Woman, 26, 'poses as man for nine years to trick TWO women into having sexual relations'
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 9:43 AM on 15th January 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347148/Woman-26-poses-man-9-years-trick-TWO-women-having-sexual-relations.html?ito=feeds-newsxml (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347148/Woman-26-poses-man-9-years-trick-TWO-women-having-sexual-relations.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)
A woman yesterday denied tricking two women into sexual intimacy by pretending to be a man.
In an elaborate ruse, Samantha Brooks, 26, is accused of posing as a man called Lee Brooks in order to have sexual contact with them.
---------
Girl beds lass for eight years acting as a bloke
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3353177/Girl-beds-lass-for-eight-years-acting-as-a-bloke.html (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3353177/Girl-beds-lass-for-eight-years-acting-as-a-bloke.html)
By GRANT McCABE
A LESBIAN who posed as a bloke for more than nine years duped two girlfriends, proposed to one of them and concealed her body with bubbles in the bath to hide her true gender, a court heard yesterday.
Samantha Brooks, 26, is alleged to have used a condom on a fake willy to have sex with her partners.
She peed standing up and taped her breasts with bandages to avoid being rumbled as a girl - and told her victims she had painful testicular cancer to stop them touching her own privates, it is claimed.
no good will come of this
The Daily Mail being stupid and reactionary comes as no surprise. I'd hoped the UK had managed to get by with only one sensationalist snot rag, but apparently no such luck.
If this guy loses the case, then trans rights will be seriously harmed. Obviously. We can only hope that the judge's IQ is higher than his shoe size, unlike those reporters'.
I wonder if this is actually a trans man or a lesbian posing as a guy. I don't see why a lesbian would go through so much effort to get into relationships with women so I believe it it most likely the former. I really hope the judge is smart enough to throw this case out.
The sources of this rather unbelievable story suggest there is either a lot more to it, or a lot less.
I somehow doubt it is anything like what it appears. Surmising, it wll probably come out that he conned these women into parting with considerable sums and is being tried or fraud.
There is no law against telling someone to are one thing, just to get date. I make my living pretending to be a man. But then, I produce what I'm paid for, so no fraud.
Eight years is a very long time to be an acknowledged transman without making any changes. He'd probably be eligable for a GRC if he was fulltime, and he could certainly legally change his name... suspect this is a lesbian with something like fraud thrown into the mix that we don't know about yet. I find it very difficult to believe that someone could pull that amount of wool for so long in a one to one relationship.
sounds like trans-panic defense ... in reverse.
There were similar panic stories in the C18th century
Quote from: Pica Pica on January 16, 2011, 05:51:26 AM
There were similar panic stories in the C18th century
And the nineteenth, and the twentieth...it's impossible to ferret out how many of those historical women knew but were okay with it.
The women I'm thinking of were not alright with it, though to be honest the one posing as the man did mainly do it for inheritances and money and then scarper.
Pica, they say they didn't know, but I think the chances are pretty high that some of them knew and were happy that way. Public opinion can be a powerful motivation for someone to lie after the fact.
News flash, it's illegal to misrepresent yourself to obtain sex. No difference in what happened here and me telling girls "I'm in show biz and can get you on stage." A verbal contract is still a contract.
Quote from: tekla on January 16, 2011, 04:08:48 PM
News flash, it's illegal to misrepresent yourself to obtain sex. No difference in what happened here and me telling girls "I'm in show biz and can get you on stage." A verbal contract is still a contract.
Tho much harder to enforce than a written one. It can be hard to say why someone does something. They may have wanted a friendship that went beyond for the first girl.
Quote from: tekla on January 16, 2011, 04:08:48 PM
News flash, it's illegal to misrepresent yourself to obtain sex. No difference in what happened here and me telling girls "I'm in show biz and can get you on stage." A verbal contract is still a contract.
Which sets a very dangerous precedent for all trans people.
But that's unlikely to affect you, is it?
Quote from: Vexing on January 16, 2011, 04:35:17 PM
Which sets a very dangerous precedent for all trans people.
But that's unlikely to affect you, is it?
It also means "Oh, yeah, I
looove hiking!" is now illegal to say to a prospective partner unless you actually love hiking.
Thing is, there is a difference between a big lie and a small lie. "I have a penis" is a comparatively small one, and I can easily see a cis guy who's lost his in an accident or something lying about it to a prospective partner. Or, y'know, just one who's suffering from some form of micropenis condition saying his is normal. I have a suspicion, though, that the "lying about having a penis" clause will never be applied to anyone else than trans folk.
I'm assuming that 1) "she" is a trans man, and 2) the charges are, in fact, obtaining sex by pretending to have a penis. In that case, the proper headline is "Man, 26, pretends to have penis for 9 years to trick two women into having sexual relations with him".
But that's unlikely to affect you, is it?
Hell no, I'm not near clever enough to lie.
And lying once you involve sex is a big deal. Lying about hiking, not so much.
Quote from: tekla on January 16, 2011, 04:58:22 PM
And lying once you involve sex is a big deal. Lying about hiking, not so much.
How about lying about hiking to get into someone's pants? Cause, y'know, there may be a difference in degree, but they're both the same thing. So long as neither girl noticed anything wrong about their partner, the lie was irrelevant. Nobody got hurt - at least, no more so than in the hiking example.
Quote from: E on January 16, 2011, 04:53:20 PM
It also means "Oh, yeah, I looove hiking!" is now illegal to say to a prospective partner unless you actually love hiking.
Thing is, there is a difference between a big lie and a small lie. "I have a penis" is a comparatively small one, and I can easily see a cis guy who's lost his in an accident or something lying about it to a prospective partner. Or, y'know, just one who's suffering from some form of micropenis condition saying his is normal. I have a suspicion, though, that the "lying about having a penis" clause will never be applied to anyone else than trans folk.
And suddenly push-up bras become illegal, as do cosmetics.
Quote from: Vexing on January 16, 2011, 05:12:36 PM
And suddenly push-up bras become illegal, as do cosmetics.
Indeed.
The problem with banning "lying in order to get sex" is that
everybody does it (well, almost). But when trans people do the exact same thing as everybody else, it becomes punishable. The difference between "I have a dick" and "if you have sex with me, I'll get you a backstage pass" is that one includes a business transaction, and by reneging on that contract one would leave the other part without a commodity they've already paid for, and therefore rightfully owned. The other is a victimless "crime" - at least, if someone can keep it up for years with the same partner, that partner clearly either doesn't realize, or she doesn't know, and in either case, that makes the lie irrelevant.
I do not believe that someone could have an intimate relationship for so long without knowing.
Something else is going on here.
Sex (sexual intimacy) and money change everything in legal terms. You know these laws were written to protect women from male sexual predators. Just because you are trans, does not mean you're not a predator. I'm amazed to see all of you siding with the predator. Is it not obvious that these women were not all that smart, or experienced? But that's OK, let's exploit the weakest among us. It's the tissue thin values society I guess. At least I can only hope you're consistent about the jail thing, since female-identified prisoners should be housed with women, then...
Quote from: tekla on January 16, 2011, 06:12:34 PMI'm amazed to see all of you siding with the predator.
Uh,
alleged predator. And I don't believe I took any side at all on this particular story. Nor did a bunch of other members.
Quote from: cynthialee on January 16, 2011, 05:48:16 PM
I do not believe that someone could have an intimate relationship for so long without knowing.
Something else is going on here.
Yep.
And that it has only appeared in two tabloids, both known for their, albeit slightly different, obscessions with transgender issues.
It hasn't appeared in the Daily Record, which is Scotland's biggest selling tabloid. It also hasn't appeared in either the Scotsman or the Glasgow Herald, which, though broadsheets, tend to report most of the major criminal trials in Scotland.
correction. It is in the Record. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/weird-news/2010/09/29/girl-conned-two-women-into-having-sex-by-pretending-to-be-a-man-court-hears-86908-22594891/ (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/weird-news/2010/09/29/girl-conned-two-women-into-having-sex-by-pretending-to-be-a-man-court-hears-86908-22594891/)
But strangely, she has been remanded to prison while awaiting trial. For such an apparently minor offense, that seems a little excessive.
Also, the Record report is from last September, while the others are from the last few days. Very strange.
Update:
"Obtaining sex by deception" news update
by Zoe O'Connell
http://www.complicity.co.uk/blog/2011/01/sex-by-deception/ (http://www.complicity.co.uk/blog/2011/01/sex-by-deception/)
Quote from: Vexing on January 16, 2011, 05:12:36 PM
And suddenly push-up bras become illegal, as do cosmetics.
I would think every internet dating site would also be illegal too... :)
Quote from: VanOcc on January 17, 2011, 10:09:45 AM
Update:
"Obtaining sex by deception" news update
by Zoe O'Connell
http://www.complicity.co.uk/blog/2011/01/sex-by-deception/ (http://www.complicity.co.uk/blog/2011/01/sex-by-deception/)
A further correction to my earlier post, the reports is in the Scotsman. http://news.scotsman.com/news/Woman-39masqueraded-as-man-to.6691405.jp (http://news.scotsman.com/news/Woman-39masqueraded-as-man-to.6691405.jp)
But it is still preliminary. If, as reported in the Record, last September, this person is being held on remand, then there would appear to be something considerably more serious than what we've been told.
Still, until it actually goes to trial, we shall have to wait and see.
Quote from: tekla on January 16, 2011, 04:08:48 PM
News flash, it's illegal to misrepresent yourself to obtain sex. No difference in what happened here and me telling girls "I'm in show biz and can get you on stage." A verbal contract is still a contract.
[Citation needed]You really need to qualify what is meant by "misrepresentation" in this context -- that is, what level or kind of misrepresentation would be illegal (stipulating that such laws exist). Furthermore, even if it's so, it doesn't mean it ought to be so. Not a simple question. Also, "no difference"?!! I'd say that there's a great deal of difference.
"Girl Beds Lass For Eight Years By Acting As A Bloke"
By RYAN SABEY
Published: 15 Jan 2011
A SCHEMING woman posed as a man to trick another woman into bed - and kept up the pretense for EIGHT YEARS, a court heard yesterday.
Samantha Brooks, 26, pretended to be Lee Brooks to con her victim before fooling another woman with the same story.
Brooks told the women they could not handle her "penis" because she had suffered testicular cancer, it was claimed.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3352960/Girl-beds-woman-for-8-years-by-acting-as-a-man.html (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3352960/Girl-beds-woman-for-8-years-by-acting-as-a-man.html)
_____________________________________________________________________
I'm a bit baffled by this. I'm not sure how what this individual did was illegal. If assault occurred I do understand, but the focus of this article is more situated on the assigned gender of Brooks. I'm most curious what resources and rights are available to transgendered people in Glasgow. I've asked friends in Scotland and nobody knew what legal recourse Brooks may be able to take. I'm going to refrain from making assumptions and leave this for comments. I do have to say though, this bothers me, and I feel sympathy for Brooks, whatever their situation may be.
viscera.
I know there area number of support services for transgender people in Glasgow, both official and voluntary.
While I'm not, by any means, a lawyer, I do understand the principal of Scottish law. Deception, generally, needs to involve some gain.
Example. I changed my name while I lived in Scotland, according to statutory procedure. All I needed to do was write to almost everyone who needed to know, asking them to use my new name. Apart from some family members, everyone did. My passport, driving licience, education and professional certificates, welfare and so on, all agreed to use my new name. Then I issues a statutory declaration with a Notary. I couldn't change my birth certificate because it is N American. But I wrote to them and recieved a letter back in my new name, acknowleging receipt. My name was then, legally changed and that is recognised throughout the world, just as with more complicated procedures.
My point is that, this is not the sort of legal system that would, potentially, prosecute some young guy because he woos a girl by telling her he's an astronaught!
There must have been some material gain from the deception. However, time will tell.