I know that honesty is the best policy, but should it be against the law to have sex with people without telling them that you are trans?
A British case has troubled me for the last few months. A FAAB person, Gayle Newland, suffers from gender dysphoria and Asperger's syndrome. Online, Gayle presented as a man called Kye. Kye arranged to meet a cis woman and they had sex on a number of occasions, while Kye used a strap-on. On each occasion, Kye's partner was blindfolded. She was not unhappy about the arrangement until, during the last sexual encounter, she pulled off the blindfold. Kye's partner told the court that she would not have consented to sex if she had known the truth. Kye, as Gayle, was sentenced to six and a half years in prison. The judge said that it was "difficult to conceive of a deceit so degrading or so damaging for the victim upon its discovery".
Was Kye lying about being a man? I don't think so, as Kye has gender dysphoria. Kye was obviously aware that the cis woman might not see things the same way, though. I agree that Kye used poor judgment, but if that is a crime, Kye's sexual partner should surely also have been convicted. According to The Times of July 21st 2017, Kye's sexual partner "not only wore the blindfold during 15 sexual encounters but also for 100 hours when the two were spending time together - going for drives, sunbathing and even 'watching' films together".
Should it be illegal to uses a strap-on without the partner knowing, even if the partner enjoys it while not knowing? What if a mutilated soldier needed to use a prosthetic penis and didn't tell his partner. Would he be a criminal? If a trans man or penis cancer victim used a surgically constructed penis for sex, would he be a criminal if his partner did not know about the operation?
I understand that Kye's partner was disappointed but there are other scenarios in whch a woman "would not have consented if she had known". She might say "I would not have agreed to sex if I had known what a lousy lover you are", or "I would never have gone to bed with you if I had known what a loser you would turn out to be". Would her partner then be a criminal?
I am deeply troubled by the case but obviously, not everyone will agree with me, or Gayle/Kye would not have been convicted. What do other people, especially trans people, think, about the case in particular but also about when non-disclosure of being trans should be a criminal offence.
Is it a crime to have sex with someone when you're married and don't tell them? What about the men that tell women they love them to persuade them to have sex?
Not sure I see a difference.
Edit:
What about if you're an Arab and tell a women you're a fellow Jew?
https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php?topic=81071.5
No. What harm has been done? With HIV, yes. This, no. It's not a criminal act.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I wonder if Kye had had full phalloplasty and was using that, whether the judge would still maintain that Kye was "degrading and deceiving" the woman.
In any case it seems to me the law has not properly been defined yet on this issue and so there will be more such cases until some clear lines can be drawn.
Well we do live in a society and culture where consent can be revoked at any given time for any whimsy sometimes years or decades after the fact..
Terrifying.
Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
I swear I saw this on an episode of Jerry Springer in the late 90s. Only there, it actually had a happy ending and the two became a couple (as per the script...!). How weird is it that real life is worse than 90's Jerry Springer?
But yeah, the idea that this is a crime is... well, dumb. She agreed to the circumstances explicitly therefore it is on the woman. I could see maybe, maybe, a civil suit (however British law compares on this) seeking damages... but jail time? That's insane. I read up on "rape by deception" on wiki just now, and this case seems to be the sensationalist exception fortunately. Most cases seem to hinge on someone impersonating someone else in a dark room (ie: someone thinks they are having sex with a different person).
That's insane! How could that possibly be a crime????? Is it a crime if you find out they guy you're having sex with is wearing a rug and is actually bald? Or a woman wearing a padded bra and is more flat chested than her partner originally thought? I think even awarding damages in such a case is absurd enough but actual prison time is totally insane! That poor guy.
I wonder if Kye would wear the strap on at any other time besides intercourse to cope with his dysphoria?
Hmmm I can see myself getting blasted for this as my response is different from all above.
If we demand that others accept us for what we are (and we have every right to that), we cannot ignore what others are too. In other words, we have a right to be accepted (legally) as the gender we see ourselves, but others have the right to the sexuality that is right in their mind too. We cannot demand with one hand while taking with the other.
The fact that Kye insisted the lady wear a blindfold pretty much shows that he knew the lady would not be accepting of his physical self. Now why the lady would consent to wearing the blindfold is beyond me.
Not expressly admitting your gender birth is one thing but lying about things is quite another.
I agree with JoanneW. If this guy knew the person would react adversely to them being trans but proceeded to blind fold the girl and have sex with her anyway then obviously there is a problem. I thiknk this could set a dangerous precedent though. Like many guys lie about their endowment, wealth and other probs and get away with it so maybe the law in this area needs to be specified so it can be clear.
I've never understood the need to hide the fact that you are trans from those u date or whatever. I've seen girls get hurt for doing this and then ask why. I mean, obviously some men have fragile masculinity and violence is never the answer but if you are going out of your way to deceive someone in this area then stop, like why put yourself at risk of being hurt, your safety is and should be a number one priority regardless of whether it is right or wrong.
Whether you're trans or not i just don't see the benefit in tricking people at all, when it comes to relationships, whether sexual or not.
Quote from: JoanneW on October 27, 2017, 10:08:13 PM
Hmmm I can see myself getting blasted for this as my response is different from all above.
If we demand that others accept us for what we are (and we have every right to that), we cannot ignore what others are too. In other words, we have a right to be accepted (legally) as the gender we see ourselves, but others have the right to the sexuality that is right in their mind too. We cannot demand with one hand while taking with the other.
The fact that Kye insisted the lady wear a blindfold pretty much shows that he knew the lady would not be accepting of his physical self. Now why the lady would consent to wearing the blindfold is beyond me.
Not expressly admitting your gender birth is one thing but lying about things is quite another.
This is why I made an allowance for a possible civil suit, as there is definitely a problem with what Kye did on a number of levels, but even then I think that would be very situational to this case (as Kye went a bit above and beyond in the deception).
The biggest issue is that he received hard time and is now labeled a rapist without qualification. This was many things, but rape? The truth is that people lie all the time to get other people into bed, and I don't see this as any different than anything else, even if quite a bit more unusual. And just because it hinges on sexuality I don't think makes it rise to the level of jail time either. Would not informing someone you were bi instead of straight or gay be cause for jail time then? Afterall, there are quite a few straight and gay people alike don't like to have relationships with bisexuals for various reasons, and it would go against their wishes in terms of sexuality.
I also think this may be a case of the court being patronizing towards the "victim" because she is a woman (as part of the common double standard of female victims being taken more seriously than male victims). Turn this around and pretend the scenario was a straight man being "tricked" into having sex with a transwoman. It's a harmful cliche, but I'm sure it has happened on more than a few occasion. I can't picture a judge doing anything but laughing the "victim" in this version out of court. Now of course my assumption is hardly legal precedent, but if this were to be the case then by that token alone the sentencing had no merit.
I actually would argue that using a strap-on without consent is unethical regardless of sexuality or gender, and yeah, it should probably be illegal. Consenting to one sexual act is not the same as consenting to all possible sexual acts.
I mean, consider the reverse, someone penetrating their date with their dick when they'd only agreed to use a dildo. I'm guessing way more people could see the issues with that.
And there are issues someone could potentially have with a surprise dildo too. Maybe they have allergies. Maybe they're (rightfully) concerned with the body safety of the materials and/or whether their partner has cleaned them properly. Maybe they have previous trauma and find them triggering. In any case, I feel that everyone should have the right to know what's going inside their body.
That said, I agree that six years in jail is a ridiculously over-the-top punishment when so many violent rapists get less. And I don't think failure to disclose that you're trans should be considered a crime. After all, that would basically criminalize discovering your trans identity and coming out to a long-term partner.
Quote from: widdershins on October 27, 2017, 11:37:32 PM
That said, I agree that six years in jail is a ridiculously over-the-top punishment when so many violent rapists get less.
Isn't the whole sex offense thing a little skewed anyway? Don't get me wrong, a sex offense is serious and likely life changing for the victim... but... why do we have a sex offenders register but no murderers register?
Quote from: JoanneW on October 27, 2017, 11:44:53 PM
Isn't the whole sex offense thing a little skewed anyway? Don't get me wrong, a sex offense is serious and likely life changing for the victim... but... why do we have a sex offenders register but no murderers register?
I had a similar discussion in an ethics class recently about special exceptions to civil rights being made for sex offenders, most notably pedophiles and rapists. (A few people in favor of just outright ignoring constitutional rights for people even just accused... because that's not a dangerous precedent or anything...)
Looking at it from a constitutional legality perspective, the sex offender registry in the U.S. (not sure if other countries have similar or not, probably not) is definitely a bit strange to me, and I believe goes against the entire notion of time served/paying a debt to society. Particularly considering how broad it is. Seriously, public urination can get you listed alongside pedophiles. Likewise, entirely consensual acts that are only illegal on a technicality (statutory rape pressed by parents with people virtually the same age in the absence of Romeo and Juliet provisions) label you forever as a predator. And it's not like if a crime happens the police wouldn't have access to records regardless of the registry, so it doesn't even do law enforcement any good in case there are repeat offenders, and sometimes seems to be driven by little more than people being nosy about their neighbors. (Hell, 60 years ago if the list existed, every last one of us would probably be tossed on it without due process.)
(Notable exception for people on parole. If you're on parole and agreed to the terms, the list is fair game until your time is up.)
Sex offenses just seem so much more personal and heinous than even murder though, so I do understand it culturally even if do not agree with it legally. I remember as a kid watching the movie The General's Daughter. Travolta had a line that went something like "What's worse than that? Murder? What's worse than murder? Rape?.", and the line really confused me as I couldn't quite wrap my head around the idea that rape was worse than murder. It made me really start to think about it, and I did come to the conclusion that murder... well, murder is final and terrible in its finality, but the victim is beyond suffering. Rape damages someone and then forces them to live with it. Essentially, murder may or may not be cruel, whereas rape is
always cruel.
Quote from: widdershins on October 27, 2017, 11:37:32 PM
I actually would argue that using a strap-on without consent is unethical regardless of sexuality or gender, and yeah, it should probably be illegal. Consenting to one sexual act is not the same as consenting to all possible sexual acts.
I mean, consider the reverse, someone penetrating their date with their dick when they'd only agreed to use a dildo. I'm guessing way more people could see the issues with that.
Agreed that it is unethical for sure. Criminal? Maybe. Felonious? I just can't get there on this issue. I would also say that the dildo to penis issue is similar, but a rather serious escalation that perhaps would rise to felonious in my view. Remember that there are many crimes that are tiered based on criteria. Drug possession for instance. Based on amount, it can be entirely non-criminal, a misdemeanor, or a felony.
And while everyone does have the right to know what is going inside their body, even if we were to expressly enumerate this as a right, violation of a right is not inherently criminal. (Ie: If you feed someone cabbage and claim it's lettuce, you wouldn't be going to prison.) And while allergies and other issues may be a legitimate concern, that would go more towards an issue of reckless endangerment(or in an extreme case of death, involuntary manslaughter) rather than rape. (Going back to the previous example, feeding someone peanuts through malicious deception without their knowing and having them turn out to be allergic would certainly be a potential criminal case.) If you look to an even more extreme example, if someone were to knowingly transmit HIV through a scenario of this nature, that IS blatantly criminal and considered attempted murder. (But, and this is important for this particular case, still not rape.)
Quote from: Roll on October 28, 2017, 12:21:01 AM
I had a similar discussion in an ethics class recentl....
Great post.
Very good point about the time served being good enough for anything but a sex offense. General's Daughter is one of my favorite films by the way - although you'd never guess my favorite military law film because YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
If a man needed to use a strap on because his junk wont jump and lied about it would he get years in jail? Its a reckless and disrespectfull thing to do but getting done for being a rockspider means this guy will be facing some really depraved 'justice' while inside and i just dont see how its a fitting punishment.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Quote from: Gertrude on October 25, 2017, 02:00:25 PM
.... It's not a criminal act.
To be sentenced to jail there had to of been some law broken. Rape? His partner consented!
Seems like the PC police in the UK now define "Regret Sex" as sexual assault
Quote from: JoanneW on October 27, 2017, 10:08:13 PM
The fact that Kye insisted the lady wear a blindfold pretty much shows that he knew the lady would not be accepting of his physical self. Now why the lady would consent to wearing the blindfold is beyond me.
That's largely what is troubling me. It is true that although Kye regarded himself as a man, he obviously knew that the woman might not "see" things the same way. However, when the woman agreed to wear a blindfold for 15 sexual encounters and at least 100 hours of other activities (I accidentally left out the "at least" in my quotation), I just don't know how she could not have expected her partner to be different from his online persona. If Kye's poor judgment was a cause of the "crime", then so was hers. Kye at least had the excuse of suffering from Asperger's syndrome. The newspaper did not mention whether the woman had any excuses for her poor judgment.
Quote from: Viktor on October 25, 2017, 02:40:49 PM
I wonder if Kye had had full phalloplasty and was using that, whether the judge would still maintain that Kye was "degrading and deceiving" the woman.
I really do think that it boils down to whether a soldier, mutilated in the service of his country, would be convicted of doing the same thing. A verdict should be because of what the accused did, not because of how the court perceives the accused. As Viktor points out, a woman might also retrospectively change her mind if she discovered that her partner had SRS. Similarly if a wounded soldier had phalloplasty.
In sentencing, the judge said of the woman
"She did not consent to these invasive acts of penetration because the willing compliance with your abusive behaviour was obtained by a deceit."
To me, that implies that a trans man is lying if he tells a woman that he is a man. As for the blindfolding, that was poor judgment on the part of both Kye and the woman.
Quote from: Roll on October 27, 2017, 11:13:08 PM
The biggest issue is that he received hard time and is now labeled a rapist without qualification.
Kye, as Gayle, wasn't actually convicted of rape but of "committing sexual assault by penetration without her victim's consent". In spite of Kye's gender dysphoria, even The Times misgendered him. The reporter wrote
"Yesterday she slumped to the floor of the dock sobbing as she was sentenced to six and a half years in prison. She cried 'no' as the judge ordered her to sign the sex offender's register and remain on it for life."
The article's heading was "Jail for lesbian sex offender who posed as a man". The article mentioned Kye's gender dysphoria, so ignorance is not an excuse.
The Times article also stated
"Gayle Newland, 27, was convicted of three sexual assaults in September 2015 and jailed for eight years, but was freed on appeal last autumn."
and
"Her original conviction was quashed because the trial judge's summing up of the case was not fair and balanced."
I personally hope that she is freed again for the same reason.
The article did not mention that there was a jury at either trial. For the benefit of people outside Britain, I will mention that trials in Britain no longer automatically have juries, and that even if there is a jury, it is no longer necessary for all jurors to agree to a guilty verdict.
In my original post, I did not mention that 6 months of the 6 1/2 year sentence was for an unrelated fraud against an employer. What Kye did with the woman was not in dispute, so I did not want the unrelated fraud to muddy the debate as to whether Kye was guilty of sexual assault, especially as it relates to the broader issue of just how much trans people legally have to tell their partners.
The arguments in this thread are focusing far to much on the physical and not enough on the mental. We know from this site what a SO goes through when they discover that their partner is transgender and wants to transition. The line is often posted "I didn't marry a woman". For a woman "tricked" with a strap on, it might be taken as a form of rape because the person wasn't who they claimed to be. Now the fact that they wore a blindfold suggest they were a bit gullible from the start but mental image can have just as much impact as the physical act. This is the reason I chose to disclose before entering a sexual relation - for the benefit of my partner.
Quote from: Dena on October 28, 2017, 12:03:30 PM
The arguments in this thread are focusing far to much on the physical and not enough on the mental. We know from this site what a SO goes through when they discover that their partner is transgender and wants to transition. The line is often posted "I didn't marry a woman". For a woman "tricked" with a strap on, it might be taken as a form of rape because the person wasn't who they claimed to be. Now the fact that they wore a blindfold suggest they were a bit gullible from the start but mental image can have just as much impact as the physical act. This is the reason I chose to disclose before entering a sexual relation - for the benefit of my partner.
The mental is a concern for sure, but does it rise to criminal behavior? Even in extremely abusive situations, mental anguish is very rarely criminal (going back to my originally leaving the door open for a civil case), or at the least not felonious.
Ultimately, we come back to the issue in applying the law equally. I can imagine no other scenario in which someone would be sentenced to jail time for lying (excepting those relating to contagious disease, which have a different justification for the criminal penalty than lying). The examples of reconstructive surgery above being the most direct comparison, but also any casual lie people tell each other all the time (which while unethical, is not criminal). Based on this precedent, say a man lied to someone about being a wealthy investment banker, when in reality they worked as a fry cook. What happens when the woman claims mental anguish justification then? Maybe the woman really, really doesn't like the thought of sleeping with someone who makes minimum wage to the point it physically repulses her (there actually are people like this, so I am not even just saying an impossible scenario). Yet regardless, I find it difficult to imagine any court would hold this man to the same standard as they did Kye. Or how about this one: a woman who is a devout ideological Nazi sleeps with someone who lies about being Jewish--the Nazi girl's case is going nowhere. And so on and so on. So you are left with one of two scenarios: 1) The law is applied unequally to Kye, and is thus inherently discriminatory against trans people. or 2) The law is applied equally to everyone, and the guy who lied about driving a Porsche is doing hard time. Neither of these scenarios is particularly appealing.
And I don't recall seeing this mentioned in the thread yet, but based on case law, this could easily mean that any transgender person in the U.K. who is living stealth without disclosing their history is at risk of doing prison time. That is terrifying.
Quote from: JoanneW on October 27, 2017, 10:08:13 PM
Hmmm I can see myself getting blasted for this as my response is different from all above.
If we demand that others accept us for what we are (and we have every right to that), we cannot ignore what others are too. In other words, we have a right to be accepted (legally) as the gender we see ourselves, but others have the right to the sexuality that is right in their mind too. We cannot demand with one hand while taking with the other.
The fact that Kye insisted the lady wear a blindfold pretty much shows that he knew the lady would not be accepting of his physical self. Now why the lady would consent to wearing the blindfold is beyond me.
Not expressly admitting your gender birth is one thing but lying about things is quite another.
I would settle for basic respect. Respect for the fact that people can be different and that's ok.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro