Sex by deception: 2

This is part two looking at the issue of sex by deception. Part 1 looked at a court case involving a female who was prosecuted for engaging in sexual activity with another female who believed she was male. The post includes the judicial transcript for her appeal and some links to legal commentary. You may be surprised to find there are legal opinions that seek to abolish the offence, of obtaining sex by ”Gender Identity Fraud”. You can read that post here: 👇

Sex by deception: 1

This post looks at a short BBC documentary asking the question:

The interviews are mainly conducted with people who identify as ”transgender” although one female was interviewed who did not claim a transgender identity. The documentary also included a survey asking the same question to a wider population. They then presenting the findings to show responses split for age demographics.

You can watch the documentary, available for a further 11 months, here: 👇

Should I disclose?

The presenter introduces his trans-identified friends to canvas opinion. The question hinges on the idea of whether it is the business of a sexual partner, potential or actual, to know your biological sex. The Gender Recognition Act builds in certain privacy protections for those who hold a Gender Recognition Certificate and, it is argued by some, these, potentially extend, to anyone with a ”transgender” identity. However, as shown in the previous post, this does not extend to lying to intimate partners and doing so has resulted in successful prosecutions.

We first meet Maya who talks about hiding their identity from parents; leaving the house as a boy and, with the help of clothes and a wig, going to work as a ”girl”. They then talk about their fears about “transition”. The idea this is a life and death decision is often deployed on this topic.

Next up we hear from Noah who is in a same sex relationship with another female. Noah was the only girl in five siblings. Disclosure is theoretical for Noah as she was with her girlfriend before coming out. It’s still a worry about whether her girlfriend still thinks she is kissing “Nicola” not ”Noah”. Same sex attracted girls are, as already covered, over-represented in those identifying as ”male”.

Zac appears to be another same sex attracted female with a tell tale testosterone voice. Zac has had people leave ”him” because they wanted to be a Lesbian and who now is identifying as a heterosexual female. Like many of those interviewed Zac cannot predict the reactions of those he is ”getting” with, it could be a slap or a hug.

Harry is another same sex attracted female. Harry thinks you should disclose but the prospect is daunting. Even casual flings mean the person will have intimate information (I assume about your sex) about you.

Next Jax interviews Tyra who went viral, on TikTok for a post about not disclosing they were male on nights out. Tyra thinks it is nobody else’s business.

Tyra’s argument begins with the notion that they have had all the hormones and surgeries so, in their eyes, they have met the standard to regard themselves as a ”woman”.

Tyra says she is honest in their Tinder bio and when sexual intimacy is on the table but does not feel disclosure is required when kissing men on a night out. Tyra advances the safety argument for concealing this information. However, it is notable that trans-activists, also oppose any defence deployed when violence follows the discovery of deception about sex. This is known as a gay/trans panic defence and this is now outlawed in many states.

This is where the forced-teaming of gay with the T becomes problematic. In one of these there is no deceit and a man is using the ”gay panic” defence to legitimise homophobic violence. This may also be internalised homophobia if sexual activity has taken place, knowing this was a male. In neither case should violence be legitimised but only one of these involves deceit. The gay/trans panic defence is now outlawed in a number of U.S states.

I am not aware if these states, therefore, deny any redress for those who have been victims of sex by deception. It seems likely that sexual orientation and a free, and informed, choice about your sexual partner has been downgraded in favour of validation of a ”gender identity”.

Tyra is audibly frustrated by the notion that lying about your sex could be considered ”sexual assault” on being asked the question this is the response. 👇 Tyra puts this reaction to people being uneducated about ”trans” people and the problem is their expectations.

Jax then turns to a trans-identified male based in New York. They share a similar perspective to Tyra. They too have had ”all the surgeries” and feel they have left their ”trans” status behind. The arguments here are similar to those deployed by Alex Sharpe and other legal commentators in my previous blog. The argument goes, we all lie, about many things to get laid. Why single out biological sex when talking about having sex?

The documentary then reveals the result of a survey which reveals nearly 60% think you should disclose your ”trans” status/ your biological sex.

Split by age the figure was 61% thought you should disclose in the over 55’s but even in the younger demographic 41% said you should disclose. Only 18% were prepared to say you should hide the truth about your biological sex.

Jax then interviews Amy. Amy says she is open to dating anyone whether male, female, trans-identified etc. However she feels embarking on intimacy requires honesty. She also brings up the comfort of the sexual partner who needs to know what to expect. Nobody wants a six inch surprise when they are expecting Lesbian sex! Or to be told the vaginal sex which turns out to be with a “man”.

Kade takes a man home for sex and ”forgets” to tell him shes really a man. Realising she failed to be “honest” she reveals that he has actually just had sex with a man, irrespective of the vagina part.

Kade is dismissal of the response which is all about biology and puts it down to the man feeling discomfort about having a gay experience, with a woman!

Jay asks Kade the burning question.

Kade says the question is complicated. She then sighs and says she should not have to have a briefing every time she contemplates casual sex. If she had to give a yes or no answer it would be NO! Trans people should not feel obliges to tell the truth about their sex.

Gay men! Listen-up 😳🤔

Despite demanding we accept her self-redefinition of her own sex /sexuality she thinks it is perfectly acceptable to redefine someone else’s, and an entire demographic. Jax asks what Kade would say to her erstwhile sexual partner if she saw him again. Here was the reply. He is now GAY!

I honestly thought when females started identifying as gay men we would call a halt to the madness. I was wrong.

The BBC are grossly irresponsibly for not pointing out the illegality of some of the responses by the interviewees and I will be sending yet another complaint about their content. It is worth also pointing out that Stonewall want to ”reform” criminal justice in this area.

If you are sick of this, can’t say what you think, to keep your job, feel free to bung some support my way. I do this full-time and am unsalaried. By April 15th I should have a tiny, subsistence income but at the moment I rely on donations. The right wing, christian evangelicals seem to baulk at funding an atheist, feminist, leftie!

Researching /Exposing the pernicious effects of Gender Identity Ideology on women’s rights, gay youth and who is pushing the social engineering that is rooted in sex denialism.


Sex by deception: 1


R v McNally

A recent BBC short documentary discussed the ethics around disclosure of biological sex to persons with whom you are engaged in sexual activity. Nowhere in that documentary was any reference made to laws around sex by deception. Before I cover that documentary let us look at the conviction of a female who posed as a male and engaged in sexual activity with a female.

Here is the transcript of an appeal against sentence which outlines details of the offence and the legal judgement.

McNally v R. [2013] EWCA Crim 1051 (27 June 2013)

The judgement sets out the details as follows: The appellant was a 13 year old female and posed as a boy on the internet. ’M’ was also female. They communicated by messenger and over the following three years discussed getting married and starting a family and engaged in phone sex. They agreed to be in an exclusive relationship which culminated in ”Scott” visiting ’M’ just after her 16th birthday.

‘Scott’ arrived in London, presenting as a male with a dildo in her trousers to give the appearance of having a penis. There were four more visits and sexual activity took place.

Finally ‘M’s mother confronted Scott about his biological sex:

“Scott” had pleaded guilty to the offences so the appeal claims she was badly advised and did not realise it was incumbent on the Crown to prove that ’M’ did not know she was female. The legal advisors, from the first court case denied this and stated that ’Scott’ was told he could offer this as a defence but the fact that ’M’ had purchased condoms would be revealed to the jury who would have to judge who was telling the truth:

Following this advice “Scott” added the following to her statement and pleaded guilty.

The judge details the legal definition of sexual offences as set out in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

The relevant excerpt is section 74.

The judgement considers other cases where arguments were made which vitiated the issue of consent. These include a sexual partner that did not reveal HIV status, lying about being post vasectomy so a condom was not deemed necessary, removing a condom without the partner’s knowledge, ejaculating inside a partner after being asked not to do so. The judgements on these issues were mixed.

The Judge, in this case, dismissed arguments, which are still used today, to justify lying about your sex vitiates. One of the is indeed to imply that convicting people for lying about something as fundamental as your sex, is equivalent to ”curating” your dating profile by exaggerating, for example, your wealth.

Therefore deception as to ”gender” can vitiate consent. ‘M’ was deliberately deceived into thinking she was having sexual activity with a male. Therefore she did not ”freely consent” to sex.

There are a few other cases of prosecutions for similar offences and, where deception about your biological sex is concerned, those who have been prosecuted in the U.K seem to be all female.

There is the case of Gayle Newland covered, along with this case and others, by The Secret Barrister here: 👇

Gayle Newland

This paragraph jumped out at me:

You can also read of earlier cases on Stephen Whittle’s blog. Whittle is a trans-identified female and a proponent of Gender Identity Ideology.

Sex by deception

Alex Sharpe, another trans-identified legal bod, this time male, has written an entire book on this topic. You can read an article, written by Sharpe, here:

Gender Identity Fraud

Sharpe argues that by singling out action based on “Gender Identity” we are fuelling ”transphobia. What Sharpe doesn’t use is the phrase “biological sex“ . SEXual orientation is a legally protected characteristic in law and it is based on SEX! You may be open to sexual encounters with either sex but if you are exclusively attracted to one sex, only, you have the legal right for your boundaries /consent to be legally protected.

Trans ally in the tweets. Terf between the sheets.

What Alex is demanding is that we accept a belief that people can literally change sex. The proposition here is that we should not allow these prosecutions ifwe accept a trans man is a man” . However that essentially demands societal acceptance that a personally held ”Gender Identity” is privileged above the material reality of biological sex. I don’t accept that a ”transman’ is literally a man and a gay man is highly unlikely to do so! Trans-allies in the tweets are often “Terfs” between the sheets.

Dare I say, this is incel logic. Nobody has a right to sex. We could certainly examine why the prosecutions are all female. We could raise questions about internalised homophobia or why it is so hard for these women to be openly ”Lesbian”. We could discuss whether the length of the prison sentences are excessive, in some cases. What we cannot do is privilege a, subjective, sense of self over reality. Lying about something so fundamental, to most people, if they are honest, is not merely unethical. It is a criminal offence.

Which brings me to part two of this series. Why did the BBC not point out the law in a recent documentary short which allowed a discussion about non-disclosure of your sex, to partners?

There are huge foundations funnelling billions into the spread of Gender Identity Ideology. If you can help offset the disparity by donating for my content. Friends of my work can do so here:

Researching Gender Identity Ideology and the impact on women’s , sex based, rights as well as the medical transitioning of vulnerable, often gay, youth.