Cutters Beware

[manc-wannabe (imported)]

The main hope on this issue is that the proposed changes to the Equality Act, to change sex to mean birth sex, require primary legislation. There may not be enough time in the current parliamentary session to do this, with an election being due sometime next year (though could be as late as January 25) - and in any case the Lords could block it; and there isn’t enough time now left to use the Parliament Act to override the Lords veto. It is getting really ugly though here, with factions of Labour and the Greens in favour of excluding trans people from single sex spaces. I’m politically homeless in the U.K. right now. That said, what I’m counting on is Labour winning the next election, and given there are a lot less bigots in that party, there won’t be the imperative to change the law. I’m fully expecting the Conservatives to campaign on the issue - and then hopefully be surprised when voters don’t turn out to be bigots.

[HumanFly (imported)]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are the Tories only in power at the moment because they can hold off an election for a certain amount of time? IE No early election can be called, and they wouldn't anyhow, because if they held it today they'd probably lose by a significant margin?

Yes, parliaments are elected for a maximum five-year term. In 2010 the law was changed to make it harder to force a general election before that time was up, but this was only to stop the Liberal Democrats from forcing one by pulling out of the coalition; once this issue went away (when the Tories won an outright majority in 2015), the law was changed back and there were two further pre-term general elections in the next four years. General elections tend to be held in May and the most likely time for the next one is May 2024, although in theory they can hold out until December of that year.

[Tante Wippen (imported)]

As some of you will know a group of North London cutters have recently run foul of the law after making little attempt at keeping quiet about their various illegal activities. As a result of this they are now due to face trial on a number of very serious charges at the famous, or perhaps infamous Old Bailey, starting on the 19th of April. Given the numerous reports that already have appeared in the news about these idiots, it is likely that this trial will generate a lot ill feeling towards the eunuch community in the UK.

[Blondboyless (imported)]

Yes, I read the article that was published last month reporting the charges that were laid and that things would proceed on the 19th. The media circus that may erupt from this can only do harm. What a mess.

I noticed from that article that the crown appears to be solely pursuing those who has performed the procedures, not those upon whom they had been performed. I also noticed that the names of those accused have been published along with their ages and cities of residence. I hope that the names and identities of those the crown calls as witnesses will not be shared with the media. What precedent is usually followed in the UK in sensitive cases such as this?

[Tante Wippen (imported)]

Given that there is so much video evidence of their illegal activities, it is possible that at least some of the accused will plead guilty with the aim of getting a reduced sentence. One interesting potential legal problem is that some of the alleged perpetrators are also victims, having undergone voluntary surgery at the hands of one or more of their fellow accused, of course this is something for the prosecution and defence lawyers to get their respective teeth into,

[magusuk89 (imported)]

Given that there is so much video evidence of their illegal activities, it is possible that at least some of the accused will plead guilty with the aim of getting a reduced sentence. One interesting potential legal problem is that some of the alleged perpetrators are also victims, having undergone voluntary surgery at the hands of one or more of their fellow accused, of course this is something for the prosecution and defence lawyers to get their respective teeth into,

The word 'victim' ought to be avoided. The whole thing hinges on whether people have control of their own consent, or whether the state does. The whole thing is analogous to bottoms being discussed in gay sex trials prior to partial decriminalisation in 1967. I know of one guy caught up in all this who said to the police (paraphrase) 'the only thing I'm a victim of is police harassment'.

[Paolo]

Agreed, a lot of people have problems with that definition.

If I take your money when you say no, and/or hit you, you are a victim.

If you come to me and say, famously, "Take my money! (testicles?)" you are a WILLING customer/client.

[WheelyCurious]

Agreed, a lot of people have problems with that definition.

If I take your money when you say no, and/or hit you, you are a victim.

If you come to me and say, famously, "Take my money! (testicles?)" you are a WILLING customer/client.

I agree, the key element in defining a 'crime' SHOULD be a requirement to be able to point to an identifiable non-consenting victim (and no, the folks that suffer harm as a consequence of the consenting "client's" actions are NOT victims (i.e. if a guy screws himself up on drugs, his wife and kids are not victims of the drug dealer, although they might have grounds for charging the guy w/ neglect / abuse for choosing to abuse the drugs)

One way I like to think of is that instead of saying "Victimless Crime" say "Consensual Crime"...

In the case in question, if I was on the jury, I'd say that no crime was committed by the acts of cutting willing clients. However if the clients didn't consent to being 'video stars' I'd definitely say guilty of violating their privacy, and related concerns...

WheelyCurious

[Losethem (imported)]

Given that there is so much video evidence of their illegal activities, it is possible that at least some of the accused will plead guilty with the aim of getting a reduced sentence. One interesting potential legal problem is that some of the alleged perpetrators are also victims, having undergone voluntary surgery at the hands of one or more of their fellow accused, of course this is something for the prosecution and defence lawyers to get their respective teeth into,

When the website involved was active and all this was going on, I kept wondering why it was taking so long for, at the time, Her Majesty's law enforcement folks to do something about it. It just seemed to go on and on, with no action. Then suddenly it did happen. Frankly, I hope it ends up a case much like what happened here in the States back in 2006. A lot of sensationalism which ends nearly as quickly as it happened, with low amounts of jail/prison time.

I'd like to see it not end up like the recent case out of Oklahoma here in the US, where the person who was arrested is put in prison for 13 years. As MagusUK89 said, these people who had this done are NOT victims. If they are to be considered victims, they are victims of a system which makes no effort to understand them, nor help them with their underlying need. So absent that help being available, they sought out people who seemed like they could help them. I doubt there is a single one of them who is pressing charges - the Crown, through law enforcement officials, is the one bringing the charges, as I understand it.

As I've stated previously, there was one person rather high up at WPATH who was completely against the SOC8 including us, and they are UK based. I figure this case is doing one of two things, with no room in between... First scenario is, he's seeing this as something which is shining a bright light on a community which needs help. Sadly I think scenario two is more likely, he's seeing this as justification for his original position. Again, I doubt that person has any middle ground position, it's likely one or the other.

Ultimately, the people behind the site in this trial knew they were doing something illegal, and for that they will pay a price of some sort. The question is, how much a price?

[magusuk89 (imported)]

As I've stated previously, there was one person rather high up at WPATH who was completely against the SOC8 including us, and they are UK based. I figure this case is doing one of two things, with no room in between... First scenario is, he's seeing this as something which is shining a bright light on a community which needs help. Sadly I think scenario two is more likely, he's seeing this as justification for his original position. Again, I doubt that person has any middle ground position, it's likely one or the other.

I sense something in the SoC8 chapter around an unease coming from the medicine given to men who are very attached to the idea of testicles. A lot of andrology charities I see raise money on the basis of saying 'we want to develop treatments that end testicular loss forever' etc. The UK is an institutionally racist and homophobic place (a report on the Met Police recently confirmed as much), and although probably a majority of people are very tolerant and even celebratory of minorities, the way things are set up, what attitudes are validated as 'professional behaviours' and so forth, undermine diversity. There is a kind of doublethink where if you interrogated most of these charity people they would probably say 'oh, we didn't mean to hurt anybody', but immediately go back to spouting hegemonist rhetoric. When you encounter a sleepwalking sort of ignorance like that it is hard to know what to do.

In my own case, I've had doctors say 'if you are a medical case, the goal is testicular preservation above all else, or you've misunderstood reality' -- to the extent one in UCLH threatened to section me (which was bang out of line, and I complained, and went back to the referrer). Otherwise they say 'you must be a trans woman in denial'. It is their kindergartenish rigidity in thinking that means they are deficient in seeing quite natural preferences in treatment options.

This atmosphere affects the Old Bailey case --- firstly there is this doctrine that 'a person cannot consent to GBH (grievous bodily harm)', which is ludicrous as there is exemption for things like injuries in a boxing ring. Secondly, all that hinges on what a 'harm' might be... which is pretty wild when we are talking about a consensual enhancement. But you can see how the messages coming out of a cisheteronormative structure that defines what is acceptable in professional contexts can warp even privately liberal people to go along with a pogrom against a minority.

The fact we have now got SoC 8 (in spite of the bigotry of that UK panellist, etc), may hopefully provide a means of liberal professionals to unchain themselves from the threat to their jobs speaking up might represent. As I said, the chains are more substantial on the structural level than the personal level.

Beyond the medical bubble, a bigger problem is the judicial bubble. Most judges here are privately educated and have no awareness of the lives of the majority. They are socially and culturally insulated and ignorant... and owe their career progression to lack of challenge to the status quo. Moreover, the length of their academic careers and their careers in post makes them fossils.

One can sadly expect to see these people (regardless of what they might say if you catch one in a t-shirt) playing their little imperial roleplay game on autopilot when court is in session.