acceptance of that ethos.
Of course the alternative is to claim that if you do not want sex with a trans person, then sex outside of a monogamous relationship with full disclosure is off the table, which I think is a fair argument to make.
posted by deanc at 11:22 AM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
For me, on a personal level, the issue is that a lot of folks are assuming that an acceptable solution for this complicated situation was arrest, charging, trial and potentially jail time for Lee, knowing full well that he'd face a biased court system, a dangerous prison system and charges that would never stick against a cis man.
Trauma does not necessarily legitimate trying to get someone put in jail, is all I'm saying.
posted by Frowner at 11:29 AM on December 17, 2015 [11 favorites]
Trauma does not necessarily legitimate trying to get someone put in jail, is all I'm saying.
posted by Frowner at 11:29 AM on December 17, 2015 [11 favorites]
I mean, there's lots of things that people do that are bad things, and yet the world would not necessarily be a better place if all those things were arbitrated in the courts.
posted by Frowner at 11:34 AM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 11:34 AM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
Unless some kind of criminal intent/malice was involved, "I wouldn't have done X if I had known Y" shouldn't be the basis for a criminal complaint for most situations, which is why these things are usually hashed out in civil court. Being trans doesn't/shouldn't change that. But Kyran Lee still did a bad thing.
posted by deanc at 11:35 AM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by deanc at 11:35 AM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I feel like there's a fundamental disconnect happening in some of the comments and in the way the case is discussed in the non-Sharpe news articles. Trans people who don't disclose their trans status-- whatever it may legally be-- aren't lying; they are not deluded or deceiving; they are the gender that they are, and their bodies do not require explanations or apologies, no more than any cis body does. There are an awful lot of cis people who are ignorant about gender, sure, and go around thinking everyone they meet is cis unless explicitly told otherwise, but why should the burden be on trans people to evaluate and accommodate that ignorance? Why should trans people have to constantly take extra measures for their physical safety and legal protection just to exist and pursue relationships, same as everybody else? "Because they're a minority" is a shitty reason.
posted by thetortoise at 11:36 AM on December 17, 2015 [20 favorites]
posted by thetortoise at 11:36 AM on December 17, 2015 [20 favorites]
Large chunks of this discussion make me feel like I've warped into the universe of a Meat Loaf song. Let's simplify this to good and bad.
Ok, good. Talking about sexual expectations and needs early and often. You don't have to be a diplomat. Just say what you want, and what the dealbreakers are. Unless you say them or write them, no one else is going to know them. Breaking up can be good. Honesty is generally good even if it hurts.
Bad. Throwing stuff. Threatening self-harm. Revealing your knowledge of homophobic slurs. (It's amazing what comes out of a "gay-positive" straight person's mouth at 3 in the morning when you're both emotionally naked.) Badgering a person for sex when they're obviously suffering from a panic attack or a medical problem.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 11:37 AM on December 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Ok, good. Talking about sexual expectations and needs early and often. You don't have to be a diplomat. Just say what you want, and what the dealbreakers are. Unless you say them or write them, no one else is going to know them. Breaking up can be good. Honesty is generally good even if it hurts.
Bad. Throwing stuff. Threatening self-harm. Revealing your knowledge of homophobic slurs. (It's amazing what comes out of a "gay-positive" straight person's mouth at 3 in the morning when you're both emotionally naked.) Badgering a person for sex when they're obviously suffering from a panic attack or a medical problem.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 11:37 AM on December 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
their bodies do not require explanations or apologies, no more than any cis body does.
Well sure. But what people choose to do with their own bodies when interacting with another person's body (i.e., sex) is a fundamental boundary people are entitled to keep. Now it is fine to say that within casual circumstances, you are giving implicit consent to accept a person's body however it is, but that's a different ethos than most people are willing to believe in at the moment.
posted by deanc at 11:42 AM on December 17, 2015
Well sure. But what people choose to do with their own bodies when interacting with another person's body (i.e., sex) is a fundamental boundary people are entitled to keep. Now it is fine to say that within casual circumstances, you are giving implicit consent to accept a person's body however it is, but that's a different ethos than most people are willing to believe in at the moment.
posted by deanc at 11:42 AM on December 17, 2015
Love and solidarity to all trans people in this thread. It's embarrassing that MeFi isn't better than this. May you be safe and loved.
posted by sadmadglad at 11:46 AM on December 17, 2015 [25 favorites]
posted by sadmadglad at 11:46 AM on December 17, 2015 [25 favorites]
I do not think that many of you are considering exactly what you're asking of trans people when you ask for "immediate disclosure" about their trans status. For one thing, this is a situation where trans women in particular frequently die. This lady found out and fucking called the cops and tried to press charges. People lose their social circles; what if they tell friends? Family? There are consequences if things go wrong, and even when all you have to go on is green flags it's still a fraught discussion.
For another thing, yeah, I know that not all of you would date a trans person. Do you have any idea what the impact is on someone who is single, to hear people just straight up volunteer that your existence is a dealbreaker whenever the situation comes up? Without considering it or thinking about getting to know you as a person? You want to talk emotional labor--think about the emotional labor of trying to navigate that danger to yourself that makes disclosing terrible, the labor of constantly dealing with people worrying that you're somehow tricking them unless you tell them the perfect state of your genitalia immediately upon entering "potential date" territory.
Like, when is the appropriate time to bring that up? When do you try to "come clean" about your own personal dealbreaker, lest someone actually take the time to know you as a person and be sad that you're now off the market? Do cis people have to bare their own genitalia's history to anyone who flirts with them? Dates them?
(And to clarify: of course I am pro-disclosure and pro-open discussion about what everyone wants and needs, as early as you can. But it makes me deeply uncomfortable to see the people who don't bear the costs of that disclosure championing it so fervently, with no awareness of what the costs of being open actually are. And frankly, I think that that pressure adds to the feeling of unsafeness that trans people and other people with "dealbreakers" (such as intersex people) have about the whole thing. It adds to the mental pressure that lead Lee to panic and fuck up. It is not helpful.)
God, I'm angry about this discussion. Of course Lee didn't handle things absolutely perfectly; I'm not remotely arguing otherwise. But the position that society and his ex put him in fucked him over, too--and from where I'm standing, it looks like he panicked and tried to keep hiding without losing his relationship. The difference in what he stood to lose and the pressure on him--that, again, his ex was exerting--vs. that on her is great enough that it needs to be considered, and I'm not seeing that happening. The involvement of the legal system in the whole mess just makes it all that much worse.
posted by sciatrix at 11:47 AM on December 17, 2015 [42 favorites]
For another thing, yeah, I know that not all of you would date a trans person. Do you have any idea what the impact is on someone who is single, to hear people just straight up volunteer that your existence is a dealbreaker whenever the situation comes up? Without considering it or thinking about getting to know you as a person? You want to talk emotional labor--think about the emotional labor of trying to navigate that danger to yourself that makes disclosing terrible, the labor of constantly dealing with people worrying that you're somehow tricking them unless you tell them the perfect state of your genitalia immediately upon entering "potential date" territory.
Like, when is the appropriate time to bring that up? When do you try to "come clean" about your own personal dealbreaker, lest someone actually take the time to know you as a person and be sad that you're now off the market? Do cis people have to bare their own genitalia's history to anyone who flirts with them? Dates them?
(And to clarify: of course I am pro-disclosure and pro-open discussion about what everyone wants and needs, as early as you can. But it makes me deeply uncomfortable to see the people who don't bear the costs of that disclosure championing it so fervently, with no awareness of what the costs of being open actually are. And frankly, I think that that pressure adds to the feeling of unsafeness that trans people and other people with "dealbreakers" (such as intersex people) have about the whole thing. It adds to the mental pressure that lead Lee to panic and fuck up. It is not helpful.)
God, I'm angry about this discussion. Of course Lee didn't handle things absolutely perfectly; I'm not remotely arguing otherwise. But the position that society and his ex put him in fucked him over, too--and from where I'm standing, it looks like he panicked and tried to keep hiding without losing his relationship. The difference in what he stood to lose and the pressure on him--that, again, his ex was exerting--vs. that on her is great enough that it needs to be considered, and I'm not seeing that happening. The involvement of the legal system in the whole mess just makes it all that much worse.
posted by sciatrix at 11:47 AM on December 17, 2015 [42 favorites]
Please remember the conviction was gender fraud, not failure to get appropriate consent. That's horrifying to (me, not all) trans people okay.
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:48 AM on December 17, 2015 [23 favorites]
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:48 AM on December 17, 2015 [23 favorites]
For me, there's the worry about the responsibility of knowing that you have what the other person would consider important information, and I tend to believe that there shouldn't be any "surprise, I'm doing this" during sex. I think that knowingly doing something during sex that is substantially different from what the other person believes you're going to do is not that great, and for me that does include the whole strap-on thing. How do I know that you're good about hygiene with it? Am I confident that you're good enough with it to avoid serious ouch since you're doing something in the absence of biofeedback? Is it composed of something that is easy to clean and to which I am not allergic? Perhaps I have never had sex using a strap-on and have some questions/nerves. What if I have personal reasons to avoid strap-ons? "I consent to one kind of penetration" is not "therefore it is wrong of me to want information about other kinds of penetration that you plan to practice".
To me, that's the unambiguous ethics issue.
The whole "should I talk about my gender stuff? when?" thing is so difficult, so subject to structural transphobia and misogyny/patriarchy stuff, etc, that it is really difficult to have any kind of compassionate and informed opinion of a given situation unless you know the people well. It's definitely not something that the courts should be weighing in on, any more than the courts should be weighing in on whether it's wrong to pursue a relationship without revealing any other "my body is different from what you might infer based on how I look in public" issue.
posted by Frowner at 11:49 AM on December 17, 2015 [11 favorites]
To me, that's the unambiguous ethics issue.
The whole "should I talk about my gender stuff? when?" thing is so difficult, so subject to structural transphobia and misogyny/patriarchy stuff, etc, that it is really difficult to have any kind of compassionate and informed opinion of a given situation unless you know the people well. It's definitely not something that the courts should be weighing in on, any more than the courts should be weighing in on whether it's wrong to pursue a relationship without revealing any other "my body is different from what you might infer based on how I look in public" issue.
posted by Frowner at 11:49 AM on December 17, 2015 [11 favorites]
If one wants to maintain a belief that sex outside of a monogamous relationship is acceptable, then the entire sexual ethos around it must be, "you are implicitly consenting to having sex with a trans person," rather than making that ethos merely implied. And I suspect that if it is articulated as clearly as that, I doubt there will be much acceptance of that ethos.
Why is monogamy or nonmomogamy even relevant?
posted by nebulawindphone at 11:51 AM on December 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
Why is monogamy or nonmomogamy even relevant?
posted by nebulawindphone at 11:51 AM on December 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
Yeah I'm just totally ignoring those comments.
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:53 AM on December 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:53 AM on December 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
Also, if Lee is prosecutable for this, I really, really demand that every single goddamn cis straight man who has ever tried to "oops" his way into anal be prosecuted and punished, because if Lee deserves the court system for making a bad decision when backed into a corner and subject to overwhelming stigma and bias, then those dudes have absolutely zero excuse and should be breaking rocks.
posted by Frowner at 11:54 AM on December 17, 2015 [26 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 11:54 AM on December 17, 2015 [26 favorites]
I really, really demand that...
Well, yeah. I don't think that's actually a controversial proposal that you're making, at least not in this forum; I think it's widely agreed with. People here tend to fall toward, if not on, the affirmative consent end of the spectrum. This is partly why I'm mystified at the volume and tenor of surprise that anyone here would find fault with what Lee did. It seems consistent.
posted by cribcage at 12:01 PM on December 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Well, yeah. I don't think that's actually a controversial proposal that you're making, at least not in this forum; I think it's widely agreed with. People here tend to fall toward, if not on, the affirmative consent end of the spectrum. This is partly why I'm mystified at the volume and tenor of surprise that anyone here would find fault with what Lee did. It seems consistent.
posted by cribcage at 12:01 PM on December 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
Well, and the whole "gender fraud" thing is built on the risible idea that trans people are all maliciously motivated to trick cis people into having sex with them -- perhaps this is some covert point system, where once you amass enough "fraud points," you can earn a stylish vacation or a new bike.
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:02 PM on December 17, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:02 PM on December 17, 2015 [9 favorites]
A trans man was convicted on the basis of gender fraud for trying to perform cisnormative sex BECAUSE A MAJORITY OF CIS IMPLICITLY DEMAND IT. And that can't be brought into the discussion as "you know, something might be dreadfully wrong with this whole cisgender sexual construct". Nope, it's "trans man did a bad thing" and that's it. no more discussion can be had to try to dig into why that situation even exists in the first place. Nope, it's "how do we make sure trans people reinforce cisnormativity".
I'm so glad I found a nice 3rd wave queer girl who loves me. I'm lucky. Other trans people, very obviously not.
posted by Annika Cicada at 12:02 PM on December 17, 2015 [14 favorites]
I'm so glad I found a nice 3rd wave queer girl who loves me. I'm lucky. Other trans people, very obviously not.
posted by Annika Cicada at 12:02 PM on December 17, 2015 [14 favorites]
Also, if Lee is prosecutable for this, I really, really demand that every single goddamn cis straight man who has ever tried to "oops" his way into anal be prosecuted and punished,
I think most decent people would agree that penetration of any kind without consent is rape.
I don't think sending Lee to jail is the right thing under the circumstances and the risks that Lee faces. But given that the victim consented to one kind of penetration but not another kind, it's no surprise that she feels violated.
posted by deanc at 12:03 PM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think most decent people would agree that penetration of any kind without consent is rape.
I don't think sending Lee to jail is the right thing under the circumstances and the risks that Lee faces. But given that the victim consented to one kind of penetration but not another kind, it's no surprise that she feels violated.
posted by deanc at 12:03 PM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
In case people missed it above, Lee isn’t going to jail: That’s what a suspended sentence means.
posted by pharm at 12:08 PM on December 17, 2015
posted by pharm at 12:08 PM on December 17, 2015
Mod note: To head off a totally unnecessary fight here, I'm going to suggest that folks back off the specifics of "did this one guy do things the way he should have", and zoom out and take a larger view of this gender fraud law. We're getting into that familiar dynamic where members-of-the-dominant-group digging in tenaciously on the specifics of a weird case ends up coming across as incredibly hostile and callous.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:08 PM on December 17, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:08 PM on December 17, 2015 [16 favorites]
It's a surprise that it's considered gender fraud.
posted by Annika Cicada at 12:08 PM on December 17, 2015
posted by Annika Cicada at 12:08 PM on December 17, 2015
A trans man was convicted on the basis of gender fraud for trying to perform cisnormative sex BECAUSE A MAJORITY OF CIS IMPLICITLY DEMAND IT. And that can't be brought into the discussion as "you know, something might be dreadfully wrong with this whole cisgender sexual construct". Nope, it's "trans man did a bad thing" and that's it. no more discussion can be had to try to dig into why that situation even exists in the first place. Nope, it's "how do we make sure trans people reinforce cisnormativity".
That's a really good point, and I think you're right it's absolutely cisnormative, because we're not trying to envision how Lee experiences the world as someone who doesn't get told that his gender performance is "normal" and "natural", and how that would contour every decision he made about his relationship. We're inherently assuming that there's a "normal" way to do gender, and that Lee could easily have sussed that out and imitated it as much as possible, and that this was his responsibility. We're also assuming, immediately, that the partner could not be abusive or coercive, even though aggrieved cis people routinely use both legal and extra-legal means to get their pound of flesh from trans people.
I also think that this is probably the kind of thing that can only be understood by remote observers at a structural level. We don't know Lee or his partner, and we can't how the power dynamics were in this individual case.
I think that when we get too sidetracked onto the personal when there's a big structural elephant in the room, we're sort of acting like people do when they demand that the victims of police shootings be perfect humans before any complaint can be legitimate.
posted by Frowner at 12:17 PM on December 17, 2015 [17 favorites]
That's a really good point, and I think you're right it's absolutely cisnormative, because we're not trying to envision how Lee experiences the world as someone who doesn't get told that his gender performance is "normal" and "natural", and how that would contour every decision he made about his relationship. We're inherently assuming that there's a "normal" way to do gender, and that Lee could easily have sussed that out and imitated it as much as possible, and that this was his responsibility. We're also assuming, immediately, that the partner could not be abusive or coercive, even though aggrieved cis people routinely use both legal and extra-legal means to get their pound of flesh from trans people.
I also think that this is probably the kind of thing that can only be understood by remote observers at a structural level. We don't know Lee or his partner, and we can't how the power dynamics were in this individual case.
I think that when we get too sidetracked onto the personal when there's a big structural elephant in the room, we're sort of acting like people do when they demand that the victims of police shootings be perfect humans before any complaint can be legitimate.
posted by Frowner at 12:17 PM on December 17, 2015 [17 favorites]
For me as a transmasculine person, though, I really, really get anxious when there's a situation where women end up doing sexual stuff that they don't want to do with men - I really worry about how all men, not just cis men, can act entitled to women's bodies, and I worry that sometimes trans men or gender non-conforming men get a pass on that stuff, so perhaps I overcompensate.
posted by Frowner at 12:20 PM on December 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 12:20 PM on December 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
(The piece of paper thing is a complete red herring & would not have prevented the prosecution had the accused been in possession of one as far as I can tell.)
posted by pharm at 12:35 PM on December 17, 2015
posted by pharm at 12:35 PM on December 17, 2015
Please remember the conviction was gender fraud, not failure to get appropriate consent
No, the conviction was for sexual assault by penetration, and in the judge's view, it was sexual assault because there was a lack of consent. The phrase gender fraud only appears in the article linked in the FPP, and then only as used by the article's author. I can't find a written opinion in this case, but so far I don't see any indication that the judge used that phrase. Of the other cases mentioned in the article, I could only find a substantive opinion for one (R. v Justine McNally), which is definitely about consent and does not use the phrase gender fraud.
That said, the McNally court took some amazingly poor reasoning to get to that point, and I have no doubt the court in Lee's case did too. Incredibly, it appears that "deception as to age, marital status, [or] wealth" will not violate consent in England*, yet a trans person cannot be taken at their word regarding their gender. I have no idea how the English courts pretend to square that particular circle. The McNally opinion blithely states that deception as to wealth "obviously" won't violate consent. It then concludes on the basis of "common sense" that deception as to gender just as obviously does. There's not a lick of actual reasoning. The court pretty clearly lays bare its biases: the ways that cis men typically deceive women (lying about their age, marital status, and wealth) are fine, but the way that a trans person might 'deceive' a cis person isn't.
* This is my understanding based on reading a single case and is certainly not legal advice!
posted by jedicus at 12:35 PM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
No, the conviction was for sexual assault by penetration, and in the judge's view, it was sexual assault because there was a lack of consent. The phrase gender fraud only appears in the article linked in the FPP, and then only as used by the article's author. I can't find a written opinion in this case, but so far I don't see any indication that the judge used that phrase. Of the other cases mentioned in the article, I could only find a substantive opinion for one (R. v Justine McNally), which is definitely about consent and does not use the phrase gender fraud.
That said, the McNally court took some amazingly poor reasoning to get to that point, and I have no doubt the court in Lee's case did too. Incredibly, it appears that "deception as to age, marital status, [or] wealth" will not violate consent in England*, yet a trans person cannot be taken at their word regarding their gender. I have no idea how the English courts pretend to square that particular circle. The McNally opinion blithely states that deception as to wealth "obviously" won't violate consent. It then concludes on the basis of "common sense" that deception as to gender just as obviously does. There's not a lick of actual reasoning. The court pretty clearly lays bare its biases: the ways that cis men typically deceive women (lying about their age, marital status, and wealth) are fine, but the way that a trans person might 'deceive' a cis person isn't.
* This is my understanding based on reading a single case and is certainly not legal advice!
posted by jedicus at 12:35 PM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
The conviction was "assault by penetration" on the basis of gender fraud. Is this an interpretation of the written law that can be used by the courts?
There, are you up to speed on this conversation?
posted by sciatrix at 12:35 PM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
There, are you up to speed on this conversation?
posted by sciatrix at 12:35 PM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Jedicus, can you post a link to the opinions? I can't find them, on a cursory search, and it sounds like you have a copy of the actual legal decision.
posted by sciatrix at 12:38 PM on December 17, 2015
posted by sciatrix at 12:38 PM on December 17, 2015
ArbitaryAndCapricious: From the article, it sounds like only trans men (and one boy) have been charged with "gender fraud". Any idea why that is?
Partly because the courts are probably much more likely to be concerned about poor abused women than poor abused men, and partly because men are much less likely to report this sort of thing, either because of stigma and shame, or because of the violence they'll have perpetrated as a result.
Frowner: You see this untenable situation for everyone - the woman in the Kyran case didn't consent, let's face it, to the use of a sex toy in her body.
Referring to someone's prosthetic penis as a 'sex toy' is insulting as shit, frankly.
At the same time, Kyran Lee was in a really untenable position because of living in a society that doesn't believe that trans men are men, and because of the accompanying danger and stigma associated with that fact.
Not helped by people holding that trans male penises aren't penises.
I think that knowingly doing something during sex that is substantially different from what the other person believes you're going to do is not that great, and for me that does include the whole strap-on thing. How do I know that you're good about hygiene with it? Am I confident that you're good enough with it to avoid serious ouch since you're doing something in the absence of biofeedback? Is it composed of something that is easy to clean and to which I am not allergic?
Aside from the issue of composition, all of these are things that apply to cis pensises too. The fact that someone has something permanently attached to them doesn't mean it's automatically clean and hygenic, and nor do you know where it's been to any more meaningful degree. And not everyone who has a cis penis has the kind of biofeedback you're presuming.
GenjiandProust: How difficult/expensive is it to have gender legally reassigned in the UK?
Well, it depends on what you mean. Is it difficult to get a GRC issued? Hell yes. Also expensive. But to change your legal gender? Literally, it requires you to write it on a fucking napkin with a crayon, as long as someone witnesses it (you change your title along with your name) and then get new documentation issued on the basis of said statutory declaration (though you might find document-issuing authorities more amenable if you use pen and paper instead of crayon and napkin). The thing is basically that 'legal gender' is a meaningless fiction in the mess of common law that is the UK legal system, and the GRC system was set up to explicitly supersede all that, effectively.
MikeMc: Disclosure probably would have averted this whole mess for Lee and the complainant. Uncomfortable perhaps, but, as we see here, absolutely necessary.
This is classic victim-blaming though, isn't it? It may arguably have been safer for the dude not to go ahead with sex before disclosing, but it might arguably be safer for law-abiding citizens to yes-sir-no-sir-three-bags-full-sir the police, but both arguments are odious, and lack of disclosure is no more grounds for criminal prosecution than being impolite with the police is grounds for violence (or criminal prosecution).
Unless you mean that disclosure was necessary for the woman's sake. In which case wow, that is a whole different level of fucked up and offensive. I'm going with the assumption of the former for now.
pharm: He got a two year suspended sentence. If you accept that his actions were traumatic for the woman in question, and he carried them out either recklessly or knowing that was the case then that maybe seems like the right outcome?
...
I am also uncomfortable with all the other accusation that the mere fact of the prosecution makes her a bad person. We don’t know anything about her, except that she felt traumatised by this relationship (as the judge’s summing up makes clear). We have spent a long time making the case that people can & will be traumatised by things that others take in their stride. If the woman in this case says she was traumatised by this relationship, then she was. There can’t be any minimising of it, any “oh she’s just transphobic, if she was as forward thinking as me she wouldn’t care about the trans-status of the people she was fucking”. People get to say “I don’t want to have sex with trans people & making me doing so without my consent is abusive, because I will find it traumatic”†. Is this transphobic? Maybe: It’s certainly emblematic of a general attitude to trans people in society that puts them in a really shitty position, and I wish it were otherwise, but being in a shitty position doesn’t give you carte blanche to treat other people badly, no matter how short the straw you’ve drawn is.
Nor is being traumatised grounds for a legal prosecution. If I traumatise you by wearing sandals without socks, that is on you, not on me. If you are traumatised by being in a relationship with someone who is trans (which, like sandals without socks, is not illegal) then that is on you, and not grounds for a prosecution. Getting the police involved was transphobic to a degree easily sufficient to make her a bad person, regardless of the level of trauma the woman experienced. The burden for a conviction is "was a crime committed" not "did the accuser experience trauma" and for a damn good reason.
We don’t know that it was phrased as an ultimatum sciatrix, only that the accused took it to be one as I understand the reporting.
"had not wanted to have sexual intercourse with her, agreeing only because the complainant made it clear that the continuation of their relationship was contingent on him doing so"
i.e. the courts ruled that it was an ultimatum. If Lee took it as such, the courts certainly agreed.
posted by Dysk at 12:39 PM on December 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
Partly because the courts are probably much more likely to be concerned about poor abused women than poor abused men, and partly because men are much less likely to report this sort of thing, either because of stigma and shame, or because of the violence they'll have perpetrated as a result.
Frowner: You see this untenable situation for everyone - the woman in the Kyran case didn't consent, let's face it, to the use of a sex toy in her body.
Referring to someone's prosthetic penis as a 'sex toy' is insulting as shit, frankly.
At the same time, Kyran Lee was in a really untenable position because of living in a society that doesn't believe that trans men are men, and because of the accompanying danger and stigma associated with that fact.
Not helped by people holding that trans male penises aren't penises.
I think that knowingly doing something during sex that is substantially different from what the other person believes you're going to do is not that great, and for me that does include the whole strap-on thing. How do I know that you're good about hygiene with it? Am I confident that you're good enough with it to avoid serious ouch since you're doing something in the absence of biofeedback? Is it composed of something that is easy to clean and to which I am not allergic?
Aside from the issue of composition, all of these are things that apply to cis pensises too. The fact that someone has something permanently attached to them doesn't mean it's automatically clean and hygenic, and nor do you know where it's been to any more meaningful degree. And not everyone who has a cis penis has the kind of biofeedback you're presuming.
GenjiandProust: How difficult/expensive is it to have gender legally reassigned in the UK?
Well, it depends on what you mean. Is it difficult to get a GRC issued? Hell yes. Also expensive. But to change your legal gender? Literally, it requires you to write it on a fucking napkin with a crayon, as long as someone witnesses it (you change your title along with your name) and then get new documentation issued on the basis of said statutory declaration (though you might find document-issuing authorities more amenable if you use pen and paper instead of crayon and napkin). The thing is basically that 'legal gender' is a meaningless fiction in the mess of common law that is the UK legal system, and the GRC system was set up to explicitly supersede all that, effectively.
MikeMc: Disclosure probably would have averted this whole mess for Lee and the complainant. Uncomfortable perhaps, but, as we see here, absolutely necessary.
This is classic victim-blaming though, isn't it? It may arguably have been safer for the dude not to go ahead with sex before disclosing, but it might arguably be safer for law-abiding citizens to yes-sir-no-sir-three-bags-full-sir the police, but both arguments are odious, and lack of disclosure is no more grounds for criminal prosecution than being impolite with the police is grounds for violence (or criminal prosecution).
Unless you mean that disclosure was necessary for the woman's sake. In which case wow, that is a whole different level of fucked up and offensive. I'm going with the assumption of the former for now.
pharm: He got a two year suspended sentence. If you accept that his actions were traumatic for the woman in question, and he carried them out either recklessly or knowing that was the case then that maybe seems like the right outcome?
...
I am also uncomfortable with all the other accusation that the mere fact of the prosecution makes her a bad person. We don’t know anything about her, except that she felt traumatised by this relationship (as the judge’s summing up makes clear). We have spent a long time making the case that people can & will be traumatised by things that others take in their stride. If the woman in this case says she was traumatised by this relationship, then she was. There can’t be any minimising of it, any “oh she’s just transphobic, if she was as forward thinking as me she wouldn’t care about the trans-status of the people she was fucking”. People get to say “I don’t want to have sex with trans people & making me doing so without my consent is abusive, because I will find it traumatic”†. Is this transphobic? Maybe: It’s certainly emblematic of a general attitude to trans people in society that puts them in a really shitty position, and I wish it were otherwise, but being in a shitty position doesn’t give you carte blanche to treat other people badly, no matter how short the straw you’ve drawn is.
Nor is being traumatised grounds for a legal prosecution. If I traumatise you by wearing sandals without socks, that is on you, not on me. If you are traumatised by being in a relationship with someone who is trans (which, like sandals without socks, is not illegal) then that is on you, and not grounds for a prosecution. Getting the police involved was transphobic to a degree easily sufficient to make her a bad person, regardless of the level of trauma the woman experienced. The burden for a conviction is "was a crime committed" not "did the accuser experience trauma" and for a damn good reason.
We don’t know that it was phrased as an ultimatum sciatrix, only that the accused took it to be one as I understand the reporting.
"had not wanted to have sexual intercourse with her, agreeing only because the complainant made it clear that the continuation of their relationship was contingent on him doing so"
i.e. the courts ruled that it was an ultimatum. If Lee took it as such, the courts certainly agreed.
posted by Dysk at 12:39 PM on December 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
Mod note: Several comments deleted. Again, gonna really ask people to step back in here, and not get into "well actually" stuff, and if this is an abstract issue for you, please remember who's in the room.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:41 PM on December 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:41 PM on December 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
Jedicus, can you post a link to the opinions? I can't find them, on a cursory search, and it sounds like you have a copy of the actual legal decision.
Part of the opinion is quoted in the Telegraph article (I couldn't find the rest either). It doesn't use the term "gender fraud", which seems to be Sharpe's characterisation of the charge rather than a formal legal category.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 12:44 PM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Part of the opinion is quoted in the Telegraph article (I couldn't find the rest either). It doesn't use the term "gender fraud", which seems to be Sharpe's characterisation of the charge rather than a formal legal category.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 12:44 PM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
Referring to someone's prosthetic penis as a 'sex toy' is insulting as shit, frankly.
You're right - that was really wrong language to use. I have very few sexually explicit conversations in writing (or ever) and have a lot of shame/anxiety around explicit language; words failed me. This was a bad choice and is not how I understand prosthetics, and I will make sure I am precise in the future.
posted by Frowner at 12:46 PM on December 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
Okay, that makes sense. However, if you read Sharpe's characterization of what exactly she's talking about (linked upthread by thetortoise), she's explictly discussing a tendency to interrogate these cases along a narrative of fraud rather than a narrative of consent. I suspect that what's happening is that Sharpe is coining a term for a line of judicial reasoning which is setting an alarming precedent. I... cannot exactly find it in me to fault her for that, since laws and their interpretations are set by more than legislation, and this legal precedent is pretty scary.
posted by sciatrix at 12:48 PM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by sciatrix at 12:48 PM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
Let's take the trans out of it for a second. What if someone was an amputee, and had a realistic prosthetic arm that their partner wasn't aware of (somehow), and they used that arm to perform sex acts. Could the partner press charges because they weren't informed it wasn't a real arm? Seems sort of ridiculous. Now how is that different from a prosthetic penis (which can look VERY realistic: search for "ReelMagik" or "FreeTom" (NSFW))?
posted by desjardins at 12:49 PM on December 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by desjardins at 12:49 PM on December 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
jedicus, can you post a link to the opinions? I can't find them, on a cursory search, and it sounds like you have a copy of the actual legal decision.
I could only find the McNally opinion, which is freely available here. The other cases were either not appealed (and so didn't leave a readily obtainable written opinion) or had only a summary, technical appeal (as in one case). But from the discussion in the article it appears that the court in Lee's case followed similar reasoning (for lack of a better word).
posted by jedicus at 12:50 PM on December 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
I could only find the McNally opinion, which is freely available here. The other cases were either not appealed (and so didn't leave a readily obtainable written opinion) or had only a summary, technical appeal (as in one case). But from the discussion in the article it appears that the court in Lee's case followed similar reasoning (for lack of a better word).
posted by jedicus at 12:50 PM on December 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Wow does reading that opinion in detail do a lot to suggest that the McNally prosecution was the work of the mother of M (the 'victim') more than it was necessarily the initial wish of M herself.
posted by Dysk at 1:07 PM on December 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 1:07 PM on December 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
a narrative of fraud rather than a narrative of consent
They're sort of bound up in these cases, with the prosecution arguing and the courts agreeing that the alleged deception invalidated consent.
What the courts aren't doing is considering whether a meaningful deception actually occurred (i.e. a trans man isn't being deceptive by stating that he is a man) or making any sort of coherent argument as to why such a 'deception' would invalidate consent.
I like Sharpe's point that this is about disappointment, not deceit (and therefore blame), and we should resist society turning one into the other.
posted by jedicus at 1:07 PM on December 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
They're sort of bound up in these cases, with the prosecution arguing and the courts agreeing that the alleged deception invalidated consent.
What the courts aren't doing is considering whether a meaningful deception actually occurred (i.e. a trans man isn't being deceptive by stating that he is a man) or making any sort of coherent argument as to why such a 'deception' would invalidate consent.
I like Sharpe's point that this is about disappointment, not deceit (and therefore blame), and we should resist society turning one into the other.
posted by jedicus at 1:07 PM on December 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
I have no idea how the English courts pretend to square that particular circle.
I don't find this as surprising as you do. The history of rape law has been largely focused on physicality; in that context, the tendency of a court to distinguish between conditions such as wealth, age, or marital status versus physiological aspects isn't hard to understand. A better comparison might be allegations of deception regarding race.
posted by cribcage at 1:16 PM on December 17, 2015
I don't find this as surprising as you do. The history of rape law has been largely focused on physicality; in that context, the tendency of a court to distinguish between conditions such as wealth, age, or marital status versus physiological aspects isn't hard to understand. A better comparison might be allegations of deception regarding race.
posted by cribcage at 1:16 PM on December 17, 2015
The history of rape law has been largely focused on physicality; in that context, the tendency of a court to distinguish between conditions such as wealth, age, or marital status versus physiological aspects isn't hard to understand. A better comparison might be allegations of deception regarding race.
From Sharpe's blog post: "It should be recognised that non-disclosure of, or lying about, past sexual experience, previous convictions, mixed-race status, religious faith, wealth and an endless list of other things has not led to criminal prosecution in the UK".
Further, the McNally court didn't frame it in terms of "physical vs non-physical". It spoke in terms of "evidence relating to 'choice' and the 'freedom' to make any particular choice." Indeed, it specifically denied that there was a physical difference:
posted by jedicus at 1:22 PM on December 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
From Sharpe's blog post: "It should be recognised that non-disclosure of, or lying about, past sexual experience, previous convictions, mixed-race status, religious faith, wealth and an endless list of other things has not led to criminal prosecution in the UK".
Further, the McNally court didn't frame it in terms of "physical vs non-physical". It spoke in terms of "evidence relating to 'choice' and the 'freedom' to make any particular choice." Indeed, it specifically denied that there was a physical difference:
Thus while, in a physical sense, the acts of assault by penetration of the vagina are the same whether perpetrated by a male or a female, the sexual nature of the acts is, on any common sense view, different where the complainant is deliberately deceived by a defendant into believing that the latter is a maleI don't see a consistent (much less coherent or rational) dividing line there.
posted by jedicus at 1:22 PM on December 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
He got a two year suspended sentence. If you accept that his actions were traumatic for the woman in question, and he carried them out either recklessly or knowing that was the case then that maybe seems like the right outcome?
Something being traumatic isn't by itself automatically grounds for it to be against the law. (Being cheated on is often very traumatic. Or getting backstabbed, or dumped on your birthday, or finding out a loved one has been sharing your secrets behind your back, or hearing your mum tell your auntie she always regretted you being born. No law against any of that.)
Simply using a sex toy unbeknownst to the partner wouldn't have lead to prosecution if this had been a cis quy with ED. He's not getting punished for not disclosing the use of a sex toy, but for not disclosing being trans before having sex with this woman.
And I simply don't believe that disclosure should be a legal requirement. (Part of a healthy relationship, sure, but that is an entirely different matter, and one outside the scope of criminal law.)
posted by sively at 1:37 PM on December 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
Something being traumatic isn't by itself automatically grounds for it to be against the law. (Being cheated on is often very traumatic. Or getting backstabbed, or dumped on your birthday, or finding out a loved one has been sharing your secrets behind your back, or hearing your mum tell your auntie she always regretted you being born. No law against any of that.)
Simply using a sex toy unbeknownst to the partner wouldn't have lead to prosecution if this had been a cis quy with ED. He's not getting punished for not disclosing the use of a sex toy, but for not disclosing being trans before having sex with this woman.
And I simply don't believe that disclosure should be a legal requirement. (Part of a healthy relationship, sure, but that is an entirely different matter, and one outside the scope of criminal law.)
posted by sively at 1:37 PM on December 17, 2015 [13 favorites]
What the courts aren't doing is considering whether a meaningful deception actually occurred (i.e. a trans man isn't being deceptive by stating that he is a man) or making any sort of coherent argument as to why such a 'deception' would invalidate consent.
Yes, I think that the reasoning in McNally is problematic in light of the judgment in Richardson, where deception about the nature of a dentist's current legal qualification was held not to vitiate consent in order to give rise to an assault. The Court of Appeal in Richardson held that:
Most people would, I suspect, think it self evident that gender status is fundamental to the nature of certain acts, despite the intellectual and moral flaws in that perspective. So I wonder what a court is to do on issues like this. English jurisprudence would tend to suggest a deference to "The man on the Clapham omnibus" - the hypothetical average person of average ability and average views, in determining what is reasonable or self-evident. The problem with the courts reflecting society in this particular way, however, is that society is frequently blinkered, prejudiced, stupid and cruel, but one might ask if it is the role of the courts to address that, or whether legislation is called for instead.
It's important to understand that English courts, and the English legal system, are massively less intellectual than those in the US. That's not to say that advocates and judges aren't often highly intelligent, but rather that our interpretation of the common law prides itself on a notion of practical "common sense", rather than intellectual distinction. This has good points and bad points (and I thank God I don't have to work in law in the US, I couldn't stand it) but one of its very worst effects is of mirroring that evil-minded Daily Mail-ish conservatism that befouls so much of English society.
If you want another outrageous example of the infuriating bigotry of even our higher courts, feel free to read the House of Lords' judgment in Brown, but keep a strong drink handy.
(If there are judgments relating to this that people want to read in full that they can't get hold of, MeMail me and I'll see what I can do).
posted by howfar at 2:05 PM on December 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
Yes, I think that the reasoning in McNally is problematic in light of the judgment in Richardson, where deception about the nature of a dentist's current legal qualification was held not to vitiate consent in order to give rise to an assault. The Court of Appeal in Richardson held that:
fraud vitiated consent to an act which would otherwise be an assault only where it had induced a mistaken belief as to the identity of the person doing the act or as to the nature or quality of the act; that a mistake as to identity did not extend to a belief as to a person's professional qualifications and attributes; that the concept of informed consent had no place in the criminal law; and that, accordingly, since the patients had been fully aware of the defendant's true identity her conduct, although clearly reprehensible, did not found a basis of criminal liability in the field of offences against the personThe judgment in McNally presents no real reasoning for the view that the nature or quality of the act differs in circumstances where the sexual partner is a trans man rather than a cis man, simply that on a "common sense view" it is different. I think that's deeply problematic, and fundamentally barbaric, but I doubt you'd find many people in the street to agree with me.
Most people would, I suspect, think it self evident that gender status is fundamental to the nature of certain acts, despite the intellectual and moral flaws in that perspective. So I wonder what a court is to do on issues like this. English jurisprudence would tend to suggest a deference to "The man on the Clapham omnibus" - the hypothetical average person of average ability and average views, in determining what is reasonable or self-evident. The problem with the courts reflecting society in this particular way, however, is that society is frequently blinkered, prejudiced, stupid and cruel, but one might ask if it is the role of the courts to address that, or whether legislation is called for instead.
It's important to understand that English courts, and the English legal system, are massively less intellectual than those in the US. That's not to say that advocates and judges aren't often highly intelligent, but rather that our interpretation of the common law prides itself on a notion of practical "common sense", rather than intellectual distinction. This has good points and bad points (and I thank God I don't have to work in law in the US, I couldn't stand it) but one of its very worst effects is of mirroring that evil-minded Daily Mail-ish conservatism that befouls so much of English society.
If you want another outrageous example of the infuriating bigotry of even our higher courts, feel free to read the House of Lords' judgment in Brown, but keep a strong drink handy.
(If there are judgments relating to this that people want to read in full that they can't get hold of, MeMail me and I'll see what I can do).
posted by howfar at 2:05 PM on December 17, 2015 [8 favorites]
Does anyone know if "rape by deception" is an actual law you can break in the UK (or the USA) or if its something shoehorned by prosecutors into broader laws? I see that there are very occasionally cases where it is prosecuted (such as the Gayle Newland case) but can't seem to figure out if its an actual specific law which needs to be addressed or "just" an overzealous policy.
posted by Justinian at 2:28 PM on December 17, 2015
posted by Justinian at 2:28 PM on December 17, 2015
Does anyone know if "rape by deception" is an actual law you can break in the UK
Sort of...
Section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 provides this:
Sort of...
Section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 provides this:
Conclusive presumptions about consents1 defines:
(1) If in proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is proved that the defendant did the relevant act and that any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2) existed, it is to be conclusively presumed–
(a) that the complainant did not consent to the relevant act, and
(b) that the defendant did not believe that the complainant consented to the relevant act.
(2) The circumstances are that–
(a) the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act;
(b) the defendant intentionally induced the complainant to consent to the relevant act by impersonating a person known personally to the complainant.
Rapes2 defines:
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if–
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
Assault by penetrationposted by howfar at 2:40 PM on December 17, 2015
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if–
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of his body or anything else,
(b) the penetration is sexual,
(c) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
Oh, thanks. I suppose they are arguing that Lee specifically "intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act". The whole thing feels completely skeevy. (The prosecution).
posted by Justinian at 3:09 PM on December 17, 2015
posted by Justinian at 3:09 PM on December 17, 2015
Just coming in to thank the people who have been holding it down in this thread. I am also extremely disappointed with the ignorance on display in the thread. Thanks for reminding me it's cis's world, cislords!
posted by beefetish at 3:24 PM on December 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by beefetish at 3:24 PM on December 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
Oh, thanks. I suppose they are arguing that Lee specifically "intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act". The whole thing feels completely skeevy. (The prosecution).
I think that it's particularly problematic in relation to the specific wording of s76, which makes clear that being deceived about a characteristic, or even (in some respects) identity, is not sufficient to give rise to a conclusive presumption against consent. One reading of the judgment in McNally is that it is stretching s76(2)(a) to fit, and that this is inappropriate, given that, had Parliament intended consent to be vitiated by deception about characteristics, it would surely have not specifically limited s76(2)(b) to deception through direct impersonation of a known person. I'm not saying that argument's necessarily correct, but I think it's worth considering.
I think we need to be careful to avoid quickly drawing generalisations, or perhaps even conclusions, here. It is, I'd suggest, clearly important to preserve the highest possible standard of consent, especially given the dominance of rape culture and the endemic nature of rape in our society. The prosecution makes me deeply uncomfortable, however.
posted by howfar at 3:47 PM on December 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
I think that it's particularly problematic in relation to the specific wording of s76, which makes clear that being deceived about a characteristic, or even (in some respects) identity, is not sufficient to give rise to a conclusive presumption against consent. One reading of the judgment in McNally is that it is stretching s76(2)(a) to fit, and that this is inappropriate, given that, had Parliament intended consent to be vitiated by deception about characteristics, it would surely have not specifically limited s76(2)(b) to deception through direct impersonation of a known person. I'm not saying that argument's necessarily correct, but I think it's worth considering.
I think we need to be careful to avoid quickly drawing generalisations, or perhaps even conclusions, here. It is, I'd suggest, clearly important to preserve the highest possible standard of consent, especially given the dominance of rape culture and the endemic nature of rape in our society. The prosecution makes me deeply uncomfortable, however.
posted by howfar at 3:47 PM on December 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
That it would be deemed his responsibility to disclose that he's trans rather than her responsibility to disclose that she has an issue with prosthetics and is a massive transphobe is the epitome of cissexism.
posted by bile and syntax at 5:35 PM on December 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by bile and syntax at 5:35 PM on December 17, 2015 [6 favorites]
I am really disappointed at some of the comments in this thread. We've had two years of raging in MeTa, and there are still MeFites who want to put the existence of trans people up for debate. A trans man is a man, not a deceptive woman. A trans man can only commit "gender fraud" by pretending to be a woman. That the law exists only to punish trans men is as disgusting as it is incoherent.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:42 PM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:42 PM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
So I was thinking about this all afternoon, because I figured that if I was disagreeing with some of the people I was disagreeing with in the thread, I was probably wrong about prosthetics and consent. (The other stuff, I agreed with.)
Desjardins gave a great example upthread about prosthetics generally, leaving aside questions of trans people.
I was wrong upthread. If, for example, someone at work clapped you on the back to congratulate you and they had a prosthetic hand, you would never say "why are you using this hand to do things that you also do with your other hand?" and you would never say "this person struck me with an instrument". You would never expect that a person with a prosthetic hand would not think of it as their hand, or that they should carefully say "I am going to shake your hand; be aware, my hand is a prosthetic". You would think that kind of expectation was weird and messed up and ableist, even if you might in the moment be surprised to realize that a realistic prosthetic was a prosthetic.
Because of my own issues about bodies* I have always thought of prosthetic penises in the same category as detachable part-time substitutes rather than prosthetics like a prosthetic hand or foot, something that people experience as an extension of the fleshly body. This was my issue, and one that I didn't even realize was internalized transphobia until I realized how negatively I'd been thinking about my own body.
I was thinking about this all wrong, and I really appreciate the comments in this thread both because I was wrong toward others and because I actually feel less bad about my own body and gender performance.
*Upbringing, bad stuff that happened, fear, internalized transphobia
posted by Frowner at 6:24 PM on December 17, 2015 [17 favorites]
Desjardins gave a great example upthread about prosthetics generally, leaving aside questions of trans people.
I was wrong upthread. If, for example, someone at work clapped you on the back to congratulate you and they had a prosthetic hand, you would never say "why are you using this hand to do things that you also do with your other hand?" and you would never say "this person struck me with an instrument". You would never expect that a person with a prosthetic hand would not think of it as their hand, or that they should carefully say "I am going to shake your hand; be aware, my hand is a prosthetic". You would think that kind of expectation was weird and messed up and ableist, even if you might in the moment be surprised to realize that a realistic prosthetic was a prosthetic.
Because of my own issues about bodies* I have always thought of prosthetic penises in the same category as detachable part-time substitutes rather than prosthetics like a prosthetic hand or foot, something that people experience as an extension of the fleshly body. This was my issue, and one that I didn't even realize was internalized transphobia until I realized how negatively I'd been thinking about my own body.
I was thinking about this all wrong, and I really appreciate the comments in this thread both because I was wrong toward others and because I actually feel less bad about my own body and gender performance.
*Upbringing, bad stuff that happened, fear, internalized transphobia
posted by Frowner at 6:24 PM on December 17, 2015 [17 favorites]
if this is an abstract issue for you, please remember who's in the room
That has been my biggest lesson from these discussions. Trans issues are abstract to me. Yes, I know a few trans people, but it's not something I've ever had to think about at anything more than a cursory level, and other people have.
The key in this case is the gender part -- I very much doubt that a cis man who used a prosthetic for whatever reason (erectile issues, personal preferences, whatever) would ever be prosecuted, but somehow a trans man doing the same thing is a major crisis.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:24 PM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
That has been my biggest lesson from these discussions. Trans issues are abstract to me. Yes, I know a few trans people, but it's not something I've ever had to think about at anything more than a cursory level, and other people have.
The key in this case is the gender part -- I very much doubt that a cis man who used a prosthetic for whatever reason (erectile issues, personal preferences, whatever) would ever be prosecuted, but somehow a trans man doing the same thing is a major crisis.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:24 PM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]
This is such a horrifying case, and the others like it as well.
From the article, it sounds like only trans men (and one boy) have been charged with "gender fraud". Any idea why that is?
It seems perfectly clear to me why that is. Gender is one of the cornerstones that the heteropatriarchy rests upon. If women are able to break free of the niche that has been assigned to them by saying they are not women and thus assuming the power and privilege of a man, then it's not going to last very long, right? So clearly women who say they are not women are lying and must be prosecuted as frauds to not only keep them in their place, but make it absolutely clear to other women who might think that they would like to change the power structures, maybe even in other ways than by lying and saying they are men, that that shit ain't gonna fly. Meanwhile if there is the odd man who foolishly insists that he is actually a woman, well, that is obviously completely stupid but doesn't really threaten white, hetero, cismale privilege so they can just be treated like the trash they clearly are and not waste everyone's time with making legal examples out of them.
I should note that the above does not represent my opinion, but my supposition as to the kind of opinion that allows this kind of case to even make it to court.
My utmost and heartfelt sympathy to every trans, bigender, genderqueer or fluid person in this thread and on MeFi - I am so sorry that you have to put up with this here as well.
I am now going to hug my genderqueer beloved extra hard and tell him exactly how much I love him, exactly as he is.
posted by Athanassiel at 7:08 PM on December 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
From the article, it sounds like only trans men (and one boy) have been charged with "gender fraud". Any idea why that is?
It seems perfectly clear to me why that is. Gender is one of the cornerstones that the heteropatriarchy rests upon. If women are able to break free of the niche that has been assigned to them by saying they are not women and thus assuming the power and privilege of a man, then it's not going to last very long, right? So clearly women who say they are not women are lying and must be prosecuted as frauds to not only keep them in their place, but make it absolutely clear to other women who might think that they would like to change the power structures, maybe even in other ways than by lying and saying they are men, that that shit ain't gonna fly. Meanwhile if there is the odd man who foolishly insists that he is actually a woman, well, that is obviously completely stupid but doesn't really threaten white, hetero, cismale privilege so they can just be treated like the trash they clearly are and not waste everyone's time with making legal examples out of them.
I should note that the above does not represent my opinion, but my supposition as to the kind of opinion that allows this kind of case to even make it to court.
My utmost and heartfelt sympathy to every trans, bigender, genderqueer or fluid person in this thread and on MeFi - I am so sorry that you have to put up with this here as well.
I am now going to hug my genderqueer beloved extra hard and tell him exactly how much I love him, exactly as he is.
posted by Athanassiel at 7:08 PM on December 17, 2015 [7 favorites]
I was just thinking about this thread again and remembering how my friend when she was quite young but of legal age dated this creep who wouldn't show her his driver's license and lied about how old he was (decades older than he said) and whether he'd given up drug dealing (nope!) and probably, like, his name as well, and how she couldn't have accused him of fraud even if she wanted to. I wish the thing that dude was being all secretive about was being trans, you know? And then I was thinking about how messed up it is to label consensual sex with a trans guy you didn't know was trans as "rape" and how that doesn't do rape survivors any favors. Anyway, I'm glad Dysk posted this, because it's good to know this is happening out there in the UK, even if I'm ending the day much angrier than I began it.
posted by thetortoise at 7:36 PM on December 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by thetortoise at 7:36 PM on December 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
I am really disgusted that all the mainstream news coverage that I've read about this still refers to Kyran as female, even the BBC article, which I thought was a more reputable news agency. (I am reconsidering that now after reading the article's title: "Fake penis assault woman given suspended jail term.") It makes me think of so many parents who will only call their trans child or teenager the correct name or pronouns if they're not misbehaving -- same as how some SO's of trans folks will misgender their significant others when they are upset with them or when the relationship breaks up.
The sexual assault laws may be as they are in the UK, but it seems clear that the prosecution is due to his trans-ness and not his use of a non-organic, for lack of better term, penis.
She added that she would find it difficult to ever be intimate with a man again following the attack. Source
While the unnamed complainant has every right to her feelings, would it really be appropriate for her to call it an attack? Unless she is referring to the attack on her sense of what is right and good in the world, leading her to file criminal charges.
Judge Michael Heath, passing sentence, said: "This is an unusual and very difficult case. She [the victim] only had any intimacy with him because she believed he was a man.
"Understandably she says she has been hurt, devastated and traumatised. It is clear that she has suffered and continues to suffer from immeasurable emotional harm from this sustained deceit practised upon her. Source
So then the Judge admits that the real problem is that Kyran exists as a transgender man seeking a relationship and not the fact that he used a phallus substitute in their sexual encounters.
I had mixed feelings about the case while reading through the thread. I think it is sound reasoning to say that one might consent to a certain sexual act in a certain manner but not in another, and that to have something happen that was not what you thought you consented to is then an assault is valid. But that is not what seems to be the issue here. The issue here seems to be only that Kyran was not born like other men and those involved in this case are doing what they can to justify and perpetuate discrimination against transgender individuals by twisting the truth of the matter and singling him out for prosecution.
posted by sevenofspades at 7:48 PM on December 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
The sexual assault laws may be as they are in the UK, but it seems clear that the prosecution is due to his trans-ness and not his use of a non-organic, for lack of better term, penis.
She added that she would find it difficult to ever be intimate with a man again following the attack. Source
While the unnamed complainant has every right to her feelings, would it really be appropriate for her to call it an attack? Unless she is referring to the attack on her sense of what is right and good in the world, leading her to file criminal charges.
Judge Michael Heath, passing sentence, said: "This is an unusual and very difficult case. She [the victim] only had any intimacy with him because she believed he was a man.
"Understandably she says she has been hurt, devastated and traumatised. It is clear that she has suffered and continues to suffer from immeasurable emotional harm from this sustained deceit practised upon her. Source
So then the Judge admits that the real problem is that Kyran exists as a transgender man seeking a relationship and not the fact that he used a phallus substitute in their sexual encounters.
I had mixed feelings about the case while reading through the thread. I think it is sound reasoning to say that one might consent to a certain sexual act in a certain manner but not in another, and that to have something happen that was not what you thought you consented to is then an assault is valid. But that is not what seems to be the issue here. The issue here seems to be only that Kyran was not born like other men and those involved in this case are doing what they can to justify and perpetuate discrimination against transgender individuals by twisting the truth of the matter and singling him out for prosecution.
posted by sevenofspades at 7:48 PM on December 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Frowner, I actually thought the points you made upthread about why it would be important to disclose the use of a prosthetic in a healthy relationship were excellent; I don't think it should be legally punishable (there's a million things we'd all advise people in AskMe or in sex ed to do in having a supportive relationship with a partner, but that doesn't mean the counter should be illegal) but I was glad you added that to the thread.
posted by thetortoise at 8:01 PM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by thetortoise at 8:01 PM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
If nothing else, this thread's been a great reminder to me of how complex and dangerous the most basic things can be for people who navigate the world without cisgender privilege.
These cases are just horrifying.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 10:36 PM on December 17, 2015
These cases are just horrifying.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 10:36 PM on December 17, 2015
If women are able to break free of the niche that has been assigned to them by saying they are not women and thus assuming the power and privilege of a man, then it's not going to last very long, right? So clearly women who say they are not women are lying and must be prosecuted as frauds to not only keep them in their place, but make it absolutely clear to other women who might think that they would like to change the power structures, maybe even in other ways than by lying and saying they are men, that that shit ain't gonna fly.
Whatever you're trying to do, consistently referring to men as women like this is deeply inappropriate and upsetting. Please don't ever do it again in a venue like this.
posted by Dysk at 11:11 PM on December 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Whatever you're trying to do, consistently referring to men as women like this is deeply inappropriate and upsetting. Please don't ever do it again in a venue like this.
posted by Dysk at 11:11 PM on December 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
Kyran Lee is unambiguously a man, but I assumed that Athanassiel was referring more to the public perception of McNally and Newland there (both punished more severely than Lee), who are consistently referred to in the legal documents as women, though I really wonder about this and if this characterization is more a matter of legal status and what their lawyer advised rather than their internal experience of gender. I mean, I don't know them, but reading about the cases I strongly doubt that these were cis women trying to bring off some kind of charade (the way the judges say) and think it more likely that they're trans men who are unable to be out for whatever reason or people who ID as a variety of genderqueer. (Not to detract from your larger point at all here, Dysk, which is solid; just addressing why these cases are weirder.) With McNally and Newland in particular, I would be hesitant to categorize their gender at all unless the information came from them outside a courtroom. The newspapers are making wild speculation about motives and misgendering Lee all over the place, so I don't trust them at all on this.
posted by thetortoise at 11:39 PM on December 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by thetortoise at 11:39 PM on December 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Whatever the specifics of the cases here, that is not what is being referred to with phrases like "women who say they are not women" - that is an odious and insulting description of a trans person. Calling it a lie, doubly so. Some topics absolutely do not deserve the devil's advocate treatment.
posted by Dysk at 11:46 PM on December 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 11:46 PM on December 17, 2015 [3 favorites]
I just wanted to point out that Athanassiel explained
posted by XMLicious at 12:16 AM on December 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
I should note that the above does not represent my opinion, but my supposition as to the kind of opinion that allows this kind of case to even make it to court.within the same comment, so they did explicitly say what they were trying to do, which didn't involve advancing that as an actual argument in a devil's advocate role.
posted by XMLicious at 12:16 AM on December 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
I refer you to the bit in my comment: "Whatever you're trying to do, consistently referring to men as women like this is deeply inappropriate and upsetting."
It's fucking upsetting and unnecessary as shit, whatever end it serves. Disclaimers don't make it okay, and I am going to continue to call voicing a deliberately contrary position you don't believe in devil's advocacy, whether it's explicitly disclaimed or not.
posted by Dysk at 12:59 AM on December 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
It's fucking upsetting and unnecessary as shit, whatever end it serves. Disclaimers don't make it okay, and I am going to continue to call voicing a deliberately contrary position you don't believe in devil's advocacy, whether it's explicitly disclaimed or not.
posted by Dysk at 12:59 AM on December 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
Yeah. The kyriarchy has enough success with that kind of viewpoint without me making their argument for them. I was pissed off and ranty and I should have thought better before writing a comment that came from a place of bitter disappointment, since neither tone nor the degree to which this decision affects me and mine comes through over the internet. My sincere apologies.
posted by Athanassiel at 2:51 AM on December 18, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by Athanassiel at 2:51 AM on December 18, 2015 [10 favorites]
Mod note: A few comments removed; this is a tough topic and isn't going to get better by escalating the level of rhetoric level or rolling in metacommentary stuff that doesn't belong over here to start with.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:43 PM on December 18, 2015
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:43 PM on December 18, 2015
It is not okay to ignore consent because you don't like someone's reasons for not having sex with you. Even if you think those reasons are "transphobic."
posted by amber_dale at 1:50 PM on December 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by amber_dale at 1:50 PM on December 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
Consent was not ignored. Consent was freely given by the woman in question (though not by Kyran, who was coerced into the situation). Consent to be penetrated by someone's penis does not depend on their penis matching the expectations you have of it or the person bearing it, as has been repeatedly established by case law in the UK. This prosecution rested entirely on the identity of Kyran (which the transphobic prick of judge held to be a gender that Kyran did not identify with) not the nature of the act or penis in question.
Kyran is not a woman. The prosecution rested entirely on the belief that he is, and nowt else. Consent was freely given by the supposed 'victim', but was coerced by her from Kyran.
posted by Dysk at 1:55 PM on December 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Kyran is not a woman. The prosecution rested entirely on the belief that he is, and nowt else. Consent was freely given by the supposed 'victim', but was coerced by her from Kyran.
posted by Dysk at 1:55 PM on December 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
(And putting the word transphobic in scare quotes doesn't make it any less real, applicable, relevant, or true.)
posted by Dysk at 1:57 PM on December 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 1:57 PM on December 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
I never said Kyran was a woman.
I said that the woman victim in this case did not consent to being penetrated by an object, and that Kyran apparently understood that, which is why Kyran concealed the nature of the penetrating object from her.
If you penetrate a woman with something without her enthusiastic and affirmative consent, that is and should be rape.
Even if her understanding was a transphobic one, that does not entitle anyone to ignore her sovereignty over her body and penetrate with her with something she did not consent to.
Saying that the victim, who was penetrated by an object without consent, is actually a coercive perpetrator is victim blaming. You are literally saying she asked for it.
posted by amber_dale at 2:05 PM on December 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
I said that the woman victim in this case did not consent to being penetrated by an object, and that Kyran apparently understood that, which is why Kyran concealed the nature of the penetrating object from her.
If you penetrate a woman with something without her enthusiastic and affirmative consent, that is and should be rape.
Even if her understanding was a transphobic one, that does not entitle anyone to ignore her sovereignty over her body and penetrate with her with something she did not consent to.
Saying that the victim, who was penetrated by an object without consent, is actually a coercive perpetrator is victim blaming. You are literally saying she asked for it.
posted by amber_dale at 2:05 PM on December 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
The judge said Kyran was a woman. It was what the judgement rested on. You might want 'penis not being of the type I expected' to be grounds for a sexual assault charge in the UK, but it isn't, and it wasn't in this case either. The charge was brought, and upheld, on the basis of transphobic bullshit. So yes, if you're throwing your hat in with the judge and prosecution here, you're throwing your hat in with transphobic bullshit and misgendering, whether you intend to or not. This prosecution was not brought on the grounds you argued, and could not be under UK law. Under UK law, the victim DID consent to being penetrated with an object. That object was Kyran's penis. Whether Kyran's penis is a prosthetic or not is irrelevant to that consent under UK law. The only thing that made this case was Kyran's being trans, and judge refusing to recognise his gender.
The woman in the case gave her enthusiastic consent to be penetrated with Kyran's penis, and she was.
And even this court, with that finding, held that Kyran was coerced. That was why the judge decided to be 'lenient'. He basically says so explicitly in his statement. That the woman coerced consent from Kyran is not in question. It is a fact.
posted by Dysk at 2:33 PM on December 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
The woman in the case gave her enthusiastic consent to be penetrated with Kyran's penis, and she was.
And even this court, with that finding, held that Kyran was coerced. That was why the judge decided to be 'lenient'. He basically says so explicitly in his statement. That the woman coerced consent from Kyran is not in question. It is a fact.
posted by Dysk at 2:33 PM on December 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
The crux is this: Kyran's prosthetic penis is no more an 'object' than anyone else's penis, prosthetic, constructed, natal, whatever. To claim otherwise is transphobic and offensive. That wasn't even the issue in the court case. The only thing that made the sex in question worth a conviction, in the opinion of the court, was the court's misapprehension about Kyran's gender.
posted by Dysk at 2:36 PM on December 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 2:36 PM on December 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
(And putting the word transphobic in scare quotes doesn't make it any less real, applicable, relevant, or true.)
Ditto the word victim.
posted by MikeMc at 2:50 PM on December 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Ditto the word victim.
posted by MikeMc at 2:50 PM on December 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
No, the bullshit the court based its opinions on, as explained above at length, is what makes the word victim less real, applicable, relevant or true in this case.
posted by Dysk at 2:52 PM on December 18, 2015
posted by Dysk at 2:52 PM on December 18, 2015
It's perfectly possible for the UK laws applied in this case to be bullshit and for the woman to have been penetrated by something she did not and would not have consented to having in her body. This doesn't have to be a zero-sum scenario.
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:55 PM on December 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:55 PM on December 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
It is, but that would require you to consider a trans male penis to not really be a penis, which is only really half a step from the bullshit of considering a trans man to not really be a man.
posted by Dysk at 3:00 PM on December 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 3:00 PM on December 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
Just to make sure we're all on the same page, this is from the Guardian (sorry, can't find the actual case right now):
As their relationship developed, the pair ended up in bed together. The defendant stayed fully clothed and used a sex toy on the victim, Lincoln crown court heard. Jurors were told that Lee started sleeping at the woman’s house and remained dressed whenever they were in bed together.posted by thetortoise at 3:05 PM on December 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
The pair had sex once, and the victim described it as normal. Sarah Knight, prosecuting, told the court Lee “told her all the things she wanted to hear: how much he loved her and how good she was with her [son].”
The victim complained to police after Lee’s true identity was revealed when he was found to be working at a McDonald’s restaurant under his birth name.
It is, but that would require you to consider a trans male penis to not really be a penis, which is only really half a step from the bullshit of considering a trans man to not really be a man.
It doesn't, if you allow that people have the right to make categorical distinctions between the types of penises they want to have sex with, based on its size, shape, visible state of health, piercings, or the very material it is made of, or whatever.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:06 PM on December 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
It doesn't, if you allow that people have the right to make categorical distinctions between the types of penises they want to have sex with, based on its size, shape, visible state of health, piercings, or the very material it is made of, or whatever.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:06 PM on December 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
It doesn't, if you allow that people have the right to make categorical distinctions between the types of penises they want to have sex with, based on its size, shape, visible state of health, piercings, or the very material it is made of, or whatever.
If you want to make that argument, great, but where it is being used as a cudgel to hammer trans people for their transness is maybe not the place to do it, especially when that right is never really applied in any other situation in the UK.
posted by Dysk at 3:11 PM on December 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
If you want to make that argument, great, but where it is being used as a cudgel to hammer trans people for their transness is maybe not the place to do it, especially when that right is never really applied in any other situation in the UK.
posted by Dysk at 3:11 PM on December 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
I said that the woman victim in this case did not consent to being penetrated by an object
I want to say that I really regret writing things upthread that legitimated this line of reasoning. I was wrong, even though I was attempting to think this through using a good framework.
1. There are limits to the consent framework. If this were 1920, for instance, you could say "a person did not consent to having sex with a person of [a particular racial or ethnic background] and therefore, the person who did not out themselves as [that background] is legally liable" and have that be taken seriously by most people. It's an argument that gets raised by the far right today very occasionally, but it has had great, great popular traction.
Consent is important but also complicated by racism, misogyny, transphobia. It seems like it's uncpmplicated but it's not.
It doesn't, if you allow that people have the right to make categorical distinctions between the types of penises they want to have sex with, based on its size, shape, visible state of health, piercings, or the very material it is made of, or whatever.
And yet, how rarely the "I didn't realize you had a Prince Albert" situation goes to court.
What is more, if I were to hold hands with someone on a date, discover they had a prosthetic hand and get upset because I did not consent to hold a prosthetic hand, we would say that was wrong and ableist. A prosthetic is different from a toy or a costume. If I don't understand that a prosthetic is not a toy or a costume and I get upset about contact with a prosthetic (as opposed to, perhaps, having questions or being aware that it is a new experience) the problem lies with my understanding.
But the Guardian article makes it pretty clear that this was about a trans man being punished where a cis man would not have been, with the nature of the sexual contact as a pretext.
I was really wrong in the early part of this thread. Anyone who is reading this who nodded along with my arguments should know that those are bad arguments based on internalized transphobia.
posted by Frowner at 3:15 PM on December 18, 2015 [8 favorites]
I want to say that I really regret writing things upthread that legitimated this line of reasoning. I was wrong, even though I was attempting to think this through using a good framework.
1. There are limits to the consent framework. If this were 1920, for instance, you could say "a person did not consent to having sex with a person of [a particular racial or ethnic background] and therefore, the person who did not out themselves as [that background] is legally liable" and have that be taken seriously by most people. It's an argument that gets raised by the far right today very occasionally, but it has had great, great popular traction.
Consent is important but also complicated by racism, misogyny, transphobia. It seems like it's uncpmplicated but it's not.
It doesn't, if you allow that people have the right to make categorical distinctions between the types of penises they want to have sex with, based on its size, shape, visible state of health, piercings, or the very material it is made of, or whatever.
And yet, how rarely the "I didn't realize you had a Prince Albert" situation goes to court.
What is more, if I were to hold hands with someone on a date, discover they had a prosthetic hand and get upset because I did not consent to hold a prosthetic hand, we would say that was wrong and ableist. A prosthetic is different from a toy or a costume. If I don't understand that a prosthetic is not a toy or a costume and I get upset about contact with a prosthetic (as opposed to, perhaps, having questions or being aware that it is a new experience) the problem lies with my understanding.
But the Guardian article makes it pretty clear that this was about a trans man being punished where a cis man would not have been, with the nature of the sexual contact as a pretext.
I was really wrong in the early part of this thread. Anyone who is reading this who nodded along with my arguments should know that those are bad arguments based on internalized transphobia.
posted by Frowner at 3:15 PM on December 18, 2015 [8 favorites]
It doesn't, if you allow that people have the right to make categorical distinctions between the types of penises they want to have sex with, based on its size, shape, visible state of health, piercings, or the very material it is made of, or whatever.
None of that vitiates consent retroactively. If you think you're having sex with a guy with a big uncircumcised penis and later on you find out he in fact had a small circumcised penis, nobody is going to categorize that as assault. This case is entirely about not considering trans men to be real men, so just say that.
posted by thetortoise at 3:19 PM on December 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
None of that vitiates consent retroactively. If you think you're having sex with a guy with a big uncircumcised penis and later on you find out he in fact had a small circumcised penis, nobody is going to categorize that as assault. This case is entirely about not considering trans men to be real men, so just say that.
posted by thetortoise at 3:19 PM on December 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
This is hugely complicated and I keep going back and forth by arguments from both sides (even the ones which were deleted... which I understand because of some of the language involved). I think two things, though:
1) I don't think "a prosthetic penis is exactly the same as a non-prosthetic penis is at the end of the day a fact. A prosthetic leg is not the same as a non-prosthetic leg and the fact that its a penis doesn't change that.
2) But that's not what the prosecution here was about. This was charged as deception by gender, basically criminalizing the fact that Lee is trans. So point #1 doesn't negate that.
posted by Justinian at 3:22 PM on December 18, 2015
1) I don't think "a prosthetic penis is exactly the same as a non-prosthetic penis is at the end of the day a fact. A prosthetic leg is not the same as a non-prosthetic leg and the fact that its a penis doesn't change that.
2) But that's not what the prosecution here was about. This was charged as deception by gender, basically criminalizing the fact that Lee is trans. So point #1 doesn't negate that.
posted by Justinian at 3:22 PM on December 18, 2015
The passage thetortoise quotes makes it quite clear that the basis for the convictions is court-endorsed transphobia vis-a-vis trans people's gender, not the nature of the penetrative sex they have. But of course what's important here is picking nits about one particular case, because that totally demonstrates that the courts aren't at fault for convicting these people.
If you want to change the basis for sexual assault charges in the UK with regard to what expectations a person might have of a penis contra what the penis in question is actually like, consider that a situation where doing so is to effectively brush off the institutionalised transphobia of UK courts is not the time or place. In this context, it is not neutral to talk up that issue. If it's important to you, consider instead raising it without mixing trans people's legitimacy up in it.
posted by Dysk at 3:23 PM on December 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
If you want to change the basis for sexual assault charges in the UK with regard to what expectations a person might have of a penis contra what the penis in question is actually like, consider that a situation where doing so is to effectively brush off the institutionalised transphobia of UK courts is not the time or place. In this context, it is not neutral to talk up that issue. If it's important to you, consider instead raising it without mixing trans people's legitimacy up in it.
posted by Dysk at 3:23 PM on December 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
I'm against any men raping women. (Anyone raping anyone, really.) That's why I originally said that it didn't matter why someone was using a prosthetic penis, simply that it shouldn't be put inside someone else's body without enthusiastic and affirmative consent from the partner. The law should reflect that.
posted by amber_dale at 3:25 PM on December 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by amber_dale at 3:25 PM on December 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't think "a prosthetic penis is exactly the same as a non-prosthetic penis is at the end of the day a fact. A prosthetic leg is not the same as a non-prosthetic leg and the fact that its a penis doesn't change that.
Nobody has argued that they are exactly the same. Just that consent cannot be retroactively withdrawn on that basis of a misapprehension as to the exact nature of somebody's penis. In THAT context, they are completely equivalent.
posted by Dysk at 3:25 PM on December 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Nobody has argued that they are exactly the same. Just that consent cannot be retroactively withdrawn on that basis of a misapprehension as to the exact nature of somebody's penis. In THAT context, they are completely equivalent.
posted by Dysk at 3:25 PM on December 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Nobody has argued that they are exactly the same.
You wrote: Kyran's prosthetic penis is no more an 'object' than anyone else's penis, prosthetic, constructed, natal, whatever.
That sure looks like an argument that they are the same.
But of course what's important here is picking nits about one particular case, because that totally demonstrates that the courts aren't at fault for convicting these people.
Indeed. Perhaps not offering nits to be picked is also a good idea.
The court is transphobic, the case should have been tossed, and Kyran was a jerk, as was the complainant (even more so). A shit show all around.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:33 PM on December 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
You wrote: Kyran's prosthetic penis is no more an 'object' than anyone else's penis, prosthetic, constructed, natal, whatever.
That sure looks like an argument that they are the same.
But of course what's important here is picking nits about one particular case, because that totally demonstrates that the courts aren't at fault for convicting these people.
Indeed. Perhaps not offering nits to be picked is also a good idea.
The court is transphobic, the case should have been tossed, and Kyran was a jerk, as was the complainant (even more so). A shit show all around.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:33 PM on December 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
'1 is no more a letter than 2' does not imply '1 is the same as 2'. It implies they share ONE FEATURE. A level of equivalence, if you will, in a certain sense or context. Not that they are literally the same thing.
posted by Dysk at 3:35 PM on December 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 3:35 PM on December 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
I am disgusted with how many people are coming out of the woodwork basically to point out that criminalizing someone because they're trans is ok. I am trying really hard to do "constructive commentary" in the "spirit of MeFi" but I am fucking grossed out and appalled and angry at the level of transphobic stuff on display in this thread couched in "Lol just CURIOUS ABOUT THE LAWS" or "Well Actually" language. After all these shitshow threads on mefi this is still where we are?
posted by beefetish at 5:04 PM on December 18, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by beefetish at 5:04 PM on December 18, 2015 [13 favorites]
Agreed, beefetish. It makes me wonder where people's lines are. I am a trans man - let's say I go to a bar and flirt with someone. Do I need to tell them I'm trans right then? What about if we're dancing? What about if we're dirty dancing (or whatever the kids call it these days)? What if we're making out and they grab my package through my jeans? At what point am I deceiving them? Am I responsible for the cissexist assumption that every man has a penis? Why? I mean, in an overwhelming number of cases, it's true, but I'm clear proof that it's not an absolute and I have many, many friends/acquaintances in the same situation.
Now... I would disclose before we got naked, for my own safety, but I do not see it as an ethical imperative, just as I don't disclose the fact I wear hearing aids to everyone I talk to.
posted by desjardins at 6:46 PM on December 18, 2015 [9 favorites]
Now... I would disclose before we got naked, for my own safety, but I do not see it as an ethical imperative, just as I don't disclose the fact I wear hearing aids to everyone I talk to.
posted by desjardins at 6:46 PM on December 18, 2015 [9 favorites]
Yeah that is the thing that blows my mind I think is the reminder that despite all the steps forward we've made as a culture a bunch of people on what's widely considered to be one of the "better" message boards on the interweb still are on some shit that makes it less safe for trans people to exist. Gross! Anybody in my neck of the woods feeling pressed over this thread who wants to cool out and have a beer or a not beer over this memail me.
posted by beefetish at 7:00 PM on December 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by beefetish at 7:00 PM on December 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think, as has basically been said above, that the burden is on the transphobic person in an encounter to disclose ahead of time that they can't handle the possibility of non-cis paramours, rather than trans persons being obligated to out themselves or have any responsibility of that sort whatsoever. Transphobic people who fail to do so should be culpable for being-a-human-being fraud or something like that.
posted by XMLicious at 7:19 PM on December 18, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by XMLicious at 7:19 PM on December 18, 2015 [9 favorites]
I'm with Frowner in that I'm surprised at how hard it was for me to think of a prosthetic penis as something that someone could experience as part of their body, rather than as a tool of some kind. I have a lot of sexual experience with transmasculine people as well as with people who use strap-ons, but I didn't manage to make this leap, even though I'm aware of, for instance, the idea that tools used for accessibility are to be treated as an extension of the person, for instance by not touching a person's wheelchair without their permission, and this seems like it might be similar, for some men at least.
I'm trying to reflect on how I thought about my girlfriend's prosthetic leg when I was dating an amputee. She often took it off casually. For instance, in the summer when it got very hot to wear, she might just slip it off and set it aside while we were sitting at a table, and put it back on when it was time to get up and walk on. And she didn't always wear her prosthetic. If her stump had gotten tender or she was having trouble with her hip, she would use crutches. She also had more than one prosthetic leg; she had an "everyday" leg, and also one that was optimized for rock climbing.
And yet I experienced her leg as part of her, in a very different category than her crutches, for instance. I wouldn't have casually handled her leg when she wasn't wearing it, for instance, whereas I wouldn't have hesitated to touch her crutches if, say, I was tidying a room and they were in my way. If I'd come across her leg in a similar circumstance, I'd have asked before I touched or moved it. I touched her leg when she was wearing it, but I cannot remember a single time I touched or lifted it when she wasn't.
This is all me, a person who doesn't have a prosthesis, thinking about where and why my mind drew certain lines. I'm not making any broad claims. I'm just reflecting on it, and how, somehow, I didn't think of a prosthetic penis as something that could have that kind of bodily connection to someone. For me, my girlfriend's leg was still a part of her even when she wasn't wearing it. I've tended to experience dildos, though, as more like the crutches: as becoming inert inanimate objects when not in use. The idea that a prosthetic penis could be as much a part of someone's body as my girlfriend's leg was for her is something new for me to think about. And I suspect that whether or not it feels like this varies from person to person. I know that for some trans men, the use of a strap-on triggers gender dysphoria, while for others it doesn't, so I imagine that people who use strap-ons, or prosthetic penises, have a variety of experiences of them.
I'm also thinking about all the varieties of genitals trans-masculine men can have, which could include varying types of medical implants, such as prosthetic testicles or a surgically constructed penis that can become erect through the use of an implanted pump. Which of these things do, and don't, constitute "gender fraud" if not fully explained?
Still, to a great extent, these questions are irrelevant. As the linked article says:
Third, and perhaps most importantly, we should recognise that, while prosecution might technically be justified on the basis of lack of consent because of the use of a prosthetic device, prosecution is unlikely to have been motivated by the use of such a device. Indeed, had any of the defendants been cisgender men, prosecutions are unlikely to have been brought. In other words, the coercive power of law is being used to endorse the views of some cisgender people concerning the definition of something so personal as gender identity.
Is it assault if you've consented to penetration by a flesh penis and are penetrated by a silicone one instead? I don't know. But this central point holds true: the idea that "gender fraud" is a crime, and the pattern of prosecutions for it, is all about cementing cis identity and defining trans people as a threat.
posted by not that girl at 8:44 PM on December 18, 2015 [8 favorites]
I'm trying to reflect on how I thought about my girlfriend's prosthetic leg when I was dating an amputee. She often took it off casually. For instance, in the summer when it got very hot to wear, she might just slip it off and set it aside while we were sitting at a table, and put it back on when it was time to get up and walk on. And she didn't always wear her prosthetic. If her stump had gotten tender or she was having trouble with her hip, she would use crutches. She also had more than one prosthetic leg; she had an "everyday" leg, and also one that was optimized for rock climbing.
And yet I experienced her leg as part of her, in a very different category than her crutches, for instance. I wouldn't have casually handled her leg when she wasn't wearing it, for instance, whereas I wouldn't have hesitated to touch her crutches if, say, I was tidying a room and they were in my way. If I'd come across her leg in a similar circumstance, I'd have asked before I touched or moved it. I touched her leg when she was wearing it, but I cannot remember a single time I touched or lifted it when she wasn't.
This is all me, a person who doesn't have a prosthesis, thinking about where and why my mind drew certain lines. I'm not making any broad claims. I'm just reflecting on it, and how, somehow, I didn't think of a prosthetic penis as something that could have that kind of bodily connection to someone. For me, my girlfriend's leg was still a part of her even when she wasn't wearing it. I've tended to experience dildos, though, as more like the crutches: as becoming inert inanimate objects when not in use. The idea that a prosthetic penis could be as much a part of someone's body as my girlfriend's leg was for her is something new for me to think about. And I suspect that whether or not it feels like this varies from person to person. I know that for some trans men, the use of a strap-on triggers gender dysphoria, while for others it doesn't, so I imagine that people who use strap-ons, or prosthetic penises, have a variety of experiences of them.
I'm also thinking about all the varieties of genitals trans-masculine men can have, which could include varying types of medical implants, such as prosthetic testicles or a surgically constructed penis that can become erect through the use of an implanted pump. Which of these things do, and don't, constitute "gender fraud" if not fully explained?
Still, to a great extent, these questions are irrelevant. As the linked article says:
Third, and perhaps most importantly, we should recognise that, while prosecution might technically be justified on the basis of lack of consent because of the use of a prosthetic device, prosecution is unlikely to have been motivated by the use of such a device. Indeed, had any of the defendants been cisgender men, prosecutions are unlikely to have been brought. In other words, the coercive power of law is being used to endorse the views of some cisgender people concerning the definition of something so personal as gender identity.
Is it assault if you've consented to penetration by a flesh penis and are penetrated by a silicone one instead? I don't know. But this central point holds true: the idea that "gender fraud" is a crime, and the pattern of prosecutions for it, is all about cementing cis identity and defining trans people as a threat.
posted by not that girl at 8:44 PM on December 18, 2015 [8 favorites]
People who are having sex are just that: People. If a person has any deal breakers for who they want to have sex with, they need to ask their prospective partner before they consent to sex. The responsibility for making incorrect assumptions belongs to the person making those assumptions. What's so fucked up about this case and others like it is that being trans is singled out as an attribute that a person must disclose for sex to be even legal. That's just disgustingly transphobic.
This thread has really opened my eyes to the injustices perpetrated by cisnormativity, and the pervasiveness of it. Thank you.
posted by sanedragon at 9:45 PM on December 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
This thread has really opened my eyes to the injustices perpetrated by cisnormativity, and the pervasiveness of it. Thank you.
posted by sanedragon at 9:45 PM on December 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
I should have said, so long as neither party knowingly harms the other, the responsibility for making incorrect assumptions belongs to the person making those assumptions. These rulings send the message to trans people that simply being themselves harms others, which is incredibly cruel and has no rational basis whatsoever.
posted by sanedragon at 10:26 PM on December 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by sanedragon at 10:26 PM on December 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
Is it assault if you've consented to penetration by a flesh penis and are penetrated by a silicone one instead?
It should be noted that this is only relevant to some of the cases discussed in the linked article. In some of the, there was full awareness that a sec you was being used (defendant stayed fully clothed) and the granted consent was only considered invalid on the basis of their trans gender not being real in the eyes of the court.
posted by Dysk at 1:45 AM on December 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
It should be noted that this is only relevant to some of the cases discussed in the linked article. In some of the, there was full awareness that a sec you was being used (defendant stayed fully clothed) and the granted consent was only considered invalid on the basis of their trans gender not being real in the eyes of the court.
posted by Dysk at 1:45 AM on December 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
I've been mulling the law in this over. I'm just going to discuss this from a legal perspective, briefly. I recognise that the moral issues go far beyond this. Bear in mind that I'm not a criminal lawyer, although I am a practising legal caseworker in another field.
I think that the judgment in McNally (which being binding precedent, is the most legally relevant thing we can look at) may potentially have been susceptible to appeal. Given that the guilty plea in this case was doubtless a response to McNally, this is important.
The "common sense approach" applied in McNally is, I think, problematic in light of the Public Sector Equality Duty (which applies to nearly all public bodies, including courts). The Duty requires that public authorities have "due regard" to the need to achieve certain aims. These aims are to:
I am not saying that I think an appeal would necessarily have been successful, but I do think that, potentially, one might have been allowed on this point. I hope that someone who ends up with a client in the same position finds a way to at least get the question to a higher court.
posted by howfar at 2:30 AM on December 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think that the judgment in McNally (which being binding precedent, is the most legally relevant thing we can look at) may potentially have been susceptible to appeal. Given that the guilty plea in this case was doubtless a response to McNally, this is important.
The "common sense approach" applied in McNally is, I think, problematic in light of the Public Sector Equality Duty (which applies to nearly all public bodies, including courts). The Duty requires that public authorities have "due regard" to the need to achieve certain aims. These aims are to:
(a)eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;Protected characterestics include sex, gender reassignment (which is broader than it sounds) and sexual orientation. The Duty is not to necessarily achieve those aims, but to consider the need to achieve them. My argument would be that the "common sense" approach used, without specific and relevant consideration of the Equality Duty, is insufficient to satisfy the Court's legal obligation. "Common sense" does not, I would argue, imply consideration that meets a specific legal requirement.
(b)advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;
(c)foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
I am not saying that I think an appeal would necessarily have been successful, but I do think that, potentially, one might have been allowed on this point. I hope that someone who ends up with a client in the same position finds a way to at least get the question to a higher court.
posted by howfar at 2:30 AM on December 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Also, if Lee is prosecutable for this, I really, really demand that every single goddamn cis straight man who has ever tried to "oops" his way into anal be prosecuted and punished, because if Lee deserves the court system for making a bad decision when backed into a corner and subject to overwhelming stigma and bias, then those dudes have absolutely zero excuse and should be breaking rocks.
This comparison really stuck with me since I read it a couple days ago. The percentage of men who have done the "oops, wrong hole!" faux-accident thing at least once is going to be extremely large, but it is almost impossible to imagine there being a serious risk of being charged and convicted for it. That kind of boundary violation is so common as to be almost unremarkable, and yet what gets prosecuted are trans cases like the one being discussed here?
posted by Dip Flash at 4:48 AM on December 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
This comparison really stuck with me since I read it a couple days ago. The percentage of men who have done the "oops, wrong hole!" faux-accident thing at least once is going to be extremely large, but it is almost impossible to imagine there being a serious risk of being charged and convicted for it. That kind of boundary violation is so common as to be almost unremarkable, and yet what gets prosecuted are trans cases like the one being discussed here?
posted by Dip Flash at 4:48 AM on December 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
The other thing that gets me about this case and others like it is its ability to be used to terrify trans people beyond the usual set of social consequences for being trans.
Like. Say you're a trans woman, and you just do not want to deal with the baggage of being trans with anyone new, so you go stealth. It's not like your medical history is anyone's business but yours, right? You've finished the surgical interventions you wanted, and you're finally comfortable with your body, so you start dating. You don't tell your new flame about your history right away because you're not sure how it will go over, and anyway even the people who react well tend to be exhausting about it. Plus this person is so nice, and you feel great when they're around, and there never seems to be a good time to say something.
So you date this new person, and it's great. You're feeling awesome, getting to be like anyone else for a change, and it's a heady feeling indeed. Maybe you sleep with that flame, because you really like them abd they're so into you and it's good, they seem like they're enjoying themselves and you definitely are.
Maybe a little time passes and you find they're not as nice as they seemed at first, and you break up. Or maybe your estranged parents call them and tell them, because that's just something you apparently have to deal with; it's not like they could just leave you alone after they disowned you or anything. Fuck. Or maybe an old friend brings it up in conversation without thinking while your flame is in the room. However they find out, they react.... badly. Definitely worse than you'd hoped, almost certainly worse than you've feared. The cops get called. Then you find out you have a summons to court. You're getting charged, because your ex is saying they did not consent to sleep with a man. Which you aren't, fuck, but hell if the courts will believe you, and you keep having to deal with cops who shout at you to make you 'confess' and fuck, you just want it all to go away...
You see how that story could be fucking terrifying to a trans person? Like, there's the lead up, and that's the sort of thing you have in the front of your mind. You're already likely to have had plenty of bad shit to deal with as you actively transition, and not everyone wants to keep dealing with that by talking about their history for the rest of their life. Even if you do, and it's an important part of your identity, for many people it's a scary thing to bring up because of the spectre of reacting badly means.
What this case does for trans people is extend the list of consequences for not handling themselves perfectly even farther. Now it's not just a manner of risking losing anyone you get attached to or getting assaulted or losing your job that are always in the back of your mind when you come out. Now it's the threat of prosecution.
And again, the ways trans people respond to these constraints are different, because people are different. I know plenty of people who do things like desjardins, up thread, who think it's safer to be open early on because of reactions like this. But there are also people who err on the side of trying not to have to deal, and the point that I am trying to make here is that that perspective comes from a place of exhaustion rather than a place of malevolence or deceit. And the law needs to be careful about that, or it will wind up as just another scourge used to punish and marginalize trans people who make human mistakes.
posted by sciatrix at 5:43 AM on December 19, 2015 [13 favorites]
Like. Say you're a trans woman, and you just do not want to deal with the baggage of being trans with anyone new, so you go stealth. It's not like your medical history is anyone's business but yours, right? You've finished the surgical interventions you wanted, and you're finally comfortable with your body, so you start dating. You don't tell your new flame about your history right away because you're not sure how it will go over, and anyway even the people who react well tend to be exhausting about it. Plus this person is so nice, and you feel great when they're around, and there never seems to be a good time to say something.
So you date this new person, and it's great. You're feeling awesome, getting to be like anyone else for a change, and it's a heady feeling indeed. Maybe you sleep with that flame, because you really like them abd they're so into you and it's good, they seem like they're enjoying themselves and you definitely are.
Maybe a little time passes and you find they're not as nice as they seemed at first, and you break up. Or maybe your estranged parents call them and tell them, because that's just something you apparently have to deal with; it's not like they could just leave you alone after they disowned you or anything. Fuck. Or maybe an old friend brings it up in conversation without thinking while your flame is in the room. However they find out, they react.... badly. Definitely worse than you'd hoped, almost certainly worse than you've feared. The cops get called. Then you find out you have a summons to court. You're getting charged, because your ex is saying they did not consent to sleep with a man. Which you aren't, fuck, but hell if the courts will believe you, and you keep having to deal with cops who shout at you to make you 'confess' and fuck, you just want it all to go away...
You see how that story could be fucking terrifying to a trans person? Like, there's the lead up, and that's the sort of thing you have in the front of your mind. You're already likely to have had plenty of bad shit to deal with as you actively transition, and not everyone wants to keep dealing with that by talking about their history for the rest of their life. Even if you do, and it's an important part of your identity, for many people it's a scary thing to bring up because of the spectre of reacting badly means.
What this case does for trans people is extend the list of consequences for not handling themselves perfectly even farther. Now it's not just a manner of risking losing anyone you get attached to or getting assaulted or losing your job that are always in the back of your mind when you come out. Now it's the threat of prosecution.
And again, the ways trans people respond to these constraints are different, because people are different. I know plenty of people who do things like desjardins, up thread, who think it's safer to be open early on because of reactions like this. But there are also people who err on the side of trying not to have to deal, and the point that I am trying to make here is that that perspective comes from a place of exhaustion rather than a place of malevolence or deceit. And the law needs to be careful about that, or it will wind up as just another scourge used to punish and marginalize trans people who make human mistakes.
posted by sciatrix at 5:43 AM on December 19, 2015 [13 favorites]
It all seems to be the outgrowth of the current punitive wave of trans panic, in response to the increased global visibility and burgeoning acceptance of trans people. And every time, it comes down to this absurd patriarchal obsession with the phallus, as though the entire rich diversity of human gender expression throughout history could be reduced to this one thing. It's same as the bathroom bullshit, but from a different angle: trans women are treated like threats if they possess what the law considers a cis male penis, trans men are treated like frauds if they don't.
I know some of you silent readers out there don't know much about this stuff, and who could blame you; I know gender nowadays seems like a hopelessly complex minefield-- it's a headache to me too; I know you see articles like the Daily Mail one without Sharpe's exegesis and they look horrifying. But do you not see how narrowly legal trends like this circumscribe trans people's lives; how they lead to, as sciatrix describes in detail above, hopelessness and anxiety and fear? How, as sanedragon observes, the result is that it is illegal for trans people to have sex unless they take on burdens of disclosure and explanation required of no cis person? How the implication is that trans bodies are in themselves illegal and require permission by the state?
I'm sorry to keep commenting on this thread, but consent and gender are things very close to my heart, and I am angry. I thought I would be less angry after a day of thinking about this but I am not.
posted by thetortoise at 6:19 AM on December 19, 2015 [8 favorites]
I know some of you silent readers out there don't know much about this stuff, and who could blame you; I know gender nowadays seems like a hopelessly complex minefield-- it's a headache to me too; I know you see articles like the Daily Mail one without Sharpe's exegesis and they look horrifying. But do you not see how narrowly legal trends like this circumscribe trans people's lives; how they lead to, as sciatrix describes in detail above, hopelessness and anxiety and fear? How, as sanedragon observes, the result is that it is illegal for trans people to have sex unless they take on burdens of disclosure and explanation required of no cis person? How the implication is that trans bodies are in themselves illegal and require permission by the state?
I'm sorry to keep commenting on this thread, but consent and gender are things very close to my heart, and I am angry. I thought I would be less angry after a day of thinking about this but I am not.
posted by thetortoise at 6:19 AM on December 19, 2015 [8 favorites]
I'm also thinking about all the varieties of genitals trans-masculine men can have, which could include varying types of medical implants, such as prosthetic testicles or a surgically constructed penis that can become erect through the use of an implanted pump. Which of these things do, and don't, constitute "gender fraud" if not fully explained?
I came back here to say essentially this. What if this guy had had phalloplasty or a metoidioplasty? (Be prepared for NSFW and surgery pics if you google those.) Those are his own flesh - are those "real" enough? Both are made from flesh that you were born with. I have not seen a phalloplasty in person but from videos I've seen, it'd be pretty indistinguishable from a cis penis in low light, up until the lack of ejaculation (which also happens with cis men).
They're also planning penis transplants for cis guys wounded on the battlefield. Are those guys obligated to disclose? Certainly you would not expect your partner to penetrate you with what used to be someone else's penis.
Gender and sex are both spectrums and the law just can't pin them down into binaries, but it sure tries. Trans people always get the short end of that stick.
posted by desjardins at 7:10 AM on December 19, 2015 [10 favorites]
I came back here to say essentially this. What if this guy had had phalloplasty or a metoidioplasty? (Be prepared for NSFW and surgery pics if you google those.) Those are his own flesh - are those "real" enough? Both are made from flesh that you were born with. I have not seen a phalloplasty in person but from videos I've seen, it'd be pretty indistinguishable from a cis penis in low light, up until the lack of ejaculation (which also happens with cis men).
They're also planning penis transplants for cis guys wounded on the battlefield. Are those guys obligated to disclose? Certainly you would not expect your partner to penetrate you with what used to be someone else's penis.
Gender and sex are both spectrums and the law just can't pin them down into binaries, but it sure tries. Trans people always get the short end of that stick.
posted by desjardins at 7:10 AM on December 19, 2015 [10 favorites]
One thing that has been occurring to me as I read this thread and think about how I have participated in it: I don't think that this community would talk about people's bodies in this kind of detail and with this kind of abstraction if those people were cis (or not disabled).
On the one hand, just for me to understand where I have been ignorant, I feel like a level of explicitness is necessary. On that same hand, I think that demystifying human variety is good, and that one of the reasons society develops pervasive gender/body panics is that we have a system which relies on great explicitness in certain cases (certain kinds of porn, certain kinds of advertising) where a photoshopped or artfully filmed body can be set up as the norm and the ideal, while at the same time shaming and hiding all other bodies so that we as a society have a tragically false understanding of human bodies.
On the other hand, I don't feel totally good about realizing that I have felt comfortable with this kind of fine-grained speculation about the bodies of others - even fellow trans/gendernon-conforming people - because I realize that I have almost never had this type of conversation where it focused on cis bodies.
It really makes me realize how - even where there's good intentions and some good aspects - privacy really isn't accorded to trans bodies.
posted by Frowner at 7:27 AM on December 19, 2015 [11 favorites]
On the one hand, just for me to understand where I have been ignorant, I feel like a level of explicitness is necessary. On that same hand, I think that demystifying human variety is good, and that one of the reasons society develops pervasive gender/body panics is that we have a system which relies on great explicitness in certain cases (certain kinds of porn, certain kinds of advertising) where a photoshopped or artfully filmed body can be set up as the norm and the ideal, while at the same time shaming and hiding all other bodies so that we as a society have a tragically false understanding of human bodies.
On the other hand, I don't feel totally good about realizing that I have felt comfortable with this kind of fine-grained speculation about the bodies of others - even fellow trans/gendernon-conforming people - because I realize that I have almost never had this type of conversation where it focused on cis bodies.
It really makes me realize how - even where there's good intentions and some good aspects - privacy really isn't accorded to trans bodies.
posted by Frowner at 7:27 AM on December 19, 2015 [11 favorites]
(E)ven where there's good intentions and some good aspects - privacy really isn't accorded to trans bodies.
QFT.
And hey, I've got an idea: How about if, going forward, we place an affirmative duty to disclose on transphobes. It would be far less burdensome for them, because they have not historically and do not now face the sort of risks to life, limb, and livelihood that transfolks do. Plus, it would have the added advantage of alerting cis-folk who don't wish to consent to intercourse with the hateful and the ignorant.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 10:28 PM on December 20, 2015 [6 favorites]
QFT.
And hey, I've got an idea: How about if, going forward, we place an affirmative duty to disclose on transphobes. It would be far less burdensome for them, because they have not historically and do not now face the sort of risks to life, limb, and livelihood that transfolks do. Plus, it would have the added advantage of alerting cis-folk who don't wish to consent to intercourse with the hateful and the ignorant.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 10:28 PM on December 20, 2015 [6 favorites]
« Older “You can’t squint hard enough to make this gray.” | This is a summoning of bodies: all shapes, sizes... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Dysk at 5:46 AM on December 17, 2015 [17 favorites]