Err, hang on here

A young woman tricked into having sex with a transsexual has told how she has been left traumatised.

But men and women are what they believe themselves to be aren’t they? Bruce is Caitlyn because he says so and that’s that.

The victim told the court how she has been left devastated by what happened.
She said: “What happened is still very much affecting my life.
“I was lied to and manipulated into falling in love with someone who deceived me. That has hurt me emotionally and physically.
“Finding out that Kyran Lee/Kyran Scott was a female shocked me to the core. I truly believed Kyran was a man.
“Everything I know about Kyran Scott is a lie. What happened to me was wrong. Kyran manipulated me, deceived me, and lied to me and had sex with me.
“I don’t think he fully understands the pain he has caused me. I don’t feel that he feels any remorse. I don’t think I will ever be able to forgive him for what he has done.”

And isn’t rather the point that he isn’t?

And to be vaguely serious for a moment. Presumably at some point in this process she really does become he. That is the claim at least. And then this deception, this assault by penetration (which is the charge), would not actually be something that was prosecutable. Because bloke shagging bird isn’t a crime. But, apparently, bird lying that they are a bloke to shag bird might be one. But, so we are told, at some point bird does become bloke and we’re all horrible people for claiming that this isn’t so.

But what’s the point at which that not a crime occurs? And, obviously, is that the same point at which we’re all not horrible people for calling her a bird?

34 thoughts on “Err, hang on here”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    Stop oppressing us with your phallocentric logic! We will have none of that patriarchial heteronormative bullsh!t here.

    A woman’s feelings are hurt. Someone must pay!

  2. “Mr Stanton said the victim had made it clear to Lee that the relationship would be over unless he agreed to sex.

    “The option was no relationship or to obtain a prosthetic. That is what Kyran Lee did. It is all accepted.”

    I know this is lawyer’s rhetoric, but that’s spectacularly weak.

  3. This reminds me of people suing the police for having relationships with undercover police officers. It’s not clear what offence was committed.

  4. This whole business is so utterly mysterious that transubstantiation seems comparatively easy to grasp in comparison.

  5. The whole case is nonsense. Unless they were screwing in a pitch dark cellar she must have noticed by sight (or by feel if it was a cellar job) that that the other was under-equipped before any (plastic) penetration took place. She claims she didn’t know until she went to McDs some time later –and met some blabbermouth presumably.

    Also “Crislow” –what sort of moronic uni-name (I was going to write uni-handle but perhaps not in this case) is that. The name sounds even more artificial than her pseudo-phallus.

    From the photo–“Criswell” would be a better choice.

    JuliaM–Well done but remember “87% of Criswell’s predictions have come true!”–you have a ways to go yet.

  6. Its like buses. You wait years for a case about a woman pretending to be a man and shagging another woman with a strap on to turn up, and then two come along at once.

  7. I don’t think he fully understands the pain he has caused me. I don’t feel that he feels any remorse.

    Sounds like the sex change was a complete success.

  8. Interesting timeline here.

    From woman to trans-man to fully paid up member of the phallocentric hegemonic patriarchal rape culture.

    So, is the progression linear or in discrete steps? And how do we know where each individual is at? And does it work in reverse?

    Questions for our time.

  9. Judge Michael Heath, passing sentence, said: “This is an unusual and very difficult case. She [the victim] only had any intimacy with him because she believed he was a man. Understandably she says she has been hurt, devastated and traumatised. It is clear that she has suffered and continues to suffer from immeasurable emotional harm from this sustained deceit practised upon her.”

    Apparently it’s now a crime to lie in a relationship, or to cause emotional harm. You can no longer tell a girl that the car you’re driving for the weekend actually belongs to your boss. You can’t exaggerate your achievements or your income. You can’t “forget” to mention that you actually have a wife at home who thinks you’re just away on a business trip.

    I’m not entirely opposed to this idea. We already outlaw lying for financial gain (“fraud”); outlawing lying for sexual gain is not beyond the pale. But it should be decided by elected politicians, not judges. After all, we’re criminalising the normal behaviour of a significant proportion of the male population. Not very nice behaviour, granted; but very common.

  10. “I don’t think he fully understands the pain he has caused me. I don’t feel that he feels any remorse. I don’t think I will ever be able to forgive him for what he has done.”

    Sounds like she accepts he’s a man, surely?

  11. “outlawing lying for sexual gain is not beyond the pale….(but) After all, we’re criminalising the normal behaviour of a significant proportion of the male population.”
    Uuh!?!?
    Male population?
    What about the female population?
    If you stopped women lying for sexual gain the entire fabric of the universe would collapse.

  12. BiS,

    True. Different kind of lies though. And besides, we know perfectly well that the law is drifting towards whatever favours women. There’ll be a ban on men telling porkies, but there won’t be a law which outlaws cheating wives.

  13. Steve,

    No.

    The test which applies is whether “it is clear that he has suffered and continues to suffer from immeasurable emotional harm from this sustained deceit practised upon him”.

    Of course, like all this nonsense, the crime is entirely subjective. So it’s entirely possible that the lie you describe could cause a particularly sensitive male to suffer – or at least claim to suffer – immeasurable emotional harm.

  14. Andrew – so you’re saying she was lying? 🙁

    BraveFart – I feel sorry for the victim, clearly she got stiffed.

    🙂

  15. After the morning after:
    “I thought her boobs were real! And that her lips really were that red, and her complexion that flawless! Now I discover it was all padding and make-up! I’m devastated and traumatised!”

  16. Would be interesting to see what the reaction of Plod would be if a bloke turned up saying he took a nice ‘lady’ home and she turned out to have a bigger dick than he did. Would his feelings of devastation and trauma be considered valid, or would they consider arresting him for transphobia or some such crime that probably exists nowadays?

  17. “Would be interesting to see what the reaction of Plod would be if a bloke turned up saying he took a nice ‘lady’ home and she turned out to have a bigger dick than he did.”

    Something like that appears to have happened here:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34971925

    He appears to have got the charge reduced, so I guess it’s considered a valid excuse for men, too.

  18. Has anyone noticed how SJWs and journalists of certain “liberal” newspapers vilify people for confusing “sex” with the more politically correct and totally imaginary concept of “gender”

    And has anyone also noticed how these people manage to confuse the terms themselves? You cannot change sex, you have a lot of plastic surgery and a lot of hormone treatment but at the end of the day you are still only an imaginary member of the other sex. You can’t be transsexual because you cannot change sex, you can only be transsexual insofar as the idea is defined as playing let’s pretend I’m really a girl (or boy) instead of a boy or (girl) and insisting that others share your delusion.

  19. So Much For Subtlety

    Paul Nottingham – “You can’t be transsexual because you cannot change sex, you can only be transsexual insofar as the idea is defined as playing let’s pretend I’m really a girl (or boy) instead of a boy or (girl) and insisting that others share your delusion.”

    And obviously the best thing you can do for someone suffering from a delusion severe enough to lead to self harm is to reinforce it.

    In the meantime a 52 year old man is insisting that he is, in fact, a six year old girl. I look forward to the Guardian condemning anyone, up to and including the Grim Reaper, for not sharing this delusion.

  20. “you can only be transsexual insofar as the idea is defined as playing let’s pretend I’m really a girl (or boy) instead of a boy or (girl) and insisting that others share your delusion.”

    It’s a bit like the way some people think they’re not left wing SJWs. Since ‘SJW’ is the very definition of ‘right-thinking’ and ‘sane’ (some would even say ‘human’!), anybody who thinks they’re not is clearly deluded. And we shouldn’t be pandering to their delusions.

    Compulsory medication for right-wingers … it’s the only solution.

  21. So Much For Subtlety

    Andrew M – “I’m not entirely opposed to this idea. We already outlaw lying for financial gain (“fraud”); outlawing lying for sexual gain is not beyond the pale.”

    Some types of lies for sexual gain are illegal. You cannot lie and pretend to be someone’s husband in order to have sex with them. But some lies are so common place they could hardly be criminalized even if we wanted to.

    “Of course I will respect you in the morning”?

    “I will pull out, I promise”. Actually that may be a crime in Sweden.

    But I have to say I am torn. How about this poor woman who was deluded by a man who said he loved her, and then he took a lot of her money and her house:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3356914/A-professor-bogus-Mr-Perfect-cost-140-000-Devastating-proof-love-loneliness-make-fool-cleverest-woman.html

    OK. Fair enough. But before we get all judgemental, I would like to talk to her ex-husband. Those Nigerians did not, after all, vow to honour and obey did they?

  22. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “It’s a bit like the way some people think they’re not left wing SJWs. Since ‘SJW’ is the very definition of ‘right-thinking’ and ‘sane’ (some would even say ‘human’!), anybody who thinks they’re not is clearly deluded. And we shouldn’t be pandering to their delusions.”

    Well no, it is not remotely like that. Because, you know, reality. Science. Things like that. Left to themselves most Leftists in the end recognise reality and cease to be Leftists. Look at China. Sure, when they are young they do tend to think the Right are deluded if not evil. But they cannot deny the evidence of their eyes forever.

    While people who think that dressing up as a mockery of a woman somehow changes the sad unhappy people they are, are fighting a losing battle with reality every day of their lives as well. Encouraging them to deny the evidence of their eyes, the scientific facts and so on does not help them. It is a false compassion. And deluded.

    “Compulsory medication for right-wingers … it’s the only solution.”

    Bring on the Prozac. At this stage it cannot hurt.

  23. “Well no, it is not remotely like that. Because, you know, reality. Science.”

    Do you mean science done by leftists? Because no other sort counts. I mean, would you trust “science” done by somebody so deluded as to think they were right-wing?!

    As it happens, we were discussing the “science” last time this topic came up – the paper that said sex-linked brain differences didn’t all occur in synchrony. I think the general conclusion here was that people didn’t believe it, and assumed it was a put-up job by SJWs. So much for “science”.

    “While people who think that dressing up as a mockery of a woman somehow changes the sad unhappy people they are”

    On the contrary, it makes them a lot happier – if not entirely happy. At least when they’re not getting grief from people who think that sort of thing shouldn’t be allowed.

    The only possible justification for society enforcing its will on an individual is to prevent them doing harm to others. It’s possibly not unreasonable to ask tgs to let people know before entering a relationship, but I’d say freedom of belief definitely applies here. If people are allowed to believe some of the daft stuff you see in religions, then I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed to believe they’re a girl/boy contrary to surface appearances. And I don’t think it’s any nicer to bully them over it than to go round churches telling the congregation they’re “deluded”. (And there’s a lot more “science” and “reality” backing tgs beliefs than those of vicars.)

    If you don’t want to go along with it, that’s your right. But equally, you’ve then got not right to complain if they insist on calling you Mrs Subtlety, and making you go in the girl’s loos. Your opinions don’t count, if society chooses to disagree with them. A bit of tolerance and politeness over and above what the Harm Principle strictly requires helps grease the wheels of civilisation.

  24. “As it happens, we were discussing the “science” last time this topic came up – the paper that said sex-linked brain differences didn’t all occur in synchrony. I think the general conclusion here was that people didn’t believe it, and assumed it was a put-up job by SJWs. So much for “science”.”

    Er, no. The general consensus was that the results of the study were actually totally consistent with the male brain/female brain theory (as espoused by Simon Baron-Cohen) but that the SJW authors had tried to conclude that it proved the opposite.

  25. ” but that the SJW authors had tried to conclude that it proved the opposite”

    Don’t confuse the ‘transgender’ argument with the SJW argument. And don’t confuse the science with some random SJW journalist putting their own spin on the science.

    We all agreed that the SJW idea that there’s no real difference between male and female brains is wrong. Some people seemed to want to take this further – to say that transgenderism didn’t exist.

    We ended up with someone trying to suggest there was only one sex hormone responsible for all differences, because this would be ‘simple’, and therefore the odds of different bits of the brain and body being able to be ‘male’ or ‘female’ independently of one another was virtually zero.

    Since Baron-Cohen is noted for saying that people with male genitals can have ‘female’ empathising brains, and since the paper being cited argued that this applied over a range of brain structures and features, and since this is pretty much what tgs argue has happened to them, I really don’t see how anyone can interpret the science/reality to be saying biology-caused transgenderism doesn’t exist – that it’s a ‘delusion’.

    But whatever.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *