Trans panic is a variation of the gay panic defence, which is a tactic used in murder and assault cases to blame the victim rather than the attacker. In the UK it’s sometimes known as the Portsmouth Defence. It argues that if a straight person experiences sexual advances from someone who is gay, or has sexual activity with someone they then discover is trans, any ordinary person would be so horrified, outraged and disgusted that they would lose control and beat, stab or shoot the gay or trans person. It’s been abolished as a legitimate defence tactic in courts in many countries, but in the UK it’s been enshrined in law.
We also have laws that say that if you pretend to be something you’re not then completing a sexual advance under such terms could be rape. So, sorta, you know….
<i>part of a long history where Trans+ people’s right to privacy has been trampled on to flatter cis people’s self-perception</i>
Given they all seem to be exhibitionists, I wouldn’t worry too much about their right to privacy being trampled.
I think it’s more that the exhibitionists are the ones we see in the media (and have caused problems for their more retiring brethren). 50 years ago, in the quiet Chiltern village where I live, there was a bloke who, on Friday evenings, would put on a floral dress and take the bus to the local town. Nobody enquired too closely what he might get up to there, and nobody cared. Meanwhile, the pub down the road was run by two ladies, one of whom wore a 3-piece tweed suit and smoked a pipe. Takes all sorts.
They’ve spelled “non-trans” wrong.
“We also have laws that say that if you pretend to be something you’re not then completing a sexual advance under such terms could be rape.
Except, of course, if you an undercover police officer.
Watkin is not the first person – or the first transgender person – to be prosecuted for “deception as to sex”, one of a very limited set of deceptions that can legally constitute sexual assault or rape.
The bold deceiver himself:
What a beauty.
Like Keith Chegwin in drag
Thats harsh on Keith. I bet he would have made a far more convincing woman that that thing.
Am I alone in noticing the resemblance between between the freak above and the freak below? Are they perhaps related?
Gosh, how perceptive of them. However did they work that one out?
Whatever sex that is, or claims to be, who would want to?
The defence should have been that the complainant was clearly insane, and therefore an unreliable witness.
“Portsmouth”? I thought it was called the Guardsman’s defence.
Depends where you are / which service you are connected to, I suppose.
The sole advantage of Sharia Law would be seeing this hideous f£&)er hanging from
A construction crane, no longer able to spout his evil. Arguably worse than Murphy on the grounds of intent.
“Yes, of course I love you, …”
How many people lie to get off with someone they fancy?