Transgender Deception

Utter bollocks absolute nonsense judge should be flogged

>>5223042

Out of curiosity, why do you disagree with the ruling?

>>5223047
I don't believe the "victim" actually feel for the deception. Something else between them transpired, and she the victim used this to punish the "rapist"

>>5223047
it's not rape if there's literal consent

Rape by deception is easily-abused nonsense, and an 8 year sentence for consensual sex is ridiculous.

>>5223058

That was the keystone in the entire proceeding. The defense claimed the victim "knew", whereas the victim denied such. In the end, the defense made a much less convincing case.

It's not unheard of to resort to similar defenses in fraud cases, where the defendant states that the victim "knew" or "had to know" certain aspects that were kept from him/her.

As "in dubio pro reo" applies, I'm certain the defense had much weaker arguments, which resulted in a conviction.

Of course, it's easy to accuse the victim of ulterior motives. "Victim shaming" is nothing new, and I am pondering if that time could be applied here or not.


>>5223061

Literal consent given under deceptions and intentionally produced misinformation is null and void. It's what fraud is all about.

>>5223084
but it's not fraud if it comes to sex, dating and relationships

we never know more about our partners then they give us, and it's crazy to require people to be 100% honest with each other under the threat of prison

>>5223027
you already posted this here ballbag

>>5223070

I actually agree with both of your points in general.

Rape claims have been very gruesomely abused in the past, in turn damaging not only the defenders from such accusations but also other actual rape-victims, as they produce a credebility issue with their claims. In turn, the sentences for proven false accusations have been harmless in comparisant. "Rape by deception" opened the door for even more borderline-cases where other people could reasonably argue they were "raped by deception" based soley on the motive that they want to harm or destroy another person.

However, in this case, I actually agree with the law. Your sexual orientation is not to be circumvented by clever deception, and who knows what psychological issues might sprout from realizing the violation.

As for the sentence, I am not quite sure why it is as lengthy, but I do agree it is somewhat excessive. It stands to reason that it's a combination of the sheer effort of the deception, plus the timeframe of the deception (2 years), plus the fact that she tried to defend herself by accusing the victim ("she knew, she's only doing this to[...]").

It however still feels excessive.

This girl wasn't even transgender, she was a lesbian who thought girls wouldn't want to have sex with her

>>5223027
when a tranny doesn't disclose with me, I'm gonna pull the rape over deception lawsuit on them.

>>5223089

What it comes down to is a very basic information - the information about your sex. It's by no means a highly guarded personal information (as it's required on most forms of identification), and it isn't by any means excessive to expect a sexual partner to be truthful about it, even if it is a touchy issue in transgender-situations for some.

Keeping your partner in the dark about it can cause him psychological discomfort akin to rape, which is exactly what this sentence was about. The psychological issues are the most important part of rape-cases and laws, and I personally don't see the distinction between the issues applying immediatly after a forceful rape, or slightly retarded due to deception, forcing a consent under false information or intentionally withheld information in order to get another person to engage in intercourse or sexual activity of any kind.

>>5223126
blah blah blah

cis tears

>>5223096

I am positive I did not. I actually posted it on /adv/ 15 minutes ago or so, because I was not aware of this boards existance, and back in the day transgender people frequented that board quite often.

I took it here as the board was pointed out to me.

So dear newfags of 4chan,

A lot of you are too new and too stupid to know how to check the catalog before making duplicate threads.

Now that you have been informed that your daily "checkmate trannies" thread is redundant and even less informative that the thread already existing on this board, allow me to inform you that you can delete your stupid little thread and go post in the existing one.

TL;DR OP is a stupid newfag and doesn't deserve any more responses.

>>5223128

I am not even sure what the term "cis tears" imply, but it is clear you are not remotely interested in an actual discussion of the issue, rather attempting a strawman I presume.

As such, why did you post here?

>>5223101
I could understand a probation or something -- a slap on the wrist saying, 'don't do that!', but an 8 year prison sentence is ridiculous, and criminalising it to this degree and setting this sort of precedent (I'm not sure how the courts there work) is opening pandora's box.

If you want to criminalise it, make it something like a misdemeanour. They're ruining that girl's life simply because the 'victim' wants to get back at them -- they're not actually hurt by this.

>>5223133

Classy.

>>5223126
>Keeping your partner in the dark about it can cause him psychological discomfort akin to rape, which is exactly what this sentence was about.
It would be necessary to demonstrate that this psychological discomfort REALLY is similar to rape for it to be classified as such. There are many things that can cause psychological discomfort, but not all of them are classified as rape because of it.

>>5223138
just to spite you you disgusting piece of shit

hopefully there will come time when heterosexuals won't be able to do as they please and jail people for hurting their feelings

for now, all I can do is laughing online at you rationalizing your butthurt with pointless legal language and misleading analogies

>>5223141
And if we're going to criminalize it, we should also criminalize having unprotected sex with someone when you have a STD and don't disclose it. That's definitely more harmful than having sex with someone who isn't a "real" man/woman.

>>5223141

I disagree, due to me considering this case actual rape. To me, rape is mostly about the psychological damage done to a person (which is often the most serious damage inflicted). Forcing consent through deception simply delays the psychological ramifications until the deception is discovered. In that sense, they are very much hurt by it, and have every right to pursue the offender through legal means.

I will state once again, though, that 8 years is very much excessive, and I cannot fathom how they came up with a sentence of that magnitude. Though in the end, I cannot say I disagree with prison time in general - wether it's on probation due to it being a first time offence or not should be up for the judges to decide, depending on severity of case.

>>5223149
That actually is a crime in many places, and should probably be punished based on the difficulty of treatment of the disease in question.

>deceiver was literally cis lesbian, no sign of being ftm
>blame trans people
maybe lesbians should get their house in order before you blame ftms for their bullshit
the sentencing also seems excessive. like accessory to murder excessive.

>>5223162
Where do you draw the line? At what point is the 'victim' screaming 'I'm psychologically damaged!' ignored because it's obviously ridiculous?

This conversation, for example, is triggering me. You're psychologically damaging me, therefore raping me. Brb filing a complaint

>>5223149

I can agree to this 100%. In my country, that already is the case, and I am glad that it is.

>>5223148

I'm sorry if I made you go all defensive. You clearly have issues with the topic that prevent your from discussing it properly, which is what I'm trying to do. If you wish to spite me, I can provide you with a dummy email adress to which you can direct your emotional responses, and rest assured, I will read them and if possible reply to them.

>>5223144

That is a *very* fair point, and something I did not spend much thought on due to me feeling it similar. However, you are very much correct in that it should by all means be researched and put into perspective. Perhaps this is the most important point in this issue, and I sincerely thank you for pointing it out!

>>5223162
What exactly is the level of deception required for it to count as rape? Like if someone claims to a billionaire when they really don't even have $500 to their name, would that count as rape? Or does only deception regarding biological sex count?

>>5223188
He didn't tell me he had a mole on his left buttcheek!

He raped me by deception. Pls put him in jail for the rest of his life.

>>5223188
of course only "deception" regarding biological sex counts cuz cis tears

>>5223186
>I'm only discussion it properly

sure you are hon
you didnt do nuffin

>>5223177

I draw the line where you inflict harm by intentionally disregarding your partners sexual wishes and right to sexual self-management by using deception in order to manipulate them and their level of information.

That is, personally, where I draw the line. Our conversation might be unpleasant to you (and I did not intend for it to be, so sorry for that), but I am not trying to manipulate you into making decisions based on faulty conceptions I established that in the end will result in your rights being circumvented. Especially not your rights to your own body.

File: 1361679860878.jpg (293KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1280x720px

>>5223200
>harm by intentionally disregarding your partners sexual wishes

someone pls deliver me from this bullshit

>>5223165
This has been an issue in Canada. There's a big push by gay activists groups to re-think how we criminalize STD transmission because there have been multiple cases of people retro-actively denying knowledge to spite a partner who they're upset with. There's very little evidence to suggest that criminalizing it prevents future cases or sufficiently protects at risk populations. Yeah there are instances of it being used correctly, but there's a huge potential for abuse.

And who decides which disease is 'difficult' to treat? Most common STDs can be cured with antiviral or antiobotic medication. The ones that really stick out are the for-life diseases. HIV has the potential to be very serious, but HSV isn't deadly and is rarely severe enough to even warrant medication. On top of that, 1/3 to 1/2 of the population has HSV-1. This isn't something that can be easily implemented when you consider the real life cases where this has seriously fucked up peoples lives.

>>5223199

Would you like that email adress now?

>>5223197

A hyperbole. But an entertaining one.

>>5223188

That is a good question. In essence, this comes down to a case-by-case seperation, which in practice might be very hard to rule justly. I'll think about this for a bit, I'll let you know as soon as I come up with a satisfying answer.

>>5223200
If a man lost his penis in a circumcision accident as a baby (or whatever) and pulled a similar stunt (blindfold, dildo, and all), would this have been an 8 year prison sentence? Would it still have been rape?

Although I'm sure a man in this scenario, if he pissed off the woman, would be put away for life, not 8 years.

>>5223200
>harm by intentionally disregarding your partners sexual wishes

so for example

if I want to fuck you and you say no, being my partner, I'm causing you harm by disregarding your sexual wishes, right?

cool story Abdul

>>5223200
You need to specify the exact level of "harm" that's needed for it to count as rape. There's plenty of normal behaviors in relationships that could arguably be considered "harm".

>>5223223
>I'm causing you harm

I mean, you're causing me harm. A mistake due to the fact I couldn't see my keyboard laughing. Surely you can understand that, Ibrahim.

>>5223200
The intent is important,
was there any evidence she intended to harm this girl? If i remember from the thread posted yesterday she was 13-16 years old, and had met the other girl in person multiple times? if i stole a nice car and fucked a girl on a pile of fake cash pretending to be rich, did i rape her if she only had sex with me because she thought i was rich?

i don't think that's similar to a 25 year old man knowingly infecting someone else with a life long disease, or something else malicious

>>5223212
Difficulty to treat as in level of treatment required. HSV1 is difficult to treat, but the actual treatment -required- is none.

But yes, lies resulting in jail time is all too frequent, and more laws certainly does not help.

>>5223241
it's harm because you're disregarding her sexual wishes

that means a wife can't refuse her husband and if she did it caused him psychological harm and it's worse then rape

>>5223223

You are misinterpriting my words, for I have chosen them poorly, and I apologize as english is not my first language, so inaccuracies are bound to happen.

What I meant to emphasise, as can be read in the later part of that sentence you cut out, are the rights for you to make your own decisions about your sexuality and body. If those rights are violated by deception (you were led on to make a decision based on faulty information intentionally provided to you for this to happen), then it should be against the law. If you can show beyond a reasonable doubt that you would not have had sex with a person under truthful circumstances, then yes, I believe that should not just be glossed over.

To put it short, if you consent to have sex with a person, but you were misled about who that person actually is, then yes, it is rape. A good example are cases where a twin posed as their brother/sister in order to engage in intercourse with a SO. The SO gave consent to sexual intercourse under false premises intentionally manufactured and upheld by the offending parties. In those cases, the consent was forced and cannot be taken as "oh, you consented to it/enjoyed it, hun".

Does that make more sense?

>>5223027
Yeah, I still don't buy it. At all. This story is too absurd to be true, but just enough for a jury to eat it up.

>>5223084
>>5223126
>>5223138
>>5223186
>>5223200
>>5223219
>>5223219

>I am 12 and I try typing like an intellectual to make my point more convincing

>>5223254
What if a person said their name was John but was actually named Arnold? What if they lied about their occupation or where they grew up? Would that make it a rape?

>>5223264
no because it doesn't cause cis tears

>>5223254
>truthful circumstances
>forced consent
>reasonable doubt

keep babbling

>>5223264

I'll point you to this part I wrote:

> If you can show beyond a reasonable doubt that you would not have had sex with a person under truthful circumstances

It is highly questionable if those facts would fall under that criteria, at least from where I see it.

>>5223275

You actually made me google that term out of curiosity.

"Short for cis-gendered, meaning someone who identifies with the sex they were born as. Typically used by whiny tumblr users who complain about not being accepted for who they are and yet bash these "cis" people for being born and being okay with the sex they were born with."

Not sure why I should feel offended. Perhaps try something different.

>>5223285
you're obviously not from here
why did you come here? were are you from? what did you come here for?

you're not convincing anyone with this thread nor your bullshit legal language, and we already discussed this shit recently anyway

out

>>5223279
Well I for one would never have sex with someone called Arnold, reminds me of that terrible western anime too much.

>>5223188
Yes actually, there was a case like this in Uk law already that got a conviction

>>5223296

Yes, I am not from here. I found an article in the news, and it reminded me of a number of transgender people back in the day on /adv/ who went on to say they'd deceive their partner about their original sex without a second thought. Which was something I couldn't quite understand, for if such deception is nessessary in order to have a sexual relationship with someone, then that entire relationship (and by extension the consent to such) is built on false information/circumstances.

I came here to discuss the issue and see how people of this community think about the issue nowadays. I came here to try to first establish the issue by something related, then attempt to respectfully point out my own position, and engage in the discussion to find out how sound it is and what parts of it I have neglected to consider. Of course, this discussion is not specific to trans-gender deception, but has evolved to talk about rape by deception in general, which is fine by me.

Does that answer all your questions?

>>5223234
Well it would be grounds for divorce but not expressly harm

>>5223322

The one with the football-head?

>>5223333
>grounds for divorce

which mudslime background country are you from, Suleiman?
cuz in western world there is no such thing as "grounds for divorce" everyone can divorce if they want to

^_^ ;3 ;w;

keep trying Ishmael

>>5223333

I agree, again that position was born out of a hyperbole of a poorly chosen wording in a partial statement of mine. Going against your partners sexual wishes on purpose might just be unhealthy, but the line should be drawn on when you actively circumvent her right to sexual self-regulation and -control. Wether it is done through force or deception.

Of course, there is a difference between the two cases, just as there is a difference between armed robbery and fraud. In one, you use (the threat of) physical force in order to get what you want, in the other you use deception to circumvent the others independant decision-making progress in a more subtle way. But both should be by all means against the law.

>>5223343

You're forcing it at this point. Please reconsider your presence in this discussion.

Especially the religion/culture-centered comments have absolutely nothing to do with this issue, and might portrait you in a somewhat xenophobic light.

>>5223353
>Going against your partners sexual wishes on purpose might just be unhealthy

abdul pls

>>5223343
UK.
Yes you can divorce for no reason but a "no faults" divorce has a different separation procedure, if you have a "proper" reason you can get a better proceeding

>>5223338
Yeah, that one. Always hated it, even as a kid. But it was always on.

>>5223366
haha you really are slime, aren't you?
let me guess? Palestine?

>>5223367

I would appreciate it if you took more time reading my comments than you do in writing yours. Or at least finish the sentences you are quoting.

One can dream.

File: 1348370435496.jpg (215KB, 1108x886px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1108x886px

>>5223385
fuck you

>>5223380

If I said yes, would that make you throw your hands up, applaud yourself and leave this threat yelling "CALLED IT, CIS SLIME TEARS"?

Because at this point I'm willing to do that, so long as you take your attitude elsewhere.


>>5223375

God, was there anyone that *liked* that goddamn show? I've never met a person who did. Yet it was all that was on TV the whole afternoon!

>>5223397
>pretending to know western shows to prove he's not from 3rd world shithole

>>5223404

The black guy was called skeeter and had a vertical 'fro, wasn't/hadn't he?

Also, I fail to see how my geographical location/upbringing would tie into the topic at hand. What you are attempting is called an "ad hominem", or "to the man". You are trying to portrait me as a person in a negative light in order to not having to debate my actual opinion.

It's a common falacy on the internet. Try educating yourself about conversational falacies at some point. That is, under the assumption you did not commit this on purpose.

File: 1414031109759.png (29KB, 302x227px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 302x227px

>>5223443
>'fro

>>5223369

I don't think he/she is actually interested in discussion, but rather trying to troll each and everyone in here in order to shut down a debate that offends him/her personally.

Somewhat successful, I admit.

This was, one guy/gal aside, a very productive discussion and provided me with a lot to think about.

In particular, there is a need for research in cases of "rape by deception" concerning psychological damage, in order to properly judge how such cases compare to physical rape.

Most people agree the sentence is excessive, while opinions are split about if this is worthy of jailtime at all, or even if it should be punishable at all.

I still believe that once you violate someones right to sexual autonomy by deception, you cannot claim they consented. But I've also been shown there is much need to discuss a proper definition of just when that line is crossed, due to 100% honesty and information being impossible in practice. My attempts at formulating such a definition were hasty at best, and need further refinement, thank you all for pointing that out.

Another issue is if this should be mixed with withholding information about STDs, which is another can'o'worms alltogether, because (sometimes major) bodily harm is inflicted in the process, which is usually governed by different laws. I will have to aquire more data on how different regions treated those cases in recent years.

Thank you all for participating! I'll be arround for a while longer in case you want to give me anything else to think about or point out issues I overlooked! Thanks again!

>>5223105
This

Also, I don't mind that he's doing jail time for it, but the judge is very clearly biased. Straight rapists and pedophiles don't get 8 years.

>>5223279
So then trannies can't "deception rape" bisexuals?

>>5223814

Case-by-case decision I reckon, as it often is in such situations. Noone's helped with a generalisation in these cases.

So yeah, there might be cases where it mattered, and cases where it didn't matter. But in general, actively deceiving your sexual partner in order to obtain consent should carry with it legal ramifications. If it turns out that the deception itself however was insignificant in obtain said consent, then it should not be punished.

I'm basically saying that we should treat this akin to fraud - if someone lies to you in order to get you to invest a few hundret dollars, that's fraud. If however you would've still done it even if presented with a truthful representation, it should likely not be punishable. Of course, rulings on that differ from region to region. And one might argue that even the attempt should be punished in both cases. I could see that as well.

>>5223539
>"rape by deception"
Is the means in which someone got to the position where they raped you really relevant, unless it's something that in itself is also a crime like violence, roofies etc? Telling lies is not a crime as far as I know so I don't see why it should be punished for specifically.

>I still believe that once you violate someones right to sexual autonomy by deception, you cannot claim they consented.
Isn't it obvious that the person doesn't consent during the act if they realize they've been deceived? Proving/disproving lies/claims afterwards is basically impossible to quantify and rape is already a relatively difficult crime to prosecute, I see absolutely no reason why things should be muddied even further.

In the case of (pre-op) trans folk it'll be clear by the time you undress won't it? At that point the other party can still call it off and no crime has happened. If they're post-op tranny and the other person only finds out afterwards I don't see how they have a right to complain.

>man: "yeah I'm a millionaire"
>woman: "omg let me suck your penis teehee :3"
>woman: "Mmh *spit* so where's that money?"
>man: "jk"
>woman: "RAPIST!! HELP RAPE!!"
vs
>man: "you're cute, wanna go on a date?"
>woman: "ok"
>8 expensive dates later
>man: "hey maybe after this we could go back to my place and get a little more intimate*wink*"
>woman: "HOW DARE YOU THINK I OWE YOU ANYTHING JUST BECAUSE I SENT YOU MISLEADING SIGNALS AND STRUNG YOU ALONG FOR FREE SHIT!! RAPIST!!! HELP I'M BEING RAPED!!"

>>5224964
What makes this even muddier is what would happen when a post op transwoman that's legally female in every respect is accused of rape because she failed to disclose her transgender status.

It might be difficult to argue that she was pretending to be a female when she is legally equivalent to one.

>>5223027
You realize this isn't a case of a trans person not disclosing, it's someone who identified as a woman catfishing her friend. The issue here is she was a fraud. If she had been a transman, on hormones and living as a man every day and legally recognized as a man then there would have been no fraud and that woman would not have a legal leg to stand on.

>>5224978
There's a pretty big difference between those two scenarios in that one involves an outright lie while the other involves an incorrect assumption.

>>5224993
I don't think it even requires paperwork to be done. Being remorseful about some arbitrary quality about someone that didn't bother you during the act isn't a valid reason in my book. With an extension of the post-sex remorse logic you can claim rape if someone had dyed their hair.
>i would never fuck a ginger oh no i was raped
Yeah no. Rape is a serious enough crime that it should be clearly defined when people are figuratively or literally butthurt over the act.

>>5225024
Ok, simple. Change it so the first woman assumed he was rich or that the second woman promised sex.

Either way it makes no difference. The grounds for arguing on the basis of implicitness(sending false body language) or explicitness(sending false verbal language) takes nothing away from the point of female sense of entitlement because both forms of communication are equally valid.

Your tumblr is showing.

>>5225051
>Either way it makes no difference
It makes a COLOSSAL difference. You can't be found in violation of a contract that you never agreed to. You can't blame someone else for an incorrect assumption that you make, that's just childish

>both forms of communication are equally valid.
Not really, one is far more easy to misunderstand than the other. Your second example never specifically specified that the woman was sending FALSE body language, it's perfectly possible that she made no effort to deceive and was merely misunderstood. Body language is too vague and uncertain to have any meaning in a court of law. You can't get out of a rape accusation by claiming her body language indicated a willingness to engage in sex, even if that is actually true.

>>5223027
Yeah so what's this have to do with transgenders?

File: enhanced-27648-1395358744-5.jpg (182KB, 550x568px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 550x568px

It's not rape unless your partner specifically states "If you are trans, I don't consent," and you lie and say you aren't trans. Otherwise, your partner's weird triggers aren't your problem. If they're transphobic, they have to voice that. It's not our responsibility to tell everyone we get in bed with our complete medical history.
ie.,
>"Oh hey by the way I get hemmorhoids occasionally"
>"Oh my god you fucking rapist"

>inb4 you have to notify partners of any STDs you have
This is an example of something that causes harm to your partner. Therefore, informed consent is necessary. If you equate being trans with having an infectious and dangerous disease, then you're just a wilfully ignorant asshole, which also isn't covered by consent laws.

>>5225096
That's retarded though. There is no measurable damage done. I seriously doubt you can really get a mental trauma from having sex you consented to. You can't just send people to jail because you're a gullible fool and no actual damage was done to you.

I am gay, If I were with someone who passed themselves off as a man and sucked my dick, If I were to find out they were not a man (as in has a vagina) I would not file a lawsuit i would not cry rape, but be assured, I would beat the living shit out of them.

>>5226106
but then they would file a lawsuit against you for assault.

>>5225096
>You can't blame someone else for an incorrect assumption that you make, that's just childish
.An incorrect assumption due to misrepresentation. If you dress as a woman act as a woman and go by a woman's name, and do not disclose you are still biologically male (read as penis) then you are asking for trouble. If you are so happy with who you are and how you are then why are you not upfront about it and letting people make the decision for them self if the want to be with you or not?

>>5226121
And THAT is when the MULTIPLE counter suits would begin.

>>5225725
The second case is potentially non-consensual. Dating someone is NOT consenting to sex. The ONLY reason why the second case isn't rape is because sex never actually occurred.

>>5226151
How is that misrepresentation? It's the other persons mistake for assuming that all women have vaginas.

I do think there's really no reason not to disclose, but the guy should disclose his preferences to. If you're only interested in cis woman, say that. If you say you're interested in women without specifying anything else, that implies you're potentially interested in any kind of woman. And I don't see why I should be blamed for someone else making an incorrect assumption.

>>5223027
Very different case, since a trans person doesn't put on a persona.

>>5223027
They weren't trans and this is shitty bait.