This is the title of a short documentary on the BBC.
A group of trans-identified youth discuss whether their sex is anyone else’s business. This includes those they have either been intimate with, or those with whom sexual intimacy is on the horizon.
The documentary is available to watch here.
In it, we are introduced to a number of “trans-identified” youth. All are asked a variation of this question.
The first females we meet appear to be same sex attracted. For one of them, disclosure is a moot point because they were already in a same sex relationship. Although Noah still wonders whether their girlfriend may still think she is kissing “Nicola”. Thus his girlfriend is being “trans-inclusive” but still may be committing a thought crime.
We also meet Maya who says concern about never finding love is an issue but also introduces the usual propaganda that this was a life or death decision.
One of the participants is Tayla who is a trans-identified male and doesn’t think disclosure is necessary. Tayla went viral for making this claim on TikTok.
Tayla makes it clear that, because they have had all the “hormones and surgeries” they meet the standard for being a “woman”. Tayla doesn’t disclose their sex when on a night out, even if they engage in sexual intimacy. They claim they are accurate on their online dating apps. Challenged about whether behaving like this counts as sexual assault Tayla has this to say:
The documentary cuts in to provide the results of a survey asking what the general public think.
Over 58% think disclosure is important, this rises to 61% in the over 55’s and drops to 42% for the 18-34 age group.
Only 18% were prepared to outright support the idea you should not disclose your sex.
The documentary also interviews a trans-identified male in New York. They take a similar surgical affirmation stance to Tayla. Now they have had the hormones and surgeries they are merely a “woman”; they have left the ‘trans’ status behind. Lily compares hiding your sex to any other dating strategy. We don’t tell people we stay up all night eating ice-cream and watching movies, ergo it’s OK to hide your biological sex from partners.
The most disturbing contribution came from Kade. Kade is a biological female who recently had sex with a man. Kade “forgot” to tell this partner she was really a ‘man’ so she goes for a great reveal the next morning. Sadly, the man goes all ‘biological’ on Kade and refuses to be redefined as a gay man! Kade thinks you should only disclose if you have an issue with it; you don’t owe it to sexual partners to give them a “briefing”. The interviewer asks Kade if she has a message for the man she had sex with…this was her answer.
Seems Kade is whoever she says she is and her partners are anyone Kade says they are. She can redefine a man as gay by the powers of her magical thinking and her “mangina”. There is zero awareness about how this might sound to gay men.
The Law.
What was missing from this series of interviews was any attempt to alert the participants about the legal context. Arguing for non-disclosure is advocating for a criminal offence in the United Kingdom. There have been a number of criminal prosecutions for the offence of sex by deception in the United Kingdom. All the prosecutions have been of females, deceiving other females, into sexual intimacy. The females believed they were engaged in sexual activity with a male.
Stonewall have long argued sex by deception should not cover “Gender Identity Fraud” . They believe the right to privacy should override issues of consent.
Here are some observations on these cases made by legal professionals. First, Secret Barrister opining on the issue: He clearly takes the Tayla /Lily stance. 👇
As you can see he has opted for categorising it along with lying about your marital status and even your pasta preferences. He’s decided to trivialise the issue.
Alex Sharpe, a trans-identified male, and a legal scholar, argues the state should not get involved in “desire-led” sexual relations. For Alex, if we believe “Trans Men are Men” the prosecutions make no sense.
The law, as it stands, has resulted in a number of prosecution and prison terms, for non-disclosure of your biological sex. Here is a statement from one of those legal cases. Deception about your “gender” can vitiate consent.
Gender Identity proponents have long campaigned to exclude Gender Identity Fraud from prosecution under the Sex by Deception laws. Thus far the legal cases have not obliged. What is perfectly clear is the deceit was practiced because the perpetrator knew consent was likely to be withdrawn if the truth about their biological sex was known. Prioritising your own need to be validated, by a third party, in the most intimate of encounters is a violation of the victim’s bodily autonomy. Consent was not freely given because it was built on a falsehood. Sexual orientation is a legally protected characteristic and it is based on SEX not Gender Identity.
Onto Gayle Newland, who went to elaborate lengths to conceal her sex and had multiple victims. Here, three victims of Gayle Newland describe the impact of the deceit, as reported in The Guardian.
We should listen to the victims.
If you want to read further about this issue I have done a series on Sex By Deception, which goes into a bit more detail. I cover a prosecution for sex by deception and include a bit more legal commentary from Trans advocates.
Quite simply, sex by deception is sex without consent.
You smashed it again Pat, this stuff is alarming. Why anyone would seek to ambush a potential partner with their surprise genitals is beyond me.