Rape via deception
Oh gawd. A new pit of hell opens.
They WHAT?????????
Don’t tell me, let me point out how obvious it is – they changed the rules to benefit men who call themselves women, at the expense of women, and they did their best to conceal the fact that they did so.
Useful background:
And finally the CPS itself September 2022:
The CPS is conducting a public consultation on a proposed revision to its legal guidance on Rape and Serious Sexual Offences (RASSO), specifically Chapter 6: Consent, the section on Deception as to Gender. The purpose of the consultation is to provide interested persons with an opportunity to provide comments and to ensure the final version of the guidance is informed by as wide a range of views as possible. The proposed revision may be accessed via the link above or in the sidebar/below, depending on your device.
The proposed revision is intended to provide guidance to prosecutors when dealing with cases in which deception as to gender is a live issue. In October 2020 the CPS published interim updated RASSO guidance which included a section on deception as to gender. This guidance was subject to public consultation and in May 2021 the final guidance was published.Ā
…
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the Act) came into force on 1 May 2004. Section 74 of the Act defines consent as follows: āfor the purposes of this Part, a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choiceā.
Since the Act came in to force the Court of Appeal has considered the interpretation of section 74 in a number of cases. In the case of R v Justine McNally [2013] EWCA Crim 1051 the Court determined that ādepending on the circumstances, deception as to gender can vitiate consentā.
We know where this is going. Of course we do.
These cases involve complex and sensitive decision making. The main changes relate to the section on evidential considerations. This section now contains much more detailed guidance on how prosecutors should assess the evidence in these cases. The aim is to alert prosecutors to the various complexities of gender identity, so that they are properly considered, where relevant, to the issues in any case being reviewed. The guidance also sets out a three-staged approach that prosecutors should adopt when considering the question of deception as to gender. The guidance outlines questions that should be asked at each stage and relevant factors that should be considered.
Ah yes the various complexities of gender idenniny, like what to do when men use those “complexities” to trick women into consenting to sex.
The consultation seeks your views on the following questions:
- Question 1: Do you think that the language used is appropriate and sensitive to the issues addressed? If not, please identify concerns and share how it can be improved.
- Question 2: When considering the factors that are relevant to prove deception and lack of consent, does the guidance strike the right balance between recognising the rights of trans persons to live fully in their new gender identity and the need not to put an undue onus on complainants to discover or confirm the gender status of the suspect?
Is there in fact a “right” to live fully in a “gender identity” that is the opposite of one’s sex? So fully that it includes tricking people into having sex?
Absolutely shocking, as Dennis says.
So tricky, that balance between genuine informed consent and ‘the rights of trans persons to live fully in their new gender identity.’ So tricky, fine lines and all that.
Almost as tricky a answering truthfully whether or not the director of the rape crisis centre for which you work is really a man or a woman, and whether your fellow staff members who identify as “nonbinary” have an actual sex. The world is full of mysteries that require specialist knowledge to unravel. Who are we to pretend to know better, right?
To be fair, the police themselves are confused, so it’s understandable that the Crown Prosecution Service would have some issue with “complexities” involed. The police are going in two directions at once. On one hand TiMs get to do strip searches of female suspects; on the other female officers are required to perform strip searches on suspects who are TiMs. In the former instance, it’s the searching officer who is in charge (because TiM); in the latter it’s the suspect calling the shots (because TiM). It’s good to have some firm, consitent standards to turn to in these uncertain times, so we should all thank God that everyone can at least agree to screw over women.