http://www.vice.com/read/should-tran...der-before-sex
Well?
Remarkable. The law pries into the bedroom again. Wholly wrong IMHO
i don't understand why someone wouldn't disclose what gender they were born as. there are people who are specifically looking to be with transgendered individuals (this forum is a testament to that)- and isn't it also just about being honest?
No. But you should disclose the name of every person you have previously had sex with--just to be sure.
I think it's generally good policy, but ultimately it's the individual's decision to make.
It's bull fucking shit. I'd leave whatever country charged me with that "crime." Like I've done it before. I'm a criminal I guess.
No, they shouldn't have to tell their birth gender before sex. It's kind of a dick move if they don't though. (pun intended)
A few facts in this case might change some people's perceptions of what they think happened, as it has not been made clear in the Paris Lees blog which Martin linked above; a blog which also does not tell the whole truth of the situation:
1) the appellant, Justine, was 13 years old when she made contact with M on the internet, M was a year younger.
2) They engaged in webchats etc for three years before agreeing to meet under the supervision of M's mother in the latter's home.
3) For three years Justine pretended to be 'Scott' and on the occasions when they met in M's house, when Justine was 17 and M 16 sexual activity consisting mostly of penetration of M took place; 'Scott' regularly wore a strap-on and may or may not have been, in fashion terms a 'goth' (this seems to be disputed).
4) There is some dispute as to whether or not Justine revealed to M that Scott was a girl before the Mother confronted Justine/Scott with the truth -the reaction of M was so severe it is believed she could not have known before the revelation that Scott was in fact female.
5) The legal issue is one of consent, which is why Justine/Scott was tried for sexual assault, and is complicated in this case because of the deception where in case law different modes of deception have led to successful prosecutions in some cases but not others -for example when someone, A deceives partner B as to their HIV status-another example in the appeal courts decisions related to the Julian Assange case where, it is alleged, sexual intercourse only took place on the understanding a condom would be used.
6) the key element of the judgement is M's right to consent to sexual intercourse with someone of her choosing:
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 male. Assuming the facts to be proved as alleged, M chose to have sexual encounters with a boy and her preference (her freedom to choose whether or not to have a sexual encounter with a girl) was removed by the appellant's deception. (My emphasis in bold).
To recap: the case involved a 17 year old and a 16 year old, one deceived the other over a period of three years and in physical encounters, we are not dealing with mature adults who met each other in a bar or online and agreed to have sex- there was a romantic element to the relationship between Justine/Scott and M where the element of deception, I suggest was qualitatively different from a hook-up.
The full judgement of the Court of Appeal is here:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2013/1051.html
Thanks Stavros
Thanks that clears a lot. I love how in the middle they randomly analyze her fashion style lol. She was probably emo. So they gonna call this rape and blame it on the music industry, video games or tele? That always seems to be the answer now days, it's never actually the person who did it. What she did was very deceptive and cruel. To actually lie to someone like that for 3 years is ridiculous. If I were her parents I would be worried because pathological lying is often a trait of murders who can't (or won't) perceive right from wrong.
Thanks, Stavros. I should follow up on stories
M
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I think the point is that a blog is someone's view of the world and its issues, without regard to truth or accuracy, and in that sense is not so different from what one often reads in newspapers. It is a pity Paris Lees did not do more research before sounding off.
No, that is stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
Wait and see how many more people knee-jerk respond to the original post with it's blog, without ever reading your informative post...:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
It's too much work to read other posts...lol
We all do it.
I wonder how many people answered the Op without even reading the attached Blog.
All they have to do is google the name Justine McNally. This was a complicated mess.
Folks...myself included, have to learn to slow down a bit and stop getting their news in quick bites. Even on the slowly dying Facebook...people are constantly sending news bites, that other people respond to , that are often dead wrong.
No. I like to be tricked. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by martin48
This is after SRS, right? When she gets naked he'll know something is up.
If he tries to eat her out. . .
I can't finish that.
What's wrong with emo?Quote:
Originally Posted by LilyRox
All too true. The instant need for 'news' is indeed a risk that too many are willing to take, and not just professionals. And it seems some posters still haven't twigged what this story is really about.Quote:
Originally Posted by fred41
The person who wrote this article is ignorant on some issues. She said it is not illegal to keep a secret about having HIV from a partner. That's incorrect. An HIV carrier MUST disclose his or her status as a carrier.
Secondly, I agree with the law's idea or intent. I strongly disagree about its punishment. Being sent to prison for not disclosing his or her status as transgender is excessive. A small $10 fine is more realistic.
A partner hasn't actually consented if they're ignorant about someone being transgender. Some people are not into transsexuals. They have the right to know who they are sleeping with.
A transsexual should always disclose his or her status before having sex. It's much safer. It can avoid major problems in the future. The person may reject you afterwards. It's better to be rejected then to piss off someone and get killed.
........
Done a bit of research into this, and the original case was tried under Scots law, which applies to Scotland only and not the whole United Kingdom.
Secondly, McNally was released on appeal after 82 days on the basis that the original sentence had been too harsh; this didn't of course affect the finding in law that she was guilty.
Thirdly, I'm a fan of the journalist involved, Paris Lees, who is one of the sparkiest and most articulate campaigners for trans rights in the UK - she was recently named the most influential person in The Independent newspaper's annual pink list of LGBT people and also appeared as the first trans person on the BBC's weekly public debate programme Question Time. It's very unusual for her to be so careless.
Are you sure Robert and could you prove a link? The physical offence was committed in England and the original trial was in the Crown Court in Wood Green, north London. I am not aware of cases of criminal law in Scotland being referred to appeal in an English court, although the Supreme Court does have jurisdiction over the whole of the UK in civil law matters. I do think that the original sentence was harsh, as other posters have also noted.
Lies of omission are still lies.