Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Woman Jailed for Genderfuck 'Trick'

Page: (1)2

05:58 / 21.01.02

Hopefully the link to this story will work:
http://www.rainbownetwork.com/content/NewsLife.asp?newsid=2511

Basically a 21 year old dyke 'tricked' some schoolgirls into believing she was male and kissed and 'groped' them. Sounds like it was all consensual until they found out she was female. She's been put on probation for 2 years for indecent assault and has to recieve counselling, and is also now on the sex offenders' register.

Not sure how i feel about this, does anyone know any more about this story?

I remember playing kiss chase with a bunch of girls when i was very, very young. They assumed i was a boy and i didn't tell them any different.

No star here laces

06:32 / 21.01.02

Well, the girls were 15...

To me, the main point is they were underage, she pretended to be underage too, and that's why they consented. Gender and sexuality are almost by the by - it'd be wrong even if she were a 21 year old male pretending to be a 15 year old male.

06:43 / 21.01.02

I'm hearing stuff like the girls were okay with it, but the parents forced them to take it to court. the link doesn't provide much info - do you know any more? It's difficult to form an opinion with so little info.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

06:43 / 21.01.02

Surely that's the point about having an age of consent? The kids are deemed unable to make that kind of decision, and adults, of whatever sexuality or gender, are supposed to keepa da hands off.

Law and sex. Not good bedfellows...but we don't live in a world where people can be depended upon to behave themselves in the sexual arena, so we have laws about it.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

10:44 / 21.01.02

Yeah, don't really want to say anything more until we know some more, whether it's another 'Brandon Teena'. I'll see whether any of the mainstream newspapers have carried a more detailed report...

pointless and uncalled for

10:59 / 21.01.02

Well there's the clear case of sexual assault of a minor for which I feel she deserves prosecution genderfuck or not. Regardless of the details that's completely off limits regardless of the details of the assault and if it was OK with the girls. The only real defence would be if she didn't know that they were underage. The report doesn't say either way but seems, to me, to imply that she knew.

The second bit is the genderfuck and that's trickier ground. Having someone pass themself off as the opposite sex isn't something you can easily consent to. If you consent then you know and thus, in my opinion, crosses from genderfuck to role-playing. Also, in this situation, there's context to be taken into consideration. I would contend that unless you're entering into a more sexually liberated area (i.e. pubs, clubs and sexually diverse meeting areas) then I think a degree of honesty is fairly much mandatory.

Inparticular with this case the intended targets were far less likely to consider that woman was in fact a woman rather than the man she puported to be.

To me, playing with peoples sexuality is unfair and reprehensible.

More information on the case might provide better insight but with the basic facts, I think she was in the wrong on both counts.

12:31 / 21.01.02

Originally posted by shortfatdyke: i'm hearing stuff like the girls were okay with it

That's not the point. Legally, they were unable to consent to being "okay with it", so it constitutes sexual assault regardless of gender.

pointless and uncalled for

12:34 / 21.01.02

That seems to be a fairly clear point there Ganesh.

But if the age element is removed, what then.

If the girls were of age of consent, would they then have a case of sexual assault/ should they have a case?

12:35 / 21.01.02

understood. but did she know they were underage? it does not appear that she is id-ing as male, now either. but i'd still like to know more.

12:42 / 21.01.02

Hang on - excuse my ignorance here, but is whatever constitutes 'groping' illegal for those under the age of 16? I thought it was just penetrative sex... Edited to add: not making any sort of judgement one way or the other, merely enquiring about 'the law' in a very general sense... Edited to clarify: what I mean is, is it possibly to legally consent to being *groped* below the age of 16?

pointless and uncalled for

12:46 / 21.01.02

I think it comes under statutory sexual abuse. Much the same as consensual sex is considered statutory rape.

12:48 / 21.01.02

Okely dokely... just wondering... thank you.

12:54 / 21.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots:
But if the age element is removed, what then.

Much less clear. Would depend on individual circumstances and could, I suspect, be successfully argued either way.

13:04 / 21.01.02

What would the feeling be if it were a man 'disguising' himself as female in order to get his jollies with other men?

Or, to make the question more ridiculous and far less probable, a man pretending to be female in order to get it on with a lesbian?

This reductio ad absurdum stuff's fun.

pointless and uncalled for

13:12 / 21.01.02

Again I feel that it depends on context.

I'm reminded on the scene from Trainspotting where Begbie gets it on with a cross dresser.

Removing the element of him getting his comeuppance, it's still a matter of liability. If it's liable to happen in the situation that you're in then you have no complaints when it does, no matter what the scenario.

However, if your in a more innocent situation, I think certain expectations are held and should be respected.

Context is a big issue here.

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:30 / 21.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots:
If it's liable to happen in the situation that you're in then you have no complaints when it does, no matter what the scenario.

Hmmm. That's a couple of very firm negatives there, Wisdom (or can I call you "idiots"?). No complaints, no matter what the scenario?

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

13:35 / 21.01.02

So, if the girls were at a nightclub they deserve no sympathy, if they were in the middle of volleyball practice they are innocent. How about if they were in church, but wearing short skirts? I'm not sure that "context" - ie how sexualised their environment was" is quite the way forward...

pointless and uncalled for

13:44 / 21.01.02

On the thin ice that is this thread it was stupid of me to put in the firm negatives.

I guess you should be calling me idiots.

It's more of a game of playing the percentages of occurence versus risk.

The less likely it is to happen the more right you have to complain.

Examples (not intended to be the be all and end all of possibilities)(Stricly from a straight perspective because I don't feel qualified to comment otherwise)

1) Say I go to a coffee shop in the banking district of Toronto in the middle of a work day and a woman in business attire starts hitting on me. Given the contexts of the situation, I should be able to reasonably expect the woman to be a woman or, should the meeting lead to intimate contact, should identify herself as male should that be the case. In such a typically unconfused situation, I don't think that I should approach the situation with caution and anyone trying to lead me on would be in the wrong. (unconfused is probably the wrong word but my brain has no alternatives, I hope you see what I mean)

2) On the other hand, if I head off to the gay district during Pride week and go into a bar advertising a cross-dressing night, then I have no real basis to assume any gender of anyone who might decide to make advances on me. It would be a matter of approach with extreme caution.

pointless and uncalled for

13:45 / 21.01.02

Haus - if context doesn't pay a major part, I think it plays a significant part.

13:53 / 21.01.02

Supposing, in your second example, you can make a reasonable case for not knowing the gay district of town, being unaware what "cross dressing" is, etc., etc.? One can't always infer knowledge/experience/"streetwisdom" from circumstances alone...

pointless and uncalled for

14:00 / 21.01.02

Erm, it would be incredibly niave of a person to not know that they are in the gay district of Toronto during Pride Week. You would also have to be illiterate, deaf and most likely blind. The public nudity, body-painting, garishly camp attires and personalities and the very large flags and banners proclaiming GAY & LESBIAN PRIDE WEEK are considered a dead give away.

Also I did make a personal reference there.

Ignorance is something of a defence and would certainly place an onus on the advancer to forewarn their advancee of should it appear that they may be unaware of the situation.

pointless and uncalled for

14:08 / 21.01.02

Just as a qualifier, I'm comfortable to stand on the principle that if you are in a situation where there is a commonly held expectation then it's not unreasonable that someone should identify when they are or intend to be exceeding those expectations.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

14:24 / 21.01.02

But, Potus, you seem to be advancing the statement "in a place where people are dressed like that, they're asking for it". So, as long as people stay away from areas known to be lousy with TGs, TVs and horse-riding tomboys, they are entitled to feel violated and unhappy. Whereas if they stray into bad areas, they should not come crying when they are filthed up by transos.

Or do I misunderstand you?

No star here laces

14:29 / 21.01.02

Forgive me for butting in on the troll-baiting session, but isn't it rather significant how the girls found out that she was female?

I mean, they presumably didn't feel 'violated and unhappy' while they were under the illusion that she was a 15-year old boy. So who told 'em?

pointless and uncalled for

14:33 / 21.01.02

Putting in some very black and white scenarios there. I would suspect that you misunderstand me. You seem to be implying that I think that there is somekind of Berlin Wall in every city to keep the gays and the deviants seperated from the straights and never the twain should meet. This is a far cry from the truth and I'm begining to suspect baiting here.

Back in with this issue. Case in hand here and on an absence of exact information I can only assume some more common sensitivities. The girls were holding some expectations and I don't think that I'm alone in thinking that anyone finds these expectations unreasonable. The woman breached these expectations and showed an absence of respect to the girls.

As stated before, if someone enters a situation with reasonable and common expectations, then those expectations should be respected and if there is a diversity from those expectations then the person maintaining such diversity should be open and clear about such a diversity.

14:41 / 21.01.02

i think we definately need to know the full story here!

have been checking the guardian with no luck. apparently it was featured in the sun but their website is rather lacking.....

14:45 / 21.01.02

my feelings on this (or what Ive gotten out of this, forgive me if Ive miscontrued details), simply put:

1) it was wrong of the woman to engage in "groping" or any other sexual touching, because of the ages of the children. she should be charged as having engaged in a sexual offense

2) while I think its unethical to trick people, I think there are degrees of deceit, and therefore degrees of how wrong it is (getting dodgy, I know, but stay with me). theres a difference between merely appearing a certain way (how does one have a right to a reasonable expectation of someones gender based solely on appearance? I really dont see this as deceitful in anyway) and outright lying to someone for your own purposes. either way Id hardly see it as an illegal offense - people lie to get what they want daily, its part of life

pointless and uncalled for

14:50 / 21.01.02

Haus, just a little addenda here. I quote myself here, and I feel that this allays the conception of assumption here.

(not intended to be the be all and end all of possibilities)

Secondly, from yourself. Potus, you seem to be advancing the statement "in a place where people are dressed like that, they're asking for it".

Sounds like an assumption to me. For clarity's sake, if I don't say it, don't assume I imply it.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

14:59 / 21.01.02

For clarity's sake, check your statements for implicit assumptions.

pointless and uncalled for

15:18 / 21.01.02

Didn't see any obvious ones when I checked.

I could have requalified for the infinite number of implicit assumptions possible but then I would still be typing my first post.

Disco is My Class War

23:24 / 21.01.02

Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots: 1) Say I go to a coffee shop in the banking district of Toronto in the middle of a work day and a woman in business attire starts hitting on me. Given the contexts of the situation, I should be able to reasonably expect the woman to be a woman or, should the meeting lead to intimate contact, should identify herself as male should that be the case. In such a typically unconfused situation, I don't think that I should approach the situation with caution and anyone trying to lead me on would be in the wrong. (unconfused is probably the wrong word but my brain has no alternatives, I hope you see what I mean)

I know I should read the whole thread before posting, but please clarfiy for me. Are you saying that because you are in a so-called 'straight' environment, you should reasonably expect that gender normativity should be supported by law? What about if the person is neither gender, and has either undergone surgery or is on hormones and looks totally like a woman but has a dick?

Disco is My Class War

23:44 / 21.01.02

Right, now I have rad the whole thread.

Personally, I think age of consent laws are dodgy, anyhow. The age of consent for hetero sex is 16, right? How old was everyone here when they started fucking, anyhow? Legally, the wo/man in question obviously has little recourse but it definitely sounds like something transphobic/homophobic was going on.

But that's beside the point I want to make, which is that potus' comments assume there is an easily definable distinction between someone who is merely 'cross-dressing' and someone who isn't. Ie, you're either a man or a woman. It's far more complicated than that. Lots of transfolk pass as a different gender to the one they were born with without any surgery or hormones, have names wihch indicate the gender they visibly represent, and identify as that gender without complication. That includes having a sex-life as the man one says on is, or the woman one says one is. In fact, sex-change guidelines state that a transperson must undergo 'real life' experience as the chosen gender before hormones or surgery. Which means that you're not actually supposed to 'come out': the whole test is passing. leslie Feinberg's Stone Butch Blues has a scene in it where Jess, the narrator, fucks a staight woman as a man andthe woman never finds out... It's a one-night stand.

What is so absolutely wong with 'hood-winking' someone? Why is it hood-winking, why are we talking about this as if it's a lie when the person in question may regard her/himself as male anyhow? Why do we assume that the 'victims' in this case didn't know what was going on? (There are two stands of assumption there: one is a transphobic assumption that the girls didn't know they were playing with someone who wasn't a bioboy, and there's a second homophobic assumption which states that if they did know s/he was biologically female, they wouldn't have wanted to take part anyhow.)

More info would be much appreciated, anyone.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

23:44 / 21.01.02

What Rosa said, essentially. Is it deceitful to allow people to believe that you are female when you are in fact male, or vice versa? Or that you are rich when you are in fact not rich, or that you are Sidney Poitier's son, or whatever? If not, why is the fact that she "led them to believe" she was male (and yes, those are *very* constricting terms here) anything other than possibly bad manners if they had maleness as an absolute sine qua non?

"I demand satisfaction! I was tricked into having sex with this other man by his delicate cheekbones and I'm straight, goddammit!"

Legal ages is a bit more complex but - Bitchiekittie - would you be agitating for a sexual offence charge if a 15-year-old had been "groped", consensually, by her 21-year old boyfriend? And if not, why not?

Oh, and potus, for the sake of clarity, is "an addend*um*". And the strictness of the demarcation between "gay" and "straight" areas in a town is not the source of any disagreement with you, It's the statement that being groped by somebody impersonating the other gender is just par for the course in the Castro, but bad and wrong on Main Street, and that both groper,gropee and society as a whole should adjust their expectations accordingly. Which does seem rather close to "woman beaten up in middle-class neighbourhood? Apalling. Woman beaten up in poor/black/hispanic neighbourhood? No surprises, eh? eh?".

10:20 / 22.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots:
Erm, it would be incredibly niave of a person to not know that they are in the gay district of Toronto during Pride Week.

Incredibly naive people exist - particularly very young or very old ones....

pointless and uncalled for

10:41 / 22.01.02

Rosa, I wasn't implying it as a straight environment. I was implying it as an environment where expectations are different.

I must now admit that my assertions were wrong. Up until now I had believed that people were right to hold certain reasonable expectations. I also believed that it was reasonable to expect a relative degree of honesty and respect in interpersonal interactions. While this may once have been held true, I see that this is now wrong.

I guess I will just have to chalk it up as a loss to society.

Before you contrue the above comments as some kind of anti-gay sentiments. I assure you that this is not the case. It is not felt, intended, implied or even considered.

Page: (1)2