Another fun problem

A transgender offender is seeking to delete from her record two crimes that could only have been committed by a man.

“I do not wish my gender history to be more widely known and do not wish to disclose my trans status to employers,” the woman, who asked to be identified only as Helen, said. She is to launch a judicial review to remove two convictions for “importuning as a man” when she worked at a Soho “clip joint” in the 1970s and 1980s.

A right to removal, if established, could cover rape, another crime that can legally be committed only by a person with a penis.

Trans people with a gender recognition certificate are legally entitled to keep their birth gender secret.

Well, so, what do we do here?

The convictions are spent, obviously enough, so they’ll only turn up on one of the more detailed records searches.

Dunno – what say you?

26 thoughts on “Another fun problem”

  1. Honestly, I don’t know why they bother with this secret squirrel stuff.

    In about 99.7% of cases, even Stevie Wonder can clock a transsexual within about 0.3 seconds. Sure, maybe the odd Thai ladyboy can pass as a woman, but that doesn’t apply to the overwhelming majority of hulking, giant-foreheaded, balding, gravelly-voiced laydeez. Just take a gander at the transgender folks running for all-women Labour shortlists:

    https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5a667d352d00001f009427d5.jpeg

    So… is it aimed at other people, or is it just denial – like how alcoholics always lie to themselves about how much they drink?

  2. Trans people with a gender recognition certificate are legally entitled to keep their birth gender secret.

    Surely the mere possession of a gender recognition certificate is an indication that the gender is not what it was at birth.

  3. I suspect they want a visa to somewhere say US of A or Australia
    Where they have a habit of not allowing you into their fair land if you got a record for being a nonce

  4. I used to do renewal interviews of people applying for exempt positions where full disclosure of spent convictions was required. My standard line was along the lines of: Kept your nose clean since then? Ok, approved. Next!

  5. Tranny games. Jeeeze.

    ‘rape, another crime that can legally be committed only by a person with a penis’

    Women don’t commit rape?

    And what are the other penile perp crimes? Peeing on the seat?

    IBN (In Before NiV)

  6. Gamecock: The legal definition of ‘sex’ is: insertion of penis into vagina. The legal definition of ‘rape’ is: sex without consent.*

    It also crops up with people trying to divorce their partner for adultery when the adultery involved nobody with a penis, as in legal terms no adultery has occured as no penis has been inserted anywhere.

    *England and Wales. IANAL, mileage may vary.

  7. Section 1 , “Rape”, Sexual Offences Act 2003 (not applicable in Scotland):

    Show Timeline of Changes
    Opening OptionsExpand opening options Help about opening optionsMore Resources Help about more resources
    Original Print PDF
    Correction Slip – 29/05/2012
    Correction Slip – 15/10/2010
    View more

    Changes to legislation:Sexual Offences Act 2003, Section 1 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 30 August 2018. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. Help about Changes to Legislation
    View outstanding changesstatus warnings
    1Rape

    (1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
    (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
    (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
    (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

  8. ””does not wish to disclose to employer’….

    Good luck with that! Assumes all employers are fuckwits and, naively, believes himself now to be a real woman. In the real world 0.001% of trannies do not look like bricklayers in a frock.

  9. The mentally ill man is still a mentally ill man — no his record should not be changed so that he can his his previous crimes.

  10. Bloke no Longer in Spandau

    If we hanged everyone, we wouldn’t have this problem.
    Admittedly we’d have some problems with bleeding heart liberals complaining about such an indiscriminate policy. But as most of them probably work for quangoes or Oxfam or something equally odious, no one would really mind if they went too.
    I shall suggest it to Mr Javid.

  11. You are all missing the point. The trannies are an irrelevant freakshow being used by the left for their own evil purposes.

    Smash the left–the freakshow will largely vanish.

  12. Next thing they will want to be taken off the sex offenders register and that awkward restriction about them not working with vulnerable kids, well of course ignore that too

  13. Get rid of gender certificates. All legal/state/official documentation uses biological sex.

    If loonies wish to pretend their todger is a ladypenis, fair enough but let’s not legally enforce their delusion.

    @Steve – stop it, please.

  14. I’m not sure what ‘importuning’ is, let alone ‘importuning as a man’, but it seems to do with prostitution – so yeah, personally i’d be fine with anything to do with vice ‘crimes’ (which shouldn’t be crimes in the first place) being redacted from the public record.

    Not ok with the idea that maybe you could force Google, et al, to remove them from their searches.

  15. “jgh
    September 10, 2018 at 1:54 pm

    Gamecock: The legal definition of ‘sex’ is: insertion of penis into vagina. The legal definition of ‘rape’ is: sex without consent.*”

    A woman jumping on top of you can still put your penis in her vagina – without your consent.

    Its harder, sure, but its not an offense that only a man can commit.

  16. The offence, now repealed, was “importuning as a man”, the equivalent offence, also repealed, was “soliciting”. Is it beyond the wit of man (sic) to substitute one for the other on the records of those who acquire a Gender Recognition Certificate? It is a far lesser change than that already done in providing a new birth certificate and an a new NHS record.

  17. Aggy: if a woman forces a man’s penis into her vagina, the MAN has committed an offense if he thinks the woman didn’t want it to happen and the woman later states she didn’t want it to happen. The woman has committed no offense. Indecent touching maybe? Certainly not rape, not in law. Possibly contempt if it comes to trial.

  18. “A woman jumping on top of you can still put your penis in her vagina – without your consent. Its harder, sure, but its not an offense that only a man can commit.”

    It’s a bizarre line of thought to be going down, but what if a woman buys a detached penis in a shop (yes, there are) and puts it somewhere it’s not welcome? Technically, it’s ‘her’ penis.

    “A tranny thread with no NiV? How disappointing.”

    I’m getting complaints about NOT commenting now?!!!

  19. It’s a bizarre line of thought to be going down, but what if a woman buys a detached penis in a shop (yes, there are) and puts it somewhere it’s not welcome? Technically, it’s ‘her’ penis.

    But is still s2 “assault by penetration” not s1 “rape”. Just to be non-sexist about this, if a man buys a detached penis etc, still s2.

    I would assume that, even if a man had his dick chopped off and preserved, and then used it in a sexual assault, it would still be s2 not s1. I’d love (honestly) to be a fly on the wall (hyperbole) at the CPS charging conference for that one.

  20. I’m getting complaints about NOT commenting now?!!!

    Like many people, you need to separate the perceived worth of your ideas and your entertainment value.

    Not that I am accusing you of being, say, Mark Ruffalo or similar.

  21. “But is still s2 “assault by penetration” not s1 “rape”.”

    Probably – assuming you take the spirit rather than the letter of the law, which they probably would. It was just a thought experiment.

    Although frankly, I’m not sure why they make a distinction.

    “Like many people, you need to separate the perceived worth of your ideas and your entertainment value.”

    Are you assuming I value your opinions on either? 🙂

    I was just commenting on your perceived consistency.

Leave a Reply

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