Is this dub-con?

[THBGato]

Hi

I'd like advice please over whether a situation counts as dubious consent (if it is I'd like to put a warning at the top, so readers who don't like that kind of thing are forewarned).

Situation: I have a biologically female non-binary main character who presents as very masculine. They are being hit on by a girl who clearly thinks the MC is male. The MC repeatedly tries to tell her that they aren't male, but there's a language barrier and the message doesn't get through - in fact she thinks the MC is joking and objecting to being called a 'boy' as opposed to a 'man'. The female character kisses the MC; they then try to explain again that they aren't male. They try to get a friend who does speak the language to explain it to her. They think she's understood. However, after the MC has gone down on the girl, it becomes clear that the girl is still under the illusion that the MC is biologically male.

(It will eventually turn out that the girl is a closet lesbian and that the MC's gaydar is faulty, but that won't be made clear until chapter 2.)

Your thoughts please.

Thanks!

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I have a biologically female non-binary main character who presents as very masculine.

My brain almost exploded while processing that

And no, that doesn't truly seem like dubcon to me. Everything is consensual and there were clear attempts to communicate things. There is no intentional deceit here, and misunderstanding, no matter how bad, can't be dubcon in my view.

 

[NoTalentHack]

My brain almost exploded while processing that

And no, that doesn't truly seem like dubcon to me. Everything is consensual and there were clear attempts to communicate things. There is no intentional deceit here, and misunderstanding, no matter how bad, can't be dubcon in my view.

This is my take, too. Failure to communicate isn't deceit or coercion, with the hefty proviso that the person who consented without understanding the facts of the matter may FEEL that they've been violated. Put another way, "I thought you had it!" doesn't help the person who's just gotten their foot broken by a cinderblock.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Sounds fine to me. It doesn't sound like anyone in that scenario doesn't want whatever they're getting.

 

[AchtungNight]

Have your trans protagonist clearly ask the FMC if they can go down on her and get consent. Then when she moves to return the favor and finds no penis... maybe she understood the main character was also female but did not want to accept or believe it. Then she shrugs it off and licks away, revealing she is a closet lesbian. The main character relaxes and they achieve a positive relationship. That would make things work for me. Good luck.

 

[Cagivagurl]

It may not be dubious consent... However, they know the female character is still somewhat confused and your non binary character is using, not not right word.
Is allowing things to progress knowing there is still confusion....
Consent would be when the female, fully understands the situation... They could show the female, and that would put it beyond confused. They could expose their genitalia, and all would be clear.
I believe, they are pushing ahead knowing full well the female doesn't fully comprehend....
So perhaps a warning tag or explanation might be good.
For me, I believe consent has to exist between parties. That consent comes first, not later... They should understand that (Non binary person) They would have had to deal with many such situations throughout their journey...
That is solely my opinion. I speak for nobody but myself, and I am no expert.

Cagivagurl

 

[TheLobster]

My brain almost exploded while processing that

Seems to be precisely the point of OP's premise. If the other character doesn't speak English very well, it is no surprise she may have problems grasping the very concept of "non-binary." Heck, I freely admit that I had to translate this blurb to "MC is a butch lesbian" because it was difficult to make heads and tails of it otherwise. I'm still unconvinced that the whole concept isn't primarily a linguistic phenomenon, stemming from the fact that there is no grammatical gender in English.

Anyway, the whole situation seems pretty messy. One thing that wasn't explained clearly here is what the FMC actually thinks about MC. OP says she's "under the illusion" that MC is male but she also mentions the girl is a closet lesbian. How does the FMC square her homosexuality with the attraction she feels towards the MC, whom she believes to a man? To me, this detail is the key to determine whether the whole thing is consensual on the part of FMC. (The MC, I assume, does not have such problems, since OP mentioned they go down on her).

 

[AchtungNight]

Maybe make the FMC closet bisexual, not lesbian? That would clearly establish her attraction to both genders. It’s acceptable with many readers here too.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'd like advice please over whether a situation counts as dubious consent (if it is I'd like to put a warning at the top, so readers who don't like that kind of thing are forewarned).

Situation: I have a biologically female non-binary main character who presents as very masculine. They are being hit on by a girl who clearly thinks the MC is male. The MC repeatedly tries to tell her that they aren't male, but there's a language barrier and the message doesn't get through - in fact she thinks the MC is joking and objecting to being called a 'boy' as opposed to a 'man'. The female character kisses the MC; they then try to explain again that they aren't male. They try to get a friend who does speak the language to explain it to her. They think she's understood. However, after the MC has gone down on the girl, it becomes clear that the girl is still under the illusion that the MC is biologically male.

(It will eventually turn out that the girl is a closet lesbian and that the MC's gaydar is faulty, but that won't be made clear until chapter 2.)

Your thoughts please.

I can see why you're asking. They're both consenting, but it's not fully informed consent - or not as far as Chapter 1 gives readers to believe. So the status of consent could be considered dubious.

However, I think "dubious consent" has become one of those terms of art whose meaning isn't simply the sum of its parts. As generally used, it usually indicates intentionally pushing the limits of consent, not a good-faith misunderstanding as here. Plenty of rom-coms involve some kind of comic misunderstanding and those are not usually categorised as dubcon, even if we might fairly say that the status of consent is dubious. My initial inclination would be not to tag as dubcon as this seems likely to confuse readers.

One question, though - how does the MC respond when they realise the girl still takes them to be male? Letting things continue when they know the other person is misinformed takes it closer to dubcon territory.

Seems to be precisely the point of OP's premise. If the other character doesn't speak English very well, it is no surprise she may have problems grasping the very concept of "non-binary."

Not following that. She might not be familiar with the term "non-binary", but the concept of non-binary identities isn't particularly an Anglosphere thing.

Heck, I freely admit that I had to translate this blurb to "MC is a butch lesbian" because it was difficult to make heads and tails of it otherwise.

(Nothing in the OP indicated that the MC is exclusively attracted to women. "Masc presentation + ladyparts" != lesbian.)

I'm still unconvinced that the whole concept isn't primarily a linguistic phenomenon, stemming from the fact that there is no grammatical gender in English.

There are plenty of non-Anglophone cultures which had non-binary concepts of gender long before they came into contact with the English language.

 

[Cagivagurl]

I guess...
It's how you define consent....
In this case, it's more about whether they did everything they could to make the female character fully aware of what was about to happen, and her identity...
At least in my opinion.

Cagivagurl

 

[ericalauren]

Just FYI- the phrasing of "biologically female non-binary" is not accurate and I'm sure not appreciated by myself and other nonbinary people. You are probably trying to say that the nonbinary character is AFAB, or assigned female at birth. As to whether this scenario is "dub-con"? First, I loathe the term "dub-con". Sex is either consensual or it is rape. But nothing in this scenario makes it seem like either character is being deceitful, etc.

 

[Britva415]

Is this dub-con?

Do you want it to be?

 

[THBGato]

Do you want it to be?

No. Consent is very important to me. (Holly Bourne's excellent novel Girl Friends had me bawling me eyes out, and consent is a big theme of my story Eve & Lucy.) But if it is dub-con, then I'd own that and warn readers.

Plenty of rom-coms involve some kind of comic misunderstanding and those are not usually categorised as dubcon, even if we might fairly say that the status of consent is dubious. My initial inclination would be not to tag as dubcon as this seems likely to confuse readers.

This was my instinct, but wanted to check. I'll see what my editor says too.

One question, though - how does the MC respond when they realise the girl still takes them to be male? Letting things continue when they know the other person is misinformed takes it closer to dubcon territory.

No, they don't let things continue and they feel massive guilt about what has happened.

Just FYI- the phrasing of "biologically female non-binary" is not accurate and I'm sure not appreciated by myself and other nonbinary people. You are probably trying to say that the nonbinary character is AFAB, or assigned female at birth.

My sincere apologies. Thanks for the guidance on a better term to use. Though I think even non-binary is a label of convenience for the character - a short-hand for their friends, because explaining how they really feel about themselves is too complex.

I don't suppose you'd be up for beta-reading and advising on the best language to use to refer to the character?


Thanks everyone for your replies and responses.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Just FYI- the phrasing of "biologically female non-binary" is not accurate and I'm sure not appreciated by myself and other nonbinary people. You are probably trying to say that the nonbinary character is AFAB, or assigned female at birth.

It's almost impossible to just ask a question on these kind of topics without driving in to a landmine, and I fully appreciate the phrase 'genuinely curious' does nothing to help, but...

How is biologically = female, gender = non-binary not considered accurate? My understanding is that AFAB can apply to the gender a child is raised as or for intersex individuals where a mistake or forced assignment was given.

 

[Britva415]

It's almost impossible to just ask a question on these kind of topics without driving in to a landmine, and I fully appreciate the phrase 'genuinely curious' does nothing to help, but...

How is biologically = female, gender = non-binary not considered accurate? My understanding is that AFAB can apply to the gender a child is raised as or for intersex individuals where a mistake or forced assignment was given.

It’s not considered accurate, or polite, because there is just no good reason to bring up their chromosomes, their genitals or their birth assignment. It ignores that the person doesn’t want to be identified with their birth assignment, and it rejects their preference as invalid.

It’s considered very rude to refer to someone’s physical presentation, especially genital-wise, when one already knows what gender identity the person has. Calling someone both nonbinary and biologically female in one breath is just erasing their gender by prioritizing one’s own idea about their sex.

Do you know what a deadname is? Calling someone “nonbinary slash born female” is like calling a transwoman “going by Molly lately but he used to be Mark.” There is no good reason for it.

I hope I’m not coming across as preachy, I take your question in good faith and hope this helps.

“My understanding is that AFAB can apply to the gender a child is raised as”

The nonbinary person they were talking about almost certainly was assigned something other than nonbinary at birth and raised as something other than nonbinary. When there actually is a good reason to discuss a trans or NB person’s pre-transition gender and chromosomal or anatomical information, “assigned * at birth” is considered a neutral and maybe even sensitive way to discuss it, rather than calling them “biologically *.”

There’s almost never a good reason to discuss an actual person’s birth assignment unless they bring it up theirself for some reason. In this case, it’s a character we were talking about, not a real person to their face, but it’s still insensitive to the non-cisgendered people who are part of the conversation to have to continue to endure people erasing genders and prioritizing an outdated sex assignment. It’s happening in front of them even if it’s not aimed at them personally.

 

[THBGato]

It’s considered very rude to refer to someone’s physical presentation, especially genital-wise, when one already knows what gender identity the person has. Calling someone both nonbinary and biologically female in one breath is just erasing their gender by prioritizing one’s own idea about their sex.

Thanks.

So how could I get around this in the story? The character is called Leila. That's their birthname and they haven't changed it: all their friends call them Leila. They were AFAB. Their preference is for female sexual partners. They call themselves non-binary, and use "they/them", because they hate the judgement, prejudice and expectations (behaviour, appearance, social roles) that come with being identified as female.

But when the female character starts hitting on them, they are very much aware that the woman thinks they have a penis when actually they have a vagina. Is it offensive to discuss their genitalia? To have them think about these things in their internal monologue?

 

[Yarglenurp]

I’d judge the answer by the standards of the site, and not the standards of the world as a whole. Seeing what’s considered dub con here, I’m not really sensing enough to make such. It technically is, but… not enough, if that makes sense.

 

[Britva415]

Thanks.

So how could I get around this in the story? The character is called Leila. That's their birthname and they haven't changed it: all their friends call them Leila. They were AFAB. Their preference is for female sexual partners. They call themselves non-binary, and use "they/them", because they hate the judgement, prejudice and expectations (behaviour, appearance, social roles) that come with being identified as female.

But when the female character starts hitting on them, they are very much aware that the woman thinks they have a penis when actually they have a vagina. Is it offensive to discuss their genitalia? To have them think about these things in their internal monologue?

It’s explicit erotica. If they have a vagina, theres no need to pretend they don’t. But there’s no reason to attach that to a “former female assignment.” What you could do is not identify them as anything at all other than NB, and just describe them like a NB person, They aren’t all the same. What is this one, Laila, like?

When the clothes come off, you don’t have to hide their anatomy behind a fade-to-black. But you don’t ever have to call them “female” or “formerly female” at any point in the story.

 

[Britva415]

have them think about these things in their internal monologue?

I think this also would be fine. As long as it’s realistic and doesn’t sound like how uninformed people think. I get that you have ideas about the psychology of this character rebelling against the female gender role and expectations. I don’t see anything wrong with revealing those attitudes.

 

[Bramblethorn]

It's almost impossible to just ask a question on these kind of topics without driving in to a landmine, and I fully appreciate the phrase 'genuinely curious' does nothing to help, but...

How is biologically = female, gender = non-binary not considered accurate? My understanding is that AFAB can apply to the gender a child is raised as or for intersex individuals where a mistake or forced assignment was given.

The issue with "biologically female" is that it's mostly used as a fancy way to say "born with a vagina and not a penis", and it carries an implication that this is the be-all and end-all of the biological aspect of sex: anybody who is BWAV will also have XX chromosomes and not XY, ovaries and not testes, will be unable to grow a beard, will have testosterone levels lower than 5 nmol/L, etc. etc. These things do correlate with being born with a vagina, but it's not a 100% correlation. It also tends to be treated as something immutable: somebody who's born "biologically female" will always remain so, no matter how much their body changes.

That biological simplification and assumption of immutability can have some really sucky consequences for people who don't fit the norm.

For instance, hormones have major effects on the body. From a medical perspective, a transgender woman who's had her testosterone levels suppressed for a decade isn't simply a man in a frock; when looking at considerations like, say, osteoporosis risk, she has more in common with the average cisgender woman than with the average cis man. Writing her off as "biologically male" is likely to result in poor-quality medical treatment.

If people want to make "born with a penis"/"not born with a penis" the way in which they categorise other human beings, they can do that, but it'd be better to do that without terminology that over-simplifies the bioloigcal aspects.

 

[TheLobster]

It’s explicit erotica. If they have a vagina, theres no need to pretend they don’t. But there’s no reason to attach that to a “former female assignment.” What you could do is not identify them as anything at all other than NB, and just describe them like a NB person, They aren’t all the same. What is this one, Laila, like?

When the clothes come off, you don’t have to hide their anatomy behind a fade-to-black. But you don’t ever have to call them “female” or “formerly female” at any point in the story.

It boggles the mind that you can apparently brandish a literal female sex in an erotic situation, and it would somehow be inappropriate for you to be called female. It's beyond me how can this be treated as anything other than being intentionally confusing (possibly with malicious intent, since there are clearly social consequences for getting this "wrong").

 

[ericalauren]

It boggles the mind that you can apparently brandish a literal female sex in an erotic situation, and it would somehow be inappropriate for you to be called female. It's beyond me how can this be treated as anything other than being intentionally confusing (possibly with malicious intent, since there are clearly social consequences for getting this "wrong").

If someone is talking about nonbinary people, there are very few situations in which bringing up whether they are AFAB or AMAB is appropriate. Authors can simply say something like, “their partner licked their vulva” instead of bringing up their AGAB.

 

[Bramblethorn]

It boggles the mind that you can apparently brandish a literal female sex in an erotic situation, and it would somehow be inappropriate for you to be called female.

"Female" is a biological term, with a bunch of different definitions that overlap with one another most of the time but not all the time. It's also a social term, with a bunch more definitions that don't align perfectly with one another or with the biological definitions, which is how we're quite often able to refer to somebody as "male" or "female" without ever having even seen their genitals.

Sex is a biological situation but it's also a social situation, and people who insist on treating it solely as the former are unlikely to be invited back.

I could call a dress a "literal female garment", and Sue a "literal female name", and there are senses in which both those things would be true. But there are also situations in which it'd be a bad idea to label somebody as "female" merely because they were wearing a dress, or because they happened to be named "Sue".

Even without those complexities, even if it were as simple as "a vulva is literally a female sex", it doesn't follow that it's automatically appropriate to use that as a basis for addressing people. I don't go around introducing my co-workers as "Wartface, Bignose, and The Blonde" even though they very clearly have those features, because people often don't like being defined by bodily features that they didn't get a say in.

It's beyond me how can this be treated as anything other than being intentionally confusing (possibly with malicious intent, since there are clearly social consequences for getting this "wrong").

Ah yes, those super-powerful nonbinary people who run the world. What better way to entirely destroy somebody and ensure that they're never heard from again, than to set nefarious Gender Traps for them?

Rumour has it that's what happened to Jimmy Hoffa and the crew of the Marie Celeste.

 

[TheRedChamber]

I hope I’m not coming across as preachy, I take your question in good faith and hope this helps.

No, thanks for taking the time to answer.

Let me be clear. I'm a bisexual cisman who has slept with cismen and women both cis and trans. I fully support the right of every individual to live the life that they feel is right for them. On more than one occasion, I've started a sexual encounter with someone not knowing what type of genitals they had because, well frankly, I was perfectly fine either way.

But, and I appreciate somewhat annoyingly, I'm also someone who is a bit of a stickler for language. So when Bramblethorn says.

"Female" is a biological term, with a bunch of different definitions that overlap with one another most of the time but not all the time. It's also a social term, with a bunch more definitions that don't align perfectly with one another or with the biological definitions.

My gut feeling is to say it's time to get two separate terms. The issue is that there's currently a linguistic war where each side wants the same word to apply to a completely different concepts. I'd be much more comfortable if everyone was nice to each other and we could have nice clear words that no-one misuses. But given that there is a war I understand people arming themselves approriately.

So, I agree, using the biological one where the social one would be appropriate would then be incredibly rude. A lot of the answer on this thread have focused on what words its polite to use. You can't really argue with that - if a community or even an individual decides something is rude then its rude. Perhaps I was being a bit pedantic, but I still don't think you can say (a) biological(ly) female is inaccurate and I don;t think anyone has convincingly argued that the phrase is inaccurate, even acknowledging Bramblethorns point that there are a few different defintions. These defintions do line up for a lot of people and LBGato, as author, is in a position to say that their characters is biologically female. They have quickly said they're willing to change their terminology, so I don't need to argue this further.

 

[Britva415]

It boggles the mind that you can apparently brandish a literal female sex in an erotic situation, and it would somehow be inappropriate for you to be called female. It's beyond me how can this be treated as anything other than being intentionally confusing (possibly with malicious intent, since there are clearly social consequences for getting this "wrong").

Sex and gender aren’t the same, and a person isn’t their genitals. Calling a person with a vagina a female person when they aren’t a female-gendered person is a problem.

And nobody’s saying that vagina havers can’t in general be called female. The problem is doing that to someone who one already knows doesn’t identify as female.