Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  PRISON BREAK

Scottish Man Found Guilty Of Fraud For Not Telling Girlfriends He Was Trans

Chris_WilsonA 25-year-old transgender man in Scotland was found guilty of obtaining sexual intimacy by fraud on Wednesday.

Chris Wilson from Aberdeen allegedly failed to tell two teenage girls his true age as well as his gender history. According to Wilson’s defense lawyer, Shelagh McCall, Wilson is transgender, has identified as a male since his youth and hopes to undergo gender reassignment surgery.

Gay Star News reports:

The Edinburgh High Court heard one of the girls was aged between 15 and 16 when she first met Wilson in 2008, when he was 20. The possibly underage girl found out the truth when another girl from Stonehaven emailed her a copy of Wilson’s passport – which gave Wilson’s birth name Christine. The two kissed but it went no further.

The second girl was 15 when she became friends with Wilson two years later, but told him she was 16, the legal age to have sex in the UK. Wilson, who said he was 17, started a relationship with the girl and they eventually had sex.

Wilson, who was bailed and placed on the sex offenders’ register, faces jail, but Judge Lord Bannatyne deferred sentence in order for the court to obtain reports.

By:           Les Fabian Brathwaite
On:           Mar 7, 2013
Tagged: , ,

  • 38 Comments
    • ScaryRussianHeather
      ScaryRussianHeather

      Why are these stories so unnecessarily complicated? Details left out, generalities made that apply to DIFFERENT circumstances.

      “Wilson, who said he was 17, started a relationship with the girl and they eventually had sex.

      His defense layer Shelagh McCall said her client is transgender, identified as a man from a young age, and is hoping to undergo gender reassignment therapy”

      “Speaking to Gay Star News, he said: ‘We are very concerned for trans people because it could set a precedent forcing them to reveal their gender history to new sexual partners.”

      “Wilson, who said he was 17, started a relationship with the girl and they eventually had sex.”

      1. History? It’s not history if you haven’t had SRS.
      2. Pronouns aside, they “had sex”. How did that work, exactly. I assume the “victim” complained to the authorities when she found a vagina? It’s kind of ridiculous to leave out that IMPORTANT detail when the story is allegedly about fraud.

      Mar 7, 2013 at 1:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • darkorient
      darkorient

      No matter what, he is still in the wrong. We have the right to know who are we having sex with, every one of us has that right.

      Mar 7, 2013 at 1:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jwrappaport
      jwrappaport

      I agree that trans folks should absolutely disclose, but the idea of judicial intervention and jail time seems absurd to me. What legally cognizable harm occurred here? What good is served by a jail sentence and placement on a registry for sex offenders? Give me a break.

      Mar 7, 2013 at 2:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • yaoming
      yaoming

      Don’t want no more of the crying game.

      Mar 7, 2013 at 3:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jfabz
      jfabz

      @jwrappaport: I have a feeling the jail sentence and placement on a sex offender registry list has to do with having sex with a minor. Both girls were under 18.

      Mar 7, 2013 at 3:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jwrappaport
      jwrappaport

      @jfabz: UK age of sexual consent, according to the article, is 16. Girl 2 said she was 16, but was 15. Not sure if that makes a legal difference for the defendant except that there’s a reciprocal charge of obtaining sexual intimacy by fraud against Girl 2.

      I’m still really bothered by the concept of a crime of obtaining sexual intimacy by fraud. Suppose I went to bars telling guys that I make $200K a year and am a former Green Beret. Is that covered by the Scottish statute? What about wearing a sock in my pants? Or wearing a Harvard Med hoodie? I just don’t see a principled way to draw the line between puffery and fraud, as people have wildly different conceptions of what is important in a sexual partner.

      Mar 7, 2013 at 3:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt
      hyhybt

      @jwrappaport: The line has to be drawn, though. For example, there was a story recently about a woman who, morally at least, was raped: a friend of her boyfriend pretended to BE her boyfriend in the dark, and she was sleepy enough to fall for it. So effectively she was consenting only to sex with *her boyfriend,* not to the guy who was actually there. Logically, that’s not valid consent, but the relevant law in that place, wherever it was, only protected MARRIED women. But setting aside the actual law (which I believe was changed because of that case, or is in the process of being changed) do you think that *ought* to be legal?

      Mar 7, 2013 at 5:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jwrappaport
      jwrappaport

      @hyhybt: Totally agreed in that case, but where is the line in the sand? Where does it become rape by deception?

      Mar 7, 2013 at 5:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt
      hyhybt

      @jwrappaport: Well, that’s the question. I was just pointing out that the *principle* isn’t something to be dismissed, but instead it’s a matter of deciding what degree is acceptable.

      Like the old joke: “Will you have sex with me for a million dollars?”
      “Sure!”
      “How about for ten dollars?”
      “Of course not! What sort of person do you think I am?”
      “We’ve established that; now we’re haggling over price.”

      OK, not all that much like the joke, but still, it’s a matter of degree.

      Mar 7, 2013 at 6:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jwrappaport
      jwrappaport

      @hyhybt: Again, completely agreed – I have no objection to the principle of making it a crime to obtain sex by fraudulent means, the archetypical example being the one you gave. My issue is that the facts here are not so clearly on that side of the line, and I really am not sure how a law could be crafted in such a way that delineates the difference between that example and the one in the article – or, for that matter, the slick barfly who talks a good game.

      Mar 7, 2013 at 6:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt
      hyhybt

      @jwrappaport: That’s where judgement and precedent come in.

      Mar 7, 2013 at 6:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jwrappaport
      jwrappaport

      @hyhybt: You give the judiciary an awful lot of power – too much, I think. It’s essential that a law be crafted in such a way that its contours can be at least somewhat objectively established so that people know what they can and can’t do. That’s one of the core goals of any law: put people on notice and give them fair warning. I haven’t read the statute implicated here, but I’m very troubled by how broadly it seems to be applied to the facts. The age issue in this case notwithstanding, I cannot fathom why legislators would seek to regulate this very complicated and nuanced part of our lives.

      This is clearly not analogous to the situation in which the stranger had sex with the blindfolded women who thought he was their boyfriends, and it concerns me very much that trans people now can be criminally charged for not disclosing their gender history prior to having sex. As a moral duty, I’m fine with it, but as they say, de minimis non curat lex. This is not an issue for judicial intervention in the same way the rape case was.

      Mar 7, 2013 at 6:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt
      hyhybt

      @jwrappaport: I’m not saying the law shouldn’t be as clear as it reasonably can be expected to be, but this is the sort of thing that will ALWAYS ultimately come down to interpretation and application. There simply are too many possibilities on the scale to expect legislators to spell everything out.

      As for whether this specific incident should qualify as fraud… I don’t know. (And by the way, in the example I brought up, there was no blindfold; he went to a sleeping woman in a dark room, and didn’t wake her enough for her to realize he wasn’t who she thought until after they were into it. Last I heard, the case was going to be retried without the identity issue, because a sleeping person can’t give consent anyway.)

      Mar 7, 2013 at 8:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JAW
      JAW

      I believe that a Trans person should let a partner, bet they just for sex, play, marriage know that they are Trans before they ever get to first base… other wise the trans person is committing fraud. Those trans people that have not had operations should be considered sex offenders.

      If he had mentioned that he was Trans in the beginning, odds are we would not be reading and posting on this thread.

      Mar 7, 2013 at 9:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • lemon-lime
      lemon-lime

      I think this follows the exact same fuzzy line that rape generally has to deal with. It’s as much a question of the subjective experience of the victim as it is any objectively measurable action on the part of the agressor.

      When does a trans person have to disclose? As soon as possible. Certainly before a sexual act occurs.

      I agree that the line is a bit fuzzy, legally, but it’s pretty easy to see in this case the perp lied about his age as well as his trans status in order to get these girls into bed. That’s crossing the line in my mind. She wasn’t capable of informed consent.

      That said, I have no idea how the heck one can “have sex” with someone and not know what their sex is. I guess some people just aren’t as actively involved in their own sexual experiences as others?

      Mar 7, 2013 at 9:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Benji
      Benji

      @JAW: I disagree wholeheartedly. Why does having surgery affect the possibility of being labeled a sex offender? The whole thing about trans is that the external genitalia are not indicative of the person as a whole. Should a trans person disclose before sex? Probably, but they have no legal obligation to do so. Just the same way that gay men have no legal obligation to disclose their sexuality before they marry a woman. The issue here is that the man lied about his age to have sex with an underage person. What you have between your legs, if not discussed, is not be hidden, it’s just there. Should men disclose that they have a micro penis? Should men disclose that they have a curved dick that can’t actually penetrate? Should women disclose that they can’t produce enough lubrication? or that they are virgins? Or that they a hymen even though they aren’t? These are things that should be discussed, but they’re personal, and you can’t legislate the disclosure of something like that. I mean god, it’s not even illegal to not disclose your HIV/hepatitis/herpes status, as long as you’re careful and your intent is not to willingly infect…

      Mar 7, 2013 at 9:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Will L
      Will L

      What he did was wrong. I do not feel that he is obligated to explain himself in the general public. But when we are intimate with someone, it’s different. Especially since he still has a female body. Identifying as male doesn’t make him male in bed. And then there’s the lying about age. Sheesh!

      Mar 7, 2013 at 10:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lee
      Lee

      The part that makes me mad is that he is trans, like it or not he is. he should disclose this information regardless of how he feels. i do and so do many of my friends. i feel obligated to any sexual partner for them to know about my history and what they are getting themselves in for. Its people like him that give guys like us a bad name. why no woman would admit to wanting to date us because twats like him make it hard for them to understand or want to get to know any of us. he deserves a shit load of time and i hope he suffers. no woman ever deserves this treatment regardless of age.. i hope he feels like a shit head for what hes done!

      Mar 7, 2013 at 10:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Merv
      Merv

      Prosecuting this is ridiculous. Not disclosing his trans status makes him a jerk, not a criminal. There’s no reason to get the law involved. I suspect it had more to do with the girls’ age, but even then it’s ridiculous, considering one girl lied, and they weren’t sure of the other girl’s age.

      Mar 7, 2013 at 11:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JAW
      JAW

      @Benji:
      Benji… Sorry that you disagree… but Your ideas are a bit flawed.
      Perhaps there should be a law that a Trans person let their partner know on the first date… Why Not tell that You are Trans? What are You afraid of? The person that you are dating may have the #1 goal, after Love, of having children by/with their partner… So it is not just external organs that are a part of the reason why disclosure MUST happen in the beginning…. Again, WHY Hide??

      Your next point… In today’s society (unless you are Mormon) odds are that you have had sex with your husband/wife before marriage… that makes you a bit Bi… Same has happened with Trans people… that transition AFTER marriage… That makes the trans persons partner (if they choose to stay) Gay or Lesbian… To me that is a bit more of an issue

      As for penis size and vaginal issues… we all know that is not what you have… it is How you use it.

      I also believe that if someone does have medical issues be it an STD to cancer, to performance issues… they should be talked about very early on also.

      Mar 8, 2013 at 8:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • viveutvivas
      viveutvivas

      I can’t believe the level of transphobia in the comments here. Have gay people learned nothing from our own history?

      A transgender man is a man. Disclosure should always be optional – he should not be obligated to disclose, especially not by law. It seems pretty clear that, whatever excuses related to age may be used to dress this up with, there would most likely not have been any case if it were not for the fact that he is transgender. This court finding was clearly discriminatory.

      Mar 8, 2013 at 9:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • miagoodguy
      miagoodguy

      It is fraud plain and simple. The people dating him have the absolute right to know he is transgendered and they have the right to decide if they want to start a relationship with him. What I find worse is he is 25 years old (pretending to be a teenager) and dating teenagers. That is just creepy and gross.

      Mar 8, 2013 at 10:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt
      hyhybt

      @viveutvivas: In almost all areas of life, disclosure should be optional. The two exceptions, though, would be your doctor and anyone you’re going to have sex with, because in both cases, the difference *is* relevant. It’s not fair, but it’s the truth: for the purpose of having sex, the physical body matters.

      Which isn’t necessarily to say it should be a matter of law.

      Mar 8, 2013 at 1:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CaptainFabulous
      CaptainFabulous

      Sorry, but I just don’t agree with the opinion that trans people should have to disclose themselves before having sex with someone. Rubbish. Now perhaps it’s something they should disclose if the relationship goes beyond sex and into something more serious (kinda rough to start a solid relationship and leave that bit out), but otherwise, sorry, it’s none of their business.

      If they’re attracted to you and you’re attracted to them it makes no difference if they’re trans or not, and frankly, none of your business for a purely sexual encounter that doesn’t involve their incorrect genitalia (which of course could get awkward otherwise). Doubly so if the relationship doesn’t even involve sex, like perhaps dating teens, where the relationship is nothing more than hanging out and making out without sex.

      Trans people are entitled to their dignity and privacy just like everyone else.

      Mar 8, 2013 at 1:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt
      hyhybt

      @CaptainFabulous: YOu have to get pretty creative to have sex without involving genitalia…

      Mar 8, 2013 at 1:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CaptainFabulous
      CaptainFabulous

      @hyhybt: Not necessarily. I often get blowjobs from guys who never take their clothes off.

      And I have a fuck buddy who always wears a jockstrap and doesn’t like me touching his junk while I fuck him. It’s not much of a stretch to think one could put a small prosthetic down there and insist on not being touched or needing to jerk off afterwards, and that you’d never know.

      Mar 8, 2013 at 2:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • viveutvivas
      viveutvivas

      @hyhybt, a transgender man IS legally a man (or should be in a civilized country). No law can possibly require a man to HAVE to disclose that he isn’t what he legally is.

      Mar 8, 2013 at 2:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • viveutvivas
      viveutvivas

      To be consistent, this court should now also prosecute soldiers who lost their genitals in the war, or for that matter untreatably impotent men, for, say, eating out a girl without disclosure.

      Mar 8, 2013 at 2:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JAW
      JAW

      @viveutvivas:

      Sorry… you have it wrong… just because someone feels that they have a right to know if the person, they are planning to date, has the plumbing that the born male is looking for wants… that does not make them transphobic. if anyone is phobic… perhaps it is you being NONtransphobic.

      Mar 8, 2013 at 4:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jwrappaport
      jwrappaport

      @CaptainFabulous: None of their business? Sorry, but it becomes my business when one of us is inside the other. I’ll be honest: I prefer being sexually intimate with exclusively cisgendered men. I don’t think that makes me transphobic any more than it makes me a sexist: it’s just my orientation combined with a preference.

      In a sexual encounter, when A makes a representation of a material matter (i.e., one that a reasonable person would consider significant to the agreement) to B, knows that B will or likely will have a different understanding of that matter, and B relies on that misunderstanding, A has committed a moral fraud as far as I’m concerned. I think someone’s gender history is something that many, many reasonable people would consider significant to their agreement to engage in sex with someone.

      As a practical matter, I would argue for disclosure earlier on simply to save everyone’s time and spare everyone what I imagine would be the unbearable awkwardness that could result from confronting this impasse mid coitus. All this being said, I agree that this is absolutely unfit for the blunt instrument of the law and should instead be left for people to deal with as they see fit.

      Mar 8, 2013 at 5:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CaptainFabulous
      CaptainFabulous

      @jwrappaport: No, it doesn’t. Inserting your penis into one of their orifices does not entitle you full knowledge or disclosure of their medical or mental history. Sorry.

      Do you inform all your partners if you’ve ever had hepatitis? Crabs? The clap? A recent cold? Should I woman have to tell a man when the last time she had her period? If she’s had a hysterectomy or is otherwise infertile? What about HPV and if you’ve ever had genital warts?

      A sexual partner’s medical and mental history is non of your damned business unless due to negligence they are putting you at risk for serious illness.

      I would go so far to say that even someone’s HIV status is none of your business so long as they took every precaution to protect you from getting infected.

      Now if a particular relationship goes beyond sex into something more then yes, these issues should be broached. But not for anything less than that.

      Mar 8, 2013 at 5:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • viveutvivas
      viveutvivas

      @JAW, so following your plumbing argument, you would be in favor of taking to court a soldier who lost his d*ck in a landmine explosion because he didn’t disclose that before getting you into bed, right?

      Mar 8, 2013 at 5:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jwrappaport
      jwrappaport

      @CaptainFabulous: Interesting – many jurisdictions in the US require disclosure of HIV status prior to sex. Many jurisdictions also make it a crime to transmit an STD if you knew or should have known you had it.

      In any event, you are jousting with straw men: I am not asking for the disclosure of someone’s entire medical history or the minutiae of their life, but rather only a fact that would make the difference between a yes or no to sex for the vast majority of people. Clearly someone’s being transgendered is something that would give most people sexual pause – indeed I venture a further guess that the vast majority of people would not consent to sex knowing that their partner was transgendered.

      Call me old-fashioned, but I operate on the assumption that my prospective sexual partners are cisgendered males. Moreover, nearly everyone knows that I along with nearly everyone else operates on that assumption. If I found that that were untrue for a particular person, I would not have sex with him. I don’t think this is an unreasonable position nor do I think it’s a bigoted one, but simply an empirical fact for the vast majority of sexually active adults.

      It is precisely because nearly everyone shares this assumption and knows about it that non-disclosure would be morally wrong.

      Mar 8, 2013 at 5:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CaptainFabulous
      CaptainFabulous

      @jwrappaport: I am not a legal expert, but my understanding of these laws us that they pertain to knowingly exposing someone to HIV or an STD without disclosure; meaning sex without any protection. I do not believe you are required in any state to tell all your sexual partners that you are HIV positive; you are simply required by law to take precautions to prevent infection.

      And let’s take your supposition further. Should a guy be forced to disclose his penis size before sex? What if he has micropenis? One testicle? A third nipple? Gynecomastia? Should these be disclosed? Or the color of his pubes if you’re into blondes or gingers? How about if they have a hairy ass if that’s your thing? If you have an aversion to nasty feet should they be required to show you photos beforehand?

      If you believe someone to be a male, and you’re in a sexual situation where their lack of male genitalia is irrelevant to the situation I see absolutely no reason they need to disclose their trans status. Ignorance is bliss, and what you don’t know won’t hurt you.

      Mar 8, 2013 at 6:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JAW
      JAW

      @viveutvivas:

      What a stupid response… odds are that if a soldier lost his Dick in battle… he would have other issues… like perhaps missing his legs etc… so the person that has interest in him is aware of his many issues.

      You can do better then that as a come back

      You are also aware that there are many people (esp non trans men) that think it is hot to be with Trans females that have been taking hormones and have Tits… plus have a dick… makes the guys feel like they are with a woman, plus they can suck a dick, and not be Gay

      Mar 9, 2013 at 12:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • viveutvivas
      viveutvivas

      @JAW, jeez, what an incredibly ignorant transphobic response. Every time you write something down you just make yourself look worse.

      Mar 9, 2013 at 10:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Shannon1981
      Shannon1981

      I think a lot of gay people need to be educated on what it means to be transexxual. The thing is, trans people are the gender with which they identify. End of. I used to think they owed it to me to tell me, but, after educating myself by befriending a few trans people, I learned that their history with regards to that is no more my business (or anyone’s) than how many colds they’ve had. Seriously.

      This sort of persecution simply fuels transphobia, and the idea that they are “fooling” potential partners. They aren’t fooling you. They are presenting themselves as they are. There is nothing more honest than that.

      Mar 9, 2013 at 1:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • marie223
      marie223

      Wanting to know whether someone’s penis is inside you, or whether they’ve put an object inside you and they’re pretending it’s their penis is NOT transphobic jfc. He obviously went out of his way to not be discovered as biologically female – but that is not fair to the girl he had sex with, she had every right to know his sex

      There’s obviously a really big difference between having a non-intimate relationship with someone pretending to be a biological man (which is perhaps not very ethical but not completely wrong) but having sex with someone and making them think you’re using your penis when you’re using something else is wrong. He straight up took advantage of that girl.

      Mar 11, 2013 at 1:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.