FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Sussex Police Gendering uproar
Sussex Police Gendering uproar
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Essex Dan?"  | |||
"Man at the time, male offence. If they did it again, would be a female offence." What about Karen White. A highly manipulating sexual predator and convicted offender jailed as a man. Dressed as a women and transferred to a female prison. Went on to violate 2 women in a women's prison. Right here in the UK. Is that a male or female offence? | |||
| |||
"Essex Dan? "Tom I know you love this thread. | |||
"Man at the time, male offence. If they did it again, would be a female offence. What about Karen White. A highly manipulating sexual predator and convicted offender jailed as a man. Dressed as a women and transferred to a female prison. Went on to violate 2 women in a women's prison. Right here in the UK. Is that a male or female offence? " That’s a Karen offence Different category | |||
| |||
| |||
"Man at the time, male offence. If they did it again, would be a female offence. What about Karen White. A highly manipulating sexual predator and convicted offender jailed as a man. Dressed as a women and transferred to a female prison. Went on to violate 2 women in a women's prison. Right here in the UK. Is that a male or female offence? That’s a Karen offence Different category " Oops silly me forgot about that one. Most embarrassing. Sorry.  | |||
| |||
"There’s a bit of a Twitter storm going on over on that Social Media site after a tweet issued by Surrey Police in response to feedback on a conviction in their area. On their website they have a report headlined “Woman convicted of historic offences against children in Sussex”. The report details at the time of the offence the offender was a man, and transitioned to a woman after the offences took place. Many people have reacted to the report concerned that this will be recorded as a female sex offence, rather than a male. In response to one tweet, where a Twitter user said that this was a man, not a woman, doing the offences the Police tweeted back: “Hi, Sussex Police do not tolerate any hateful comments towards their gender identity regardless of crimes committed. This is irrelevant to the crime that has been committed and investigated. Sussex Police” This has caused a huge debate, right up to Government level. This is a political hot potato, Fabsters, so I don’t really know the rights of wrongs of this but is it right to call this a female offender / offence? What do you think? "And they want unisex toilets ? | |||
"Man at the time, male offence. If they did it again, would be a female offence." Man full stop, always going to be a man whatever game of pretend the Police or bleeding hearts want to play. Identifying just means pretending but in a different word. You cannot change biology no matter how much you want to or others pretend with you. | |||
"Women can and do commit sex offences. There was a terrible case of a woman who worked in a nursery who abused children. And of course, we've all heard of Myra Hindley, Rose West etc. The gender doesn't really matter. A human being has committed horrendous crimes and they have been convicted of this. Glad they've been convicted and hope they receive a suitably long sentence. " But gender does matter when it comes to crime, that’s why we have specific things in place to tackle things like VAGW. I think | |||
"There’s a bit of a Twitter storm going on over on that Social Media site after a tweet issued by Surrey Police in response to feedback on a conviction in their area. On their website they have a report headlined “Woman convicted of historic offences against children in Sussex”. The report details at the time of the offence the offender was a man, and transitioned to a woman after the offences took place. Many people have reacted to the report concerned that this will be recorded as a female sex offence, rather than a male. In response to one tweet, where a Twitter user said that this was a man, not a woman, doing the offences the Police tweeted back: “Hi, Sussex Police do not tolerate any hateful comments towards their gender identity regardless of crimes committed. This is irrelevant to the crime that has been committed and investigated. Sussex Police” This has caused a huge debate, right up to Government level. This is a political hot potato, Fabsters, so I don’t really know the rights of wrongs of this but is it right to call this a female offender / offence? What do you think?
And they want unisex toilets ?
"Who are you referring to, trans people or abusers? | |||
| |||
"Women can and do commit sex offences. There was a terrible case of a woman who worked in a nursery who abused children. And of course, we've all heard of Myra Hindley, Rose West etc. The gender doesn't really matter. A human being has committed horrendous crimes and they have been convicted of this. Glad they've been convicted and hope they receive a suitably long sentence. But gender does matter when it comes to crime, that’s why we have specific things in place to tackle things like VAGW. I think " The case was being reported "after the fact", so I wonder how relevant the specific gender of the perpetrator is? In terms of managing them as an offender, yes, the gender might be relevant, but that's an issue for the prison and probation service. | |||
| |||
"Man at the time, male offence. If they did it again, would be a female offence. Man full stop, always going to be a man whatever game of pretend the Police or bleeding hearts want to play. Identifying just means pretending but in a different word. You cannot change biology no matter how much you want to or others pretend with you." Unfortunately not all is that black and white these days. So regardless of your opinion. We all have to accept that is not the way these days. We all have to move on and see each other as humans and respect others choices. If someone wants to choose their own identity we should show humanity and respect their choices and address them as such. It does not effect your life in any way shape or form so why wouldn't you. You have no idea how it effects thier life. So let's all show some empathy and treat others as we wish to be treated. | |||
"I think a few of the commentators are more concerned with the gender of the perp than they are the victim or anything else. The real story is there has been a conviction. " Only sensible response in this whole thread, well said Tina  | |||
"Women can and do commit sex offences. There was a terrible case of a woman who worked in a nursery who abused children. And of course, we've all heard of Myra Hindley, Rose West etc. The gender doesn't really matter. A human being has committed horrendous crimes and they have been convicted of this. Glad they've been convicted and hope they receive a suitably long sentence. But gender does matter when it comes to crime, that’s why we have specific things in place to tackle things like VAGW. I think The case was being reported "after the fact", so I wonder how relevant the specific gender of the perpetrator is? In terms of managing them as an offender, yes, the gender might be relevant, but that's an issue for the prison and probation service. " Ah ok makes sense Thankyou | |||
| |||
"I don’t have an opinion on this because I don’t care about the misgendering of a sex offender but wouldn’t this be like saying Caitlyn Jenner won gold at the olympics? Caitlyn says Bruce won the medals so this should be the same." Caitlyn can only speak for herself on that subject, not every trans person will have the same opinion as her. | |||
"I think a few of the commentators are more concerned with the gender of the perp than they are the victim or anything else. The real story is there has been a conviction. " You’re spitting here  | |||
| |||
"DCM82 You are wrong, we don't have to accept it & I don't so saying all of that is worthless to people that don't agree. I have stated facts but as I said people & it would seem you too want to accept pretence." And you saying this is worthless to people who do agree, so what's your point | |||
| |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. " My understanding is that male prisoners in any general population men's prison aren't very tolerant of sex offenders either...... | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. " I think this is just a little pop at the idea that all trans women are women idea. Some take it to the extreme that just saying your a woman means you are And I guess this is their way of popping back at that idea. As Tina said above, seems low to use such a shitty situation to take a political shot at the trans movement | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. " Section seven of the equality act disagrees: “A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.” | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. My understanding is that male prisoners in any general population men's prison aren't very tolerant of sex offenders either......" Yeah agreed, but he’s in a womens prison. | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. I think this is just a little pop at the idea that all trans women are women idea. Some take it to the extreme that just saying your a woman means you are And I guess this is their way of popping back at that idea. As Tina said above, seems low to use such a shitty situation to take a political shot at the trans movement " I’m not sure anyone is taking a pop at the trans movement, I’m more concerned that a convicted male sex offender is now in a women’s prison. If that safe for anyone concerned? | |||
"DCM82 You are wrong, we don't have to accept it & I don't so saying all of that is worthless to people that don't agree. I have stated facts but as I said people & it would seem you too want to accept pretence." When it comes to brass tacs we do probably agree on XYnZ argument. But that doesn't mean that i can't show, humanity, respect or empathy for how others choose to live their lives when in reality it has absolutely no effect whatsoever on how I live my life. If your name is Brian but want to be called Bri'do. Who am I to not respect your decision and insist on calling you Brian? It's not any different really in layman's terms. Makes no difference what people want to be addressed as whatsoever. | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. Section seven of the equality act disagrees: “A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.”" Yeah, support fully, but this person (reportedly) hasn’t done any of this. No documentation completed regarding gender. | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. I think this is just a little pop at the idea that all trans women are women idea. Some take it to the extreme that just saying your a woman means you are And I guess this is their way of popping back at that idea. As Tina said above, seems low to use such a shitty situation to take a political shot at the trans movement I’m not sure anyone is taking a pop at the trans movement, I’m more concerned that a convicted male sex offender is now in a women’s prison. If that safe for anyone concerned? " Are you reading the same thread I am? There's several comments having a pop about trans people there always is when threads like this are posted | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. I think this is just a little pop at the idea that all trans women are women idea. Some take it to the extreme that just saying your a woman means you are And I guess this is their way of popping back at that idea. As Tina said above, seems low to use such a shitty situation to take a political shot at the trans movement I’m not sure anyone is taking a pop at the trans movement, I’m more concerned that a convicted male sex offender is now in a women’s prison. If that safe for anyone concerned? " You are. By referring to them as “male” and “he”. Do you normally respect trans people’s gender? Their name? If so, where do you draw the line on whose rights you’ll respect? If you resort to stripping rights and ad hominem attacks… it says more about you. | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. I think this is just a little pop at the idea that all trans women are women idea. Some take it to the extreme that just saying your a woman means you are And I guess this is their way of popping back at that idea. As Tina said above, seems low to use such a shitty situation to take a political shot at the trans movement I’m not sure anyone is taking a pop at the trans movement, I’m more concerned that a convicted male sex offender is now in a women’s prison. If that safe for anyone concerned? You are. By referring to them as “male” and “he”. Do you normally respect trans people’s gender? Their name? If so, where do you draw the line on whose rights you’ll respect? If you resort to stripping rights and ad hominem attacks… it says more about you. " I don’t regard this person as a trans woman. In my humble opinion this person is a man. Just this person. Not all trans people, not every enby, not anyone who is considering transition. Just this one is the one I am talking about. It’s my thoughts and feelings. | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. I think this is just a little pop at the idea that all trans women are women idea. Some take it to the extreme that just saying your a woman means you are And I guess this is their way of popping back at that idea. As Tina said above, seems low to use such a shitty situation to take a political shot at the trans movement I’m not sure anyone is taking a pop at the trans movement, I’m more concerned that a convicted male sex offender is now in a women’s prison. If that safe for anyone concerned? " I think the point I’m trying to make (I think) Is that some people would support a violent nan going into a woman’s prison by falsely claiming he’s a woman, purely because it would support their idea that “all trans women aren’t women” I dunno how to word what I’m saying It’s like one said is saying “all trans women are women” And the other side is saying “Ok then let’s push for any violent offender to claim trans and get into a female prison, that’ll prove our point!” All while completely ignoring the victims I think I’m gonna shut up now. Sorry | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. Section seven of the equality act disagrees: “A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.” Yeah, support fully, but this person (reportedly) hasn’t done any of this. No documentation completed regarding gender. " Serious question, how do you document this? If someone feels they should be a different gender (genuinely), it is my understanding they are asked to live as/present as their preferred gender for a fairly long period, before starting any more formal transition. If I am wrong, please do someone correct me. How would this pre-formal transition be documented? | |||
| |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. I think this is just a little pop at the idea that all trans women are women idea. Some take it to the extreme that just saying your a woman means you are And I guess this is their way of popping back at that idea. As Tina said above, seems low to use such a shitty situation to take a political shot at the trans movement I’m not sure anyone is taking a pop at the trans movement, I’m more concerned that a convicted male sex offender is now in a women’s prison. If that safe for anyone concerned? Are you reading the same thread I am? There's several comments having a pop about trans people there always is when threads like this are posted"I was kinda referring to my own comments in the “royal we” sense. I meant anyone meaning me. I can only speak for myself  | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. Section seven of the equality act disagrees: “A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.” Yeah, support fully, but this person (reportedly) hasn’t done any of this. No documentation completed regarding gender. Serious question, how do you document this? If someone feels they should be a different gender (genuinely), it is my understanding they are asked to live as/present as their preferred gender for a fairly long period, before starting any more formal transition. If I am wrong, please do someone correct me. How would this pre-formal transition be documented? " I’ll have to look up the name of the document but you can complete some paperwork at a relatively low cost which supports your legitimacy for your thoughts and feelings and intentions for gender transition. This then allows legal ID to be updated (eg passport). It’s all changed quite recently and can cause problems for same sex search requirements ( eg at an airport) if the documentation has not been completed. In my job we go by what sex is identified on the passport for same sex searches. Hope this helps, I’ll try to find the name of the document. | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. Section seven of the equality act disagrees: “A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.” Yeah, support fully, but this person (reportedly) hasn’t done any of this. No documentation completed regarding gender. Serious question, how do you document this? If someone feels they should be a different gender (genuinely), it is my understanding they are asked to live as/present as their preferred gender for a fairly long period, before starting any more formal transition. If I am wrong, please do someone correct me. How would this pre-formal transition be documented? I’ll have to look up the name of the document but you can complete some paperwork at a relatively low cost which supports your legitimacy for your thoughts and feelings and intentions for gender transition. This then allows legal ID to be updated (eg passport). It’s all changed quite recently and can cause problems for same sex search requirements ( eg at an airport) if the documentation has not been completed. In my job we go by what sex is identified on the passport for same sex searches. Hope this helps, I’ll try to find the name of the document. " Thank you. | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. Section seven of the equality act disagrees: “A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.” Yeah, support fully, but this person (reportedly) hasn’t done any of this. No documentation completed regarding gender. Serious question, how do you document this? If someone feels they should be a different gender (genuinely), it is my understanding they are asked to live as/present as their preferred gender for a fairly long period, before starting any more formal transition. If I am wrong, please do someone correct me. How would this pre-formal transition be documented? I’ll have to look up the name of the document but you can complete some paperwork at a relatively low cost which supports your legitimacy for your thoughts and feelings and intentions for gender transition. This then allows legal ID to be updated (eg passport). It’s all changed quite recently and can cause problems for same sex search requirements ( eg at an airport) if the documentation has not been completed. In my job we go by what sex is identified on the passport for same sex searches. Hope this helps, I’ll try to find the name of the document. " You mean a Gender Recognition Certificate? | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. I think this is just a little pop at the idea that all trans women are women idea. Some take it to the extreme that just saying your a woman means you are And I guess this is their way of popping back at that idea. As Tina said above, seems low to use such a shitty situation to take a political shot at the trans movement I’m not sure anyone is taking a pop at the trans movement, I’m more concerned that a convicted male sex offender is now in a women’s prison. If that safe for anyone concerned? I think the point I’m trying to make (I think) Is that some people would support a violent nan going into a woman’s prison by falsely claiming he’s a woman, purely because it would support their idea that “all trans women aren’t women” I dunno how to word what I’m saying It’s like one said is saying “all trans women are women” And the other side is saying “Ok then let’s push for any violent offender to claim trans and get into a female prison, that’ll prove our point!” All while completely ignoring the victims I think I’m gonna shut up now. Sorry " One of the points in the article I read was that if a male assaults a female with penis penetration it is and can be classed as r@pe. Our current legal system doesn’t allow for a woman to be charged with r@pe because she doesn’t have a penis, therefore this person has been charged with sexual assault although they used their penis as part of the attacks. I am definitely thinking a lot about the victims and how they will feel knowing the crimes against them have been miss recorded thanks to the UK legal system supporting self id. | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. I think this is just a little pop at the idea that all trans women are women idea. Some take it to the extreme that just saying your a woman means you are And I guess this is their way of popping back at that idea. As Tina said above, seems low to use such a shitty situation to take a political shot at the trans movement I’m not sure anyone is taking a pop at the trans movement, I’m more concerned that a convicted male sex offender is now in a women’s prison. If that safe for anyone concerned? I think the point I’m trying to make (I think) Is that some people would support a violent nan going into a woman’s prison by falsely claiming he’s a woman, purely because it would support their idea that “all trans women aren’t women” I dunno how to word what I’m saying It’s like one said is saying “all trans women are women” And the other side is saying “Ok then let’s push for any violent offender to claim trans and get into a female prison, that’ll prove our point!” All while completely ignoring the victims I think I’m gonna shut up now. Sorry One of the points in the article I read was that if a male assaults a female with penis penetration it is and can be classed as r@pe. Our current legal system doesn’t allow for a woman to be charged with r@pe because she doesn’t have a penis, therefore this person has been charged with sexual assault although they used their penis as part of the attacks. I am definitely thinking a lot about the victims and how they will feel knowing the crimes against them have been miss recorded thanks to the UK legal system supporting self id. " The UK legal system doesn't support self ID. Plans for that were scrapped. | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. I think this is just a little pop at the idea that all trans women are women idea. Some take it to the extreme that just saying your a woman means you are And I guess this is their way of popping back at that idea. As Tina said above, seems low to use such a shitty situation to take a political shot at the trans movement I’m not sure anyone is taking a pop at the trans movement, I’m more concerned that a convicted male sex offender is now in a women’s prison. If that safe for anyone concerned? I think the point I’m trying to make (I think) Is that some people would support a violent nan going into a woman’s prison by falsely claiming he’s a woman, purely because it would support their idea that “all trans women aren’t women” I dunno how to word what I’m saying It’s like one said is saying “all trans women are women” And the other side is saying “Ok then let’s push for any violent offender to claim trans and get into a female prison, that’ll prove our point!” All while completely ignoring the victims I think I’m gonna shut up now. Sorry One of the points in the article I read was that if a male assaults a female with penis penetration it is and can be classed as r@pe. Our current legal system doesn’t allow for a woman to be charged with r@pe because she doesn’t have a penis, therefore this person has been charged with sexual assault although they used their penis as part of the attacks. I am definitely thinking a lot about the victims and how they will feel knowing the crimes against them have been miss recorded thanks to the UK legal system supporting self id. " I’m more concerned that women in the UK can’t get in trouble for rping someone | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. I think this is just a little pop at the idea that all trans women are women idea. Some take it to the extreme that just saying your a woman means you are And I guess this is their way of popping back at that idea. As Tina said above, seems low to use such a shitty situation to take a political shot at the trans movement I’m not sure anyone is taking a pop at the trans movement, I’m more concerned that a convicted male sex offender is now in a women’s prison. If that safe for anyone concerned? I think the point I’m trying to make (I think) Is that some people would support a violent nan going into a woman’s prison by falsely claiming he’s a woman, purely because it would support their idea that “all trans women aren’t women” I dunno how to word what I’m saying It’s like one said is saying “all trans women are women” And the other side is saying “Ok then let’s push for any violent offender to claim trans and get into a female prison, that’ll prove our point!” All while completely ignoring the victims I think I’m gonna shut up now. Sorry One of the points in the article I read was that if a male assaults a female with penis penetration it is and can be classed as r@pe. Our current legal system doesn’t allow for a woman to be charged with r@pe because she doesn’t have a penis, therefore this person has been charged with sexual assault although they used their penis as part of the attacks. I am definitely thinking a lot about the victims and how they will feel knowing the crimes against them have been miss recorded thanks to the UK legal system supporting self id. I’m more concerned that women in the UK can’t get in trouble for rping someone " R@pe is (in law) defined as penetration with a penis, I believe. I really don't want to Google it..... | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. I think this is just a little pop at the idea that all trans women are women idea. Some take it to the extreme that just saying your a woman means you are And I guess this is their way of popping back at that idea. As Tina said above, seems low to use such a shitty situation to take a political shot at the trans movement I’m not sure anyone is taking a pop at the trans movement, I’m more concerned that a convicted male sex offender is now in a women’s prison. If that safe for anyone concerned? You are. By referring to them as “male” and “he”. Do you normally respect trans people’s gender? Their name? If so, where do you draw the line on whose rights you’ll respect? If you resort to stripping rights and ad hominem attacks… it says more about you. I don’t regard this person as a trans woman. In my humble opinion this person is a man. Just this person. Not all trans people, not every enby, not anyone who is considering transition. Just this one is the one I am talking about. It’s my thoughts and feelings. "Those do appear to be your thoughts and feelings. That’s right. But you do realise it’s very well established statute you’re disagreeing with? Not some new interpretation. Not proposed changes to the GRA. And not some new “political correctness gone mad”. A trans person can decide when and how to start living in their “acquired” gender. They can get a driving license and all sorts of other documentation issued, and live and be regarded in law as their acquired gender… all without ever so much as bothering a doctor. To get a passport in their acquired gender, all that’s needed is a doctor’s letter to say the change is likely to be permanent. No requirement for a diagnosis of anything. No requirement for hormone, surgical, or any other intervention (nor does there need to be any plan or desire to do so). And that’s for documents. In law, to quote the EHRC guidance on the subject: “Trans people are legally protected from discrimination from the moment they propose to change their sex.” You clearly don’t like that, but if you want it to change, you’ll need to write to your MP and lobby for a change in the law. | |||
"I don’t have an opinion on this because I don’t care about the misgendering of a sex offender but wouldn’t this be like saying Caitlyn Jenner won gold at the olympics? Caitlyn says Bruce won the medals so this should be the same. Caitlyn can only speak for herself on that subject, not every trans person will have the same opinion as her. " True but if they were identifying as a man at the time of the crime surely it is a man that has committed the crime. | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. Section seven of the equality act disagrees: “A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.” Yeah, support fully, but this person (reportedly) hasn’t done any of this. No documentation completed regarding gender. Serious question, how do you document this? If someone feels they should be a different gender (genuinely), it is my understanding they are asked to live as/present as their preferred gender for a fairly long period, before starting any more formal transition. If I am wrong, please do someone correct me. How would this pre-formal transition be documented? I’ll have to look up the name of the document but you can complete some paperwork at a relatively low cost which supports your legitimacy for your thoughts and feelings and intentions for gender transition. This then allows legal ID to be updated (eg passport). It’s all changed quite recently and can cause problems for same sex search requirements ( eg at an airport) if the documentation has not been completed. In my job we go by what sex is identified on the passport for same sex searches. Hope this helps, I’ll try to find the name of the document. You mean a Gender Recognition Certificate? " Yes, thank you | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. I think this is just a little pop at the idea that all trans women are women idea. Some take it to the extreme that just saying your a woman means you are And I guess this is their way of popping back at that idea. As Tina said above, seems low to use such a shitty situation to take a political shot at the trans movement I’m not sure anyone is taking a pop at the trans movement, I’m more concerned that a convicted male sex offender is now in a women’s prison. If that safe for anyone concerned? I think the point I’m trying to make (I think) Is that some people would support a violent nan going into a woman’s prison by falsely claiming he’s a woman, purely because it would support their idea that “all trans women aren’t women” I dunno how to word what I’m saying It’s like one said is saying “all trans women are women” And the other side is saying “Ok then let’s push for any violent offender to claim trans and get into a female prison, that’ll prove our point!” All while completely ignoring the victims I think I’m gonna shut up now. Sorry One of the points in the article I read was that if a male assaults a female with penis penetration it is and can be classed as r@pe. Our current legal system doesn’t allow for a woman to be charged with r@pe because she doesn’t have a penis, therefore this person has been charged with sexual assault although they used their penis as part of the attacks. I am definitely thinking a lot about the victims and how they will feel knowing the crimes against them have been miss recorded thanks to the UK legal system supporting self id. I’m more concerned that women in the UK can’t get in trouble for rping someone R@pe is (in law) defined as penetration with a penis, I believe. I really don't want to Google it....." That’s quite concerning. Especially thinking about my past girlfriend r@ping me while I was asleep. Guess I was just sexually assaulted | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. I think this is just a little pop at the idea that all trans women are women idea. Some take it to the extreme that just saying your a woman means you are And I guess this is their way of popping back at that idea. As Tina said above, seems low to use such a shitty situation to take a political shot at the trans movement I’m not sure anyone is taking a pop at the trans movement, I’m more concerned that a convicted male sex offender is now in a women’s prison. If that safe for anyone concerned? I think the point I’m trying to make (I think) Is that some people would support a violent nan going into a woman’s prison by falsely claiming he’s a woman, purely because it would support their idea that “all trans women aren’t women” I dunno how to word what I’m saying It’s like one said is saying “all trans women are women” And the other side is saying “Ok then let’s push for any violent offender to claim trans and get into a female prison, that’ll prove our point!” All while completely ignoring the victims I think I’m gonna shut up now. Sorry One of the points in the article I read was that if a male assaults a female with penis penetration it is and can be classed as r@pe. Our current legal system doesn’t allow for a woman to be charged with r@pe because she doesn’t have a penis, therefore this person has been charged with sexual assault although they used their penis as part of the attacks. I am definitely thinking a lot about the victims and how they will feel knowing the crimes against them have been miss recorded thanks to the UK legal system supporting self id. I’m more concerned that women in the UK can’t get in trouble for rping someone " Women cannot be charged with that offence. They can be charged with other offences. | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. Section seven of the equality act disagrees: “A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.” Yeah, support fully, but this person (reportedly) hasn’t done any of this. No documentation completed regarding gender. Serious question, how do you document this? If someone feels they should be a different gender (genuinely), it is my understanding they are asked to live as/present as their preferred gender for a fairly long period, before starting any more formal transition. If I am wrong, please do someone correct me. How would this pre-formal transition be documented? I’ll have to look up the name of the document but you can complete some paperwork at a relatively low cost which supports your legitimacy for your thoughts and feelings and intentions for gender transition. This then allows legal ID to be updated (eg passport). It’s all changed quite recently and can cause problems for same sex search requirements ( eg at an airport) if the documentation has not been completed. In my job we go by what sex is identified on the passport for same sex searches. Hope this helps, I’ll try to find the name of the document. You mean a Gender Recognition Certificate? Yes, thank you "Very different to law (to do with birth certificates, largely) and the protections (and exemptions to those protections) under the EA2010 are entirely and specifically unaffected by the holding or otherwise of a GRC. | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. I think this is just a little pop at the idea that all trans women are women idea. Some take it to the extreme that just saying your a woman means you are And I guess this is their way of popping back at that idea. As Tina said above, seems low to use such a shitty situation to take a political shot at the trans movement I’m not sure anyone is taking a pop at the trans movement, I’m more concerned that a convicted male sex offender is now in a women’s prison. If that safe for anyone concerned? I think the point I’m trying to make (I think) Is that some people would support a violent nan going into a woman’s prison by falsely claiming he’s a woman, purely because it would support their idea that “all trans women aren’t women” I dunno how to word what I’m saying It’s like one said is saying “all trans women are women” And the other side is saying “Ok then let’s push for any violent offender to claim trans and get into a female prison, that’ll prove our point!” All while completely ignoring the victims I think I’m gonna shut up now. Sorry One of the points in the article I read was that if a male assaults a female with penis penetration it is and can be classed as r@pe. Our current legal system doesn’t allow for a woman to be charged with r@pe because she doesn’t have a penis, therefore this person has been charged with sexual assault although they used their penis as part of the attacks. I am definitely thinking a lot about the victims and how they will feel knowing the crimes against them have been miss recorded thanks to the UK legal system supporting self id. The UK legal system doesn't support self ID. Plans for that were scrapped. " That was in England. Scotland are likely to introduce self-ID as legislation has been suggested. That may affect England in turn. | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. I think this is just a little pop at the idea that all trans women are women idea. Some take it to the extreme that just saying your a woman means you are And I guess this is their way of popping back at that idea. As Tina said above, seems low to use such a shitty situation to take a political shot at the trans movement I’m not sure anyone is taking a pop at the trans movement, I’m more concerned that a convicted male sex offender is now in a women’s prison. If that safe for anyone concerned? I think the point I’m trying to make (I think) Is that some people would support a violent nan going into a woman’s prison by falsely claiming he’s a woman, purely because it would support their idea that “all trans women aren’t women” I dunno how to word what I’m saying It’s like one said is saying “all trans women are women” And the other side is saying “Ok then let’s push for any violent offender to claim trans and get into a female prison, that’ll prove our point!” All while completely ignoring the victims I think I’m gonna shut up now. Sorry One of the points in the article I read was that if a male assaults a female with penis penetration it is and can be classed as r@pe. Our current legal system doesn’t allow for a woman to be charged with r@pe because she doesn’t have a penis, therefore this person has been charged with sexual assault although they used their penis as part of the attacks. I am definitely thinking a lot about the victims and how they will feel knowing the crimes against them have been miss recorded thanks to the UK legal system supporting self id. The UK legal system doesn't support self ID. Plans for that were scrapped. " It doesn’t in relation to gender recognition certificates. It specifically and explicitly does in relation to the protections under the equality act. | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. I think this is just a little pop at the idea that all trans women are women idea. Some take it to the extreme that just saying your a woman means you are And I guess this is their way of popping back at that idea. As Tina said above, seems low to use such a shitty situation to take a political shot at the trans movement I’m not sure anyone is taking a pop at the trans movement, I’m more concerned that a convicted male sex offender is now in a women’s prison. If that safe for anyone concerned? You are. By referring to them as “male” and “he”. Do you normally respect trans people’s gender? Their name? If so, where do you draw the line on whose rights you’ll respect? If you resort to stripping rights and ad hominem attacks… it says more about you. I don’t regard this person as a trans woman. In my humble opinion this person is a man. Just this person. Not all trans people, not every enby, not anyone who is considering transition. Just this one is the one I am talking about. It’s my thoughts and feelings.
Those do appear to be your thoughts and feelings. That’s right.
But you do realise it’s very well established statute you’re disagreeing with? Not some new interpretation. Not proposed changes to the GRA. And not some new “political correctness gone mad”.
A trans person can decide when and how to start living in their “acquired” gender. They can get a driving license and all sorts of other documentation issued, and live and be regarded in law as their acquired gender… all without ever so much as bothering a doctor.
To get a passport in their acquired gender, all that’s needed is a doctor’s letter to say the change is likely to be permanent. No requirement for a diagnosis of anything. No requirement for hormone, surgical, or any other intervention (nor does there need to be any plan or desire to do so).
And that’s for documents. In law, to quote the EHRC guidance on the subject:
“Trans people are legally protected from discrimination from the moment they propose to change their sex.”
You clearly don’t like that, but if you want it to change, you’ll need to write to your MP and lobby for a change in the law. "I think you’re misunderstanding my stance. The person I am referring to has done none of the things you state. No GRC (thank you to the memory jogger!). Let’s just stick to the specifics which is what I am doing. I’m not talking about all trans people. I’m talking about this man who r@ped children but because he’s been allowed to self identify as female after the crime but before conviction he’s now not being sent to prison for r@pe but for sexual assault because the uk law doesn’t recognise that women can commmit r@pe because to r@pe someone in the uk you would need to have a penis and uk law suggests women don’t have a penis. | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. I think this is just a little pop at the idea that all trans women are women idea. Some take it to the extreme that just saying your a woman means you are And I guess this is their way of popping back at that idea. As Tina said above, seems low to use such a shitty situation to take a political shot at the trans movement I’m not sure anyone is taking a pop at the trans movement, I’m more concerned that a convicted male sex offender is now in a women’s prison. If that safe for anyone concerned? You are. By referring to them as “male” and “he”. Do you normally respect trans people’s gender? Their name? If so, where do you draw the line on whose rights you’ll respect? If you resort to stripping rights and ad hominem attacks… it says more about you. I don’t regard this person as a trans woman. In my humble opinion this person is a man. Just this person. Not all trans people, not every enby, not anyone who is considering transition. Just this one is the one I am talking about. It’s my thoughts and feelings.
Those do appear to be your thoughts and feelings. That’s right.
But you do realise it’s very well established statute you’re disagreeing with? Not some new interpretation. Not proposed changes to the GRA. And not some new “political correctness gone mad”.
A trans person can decide when and how to start living in their “acquired” gender. They can get a driving license and all sorts of other documentation issued, and live and be regarded in law as their acquired gender… all without ever so much as bothering a doctor.
To get a passport in their acquired gender, all that’s needed is a doctor’s letter to say the change is likely to be permanent. No requirement for a diagnosis of anything. No requirement for hormone, surgical, or any other intervention (nor does there need to be any plan or desire to do so).
And that’s for documents. In law, to quote the EHRC guidance on the subject:
“Trans people are legally protected from discrimination from the moment they propose to change their sex.”
You clearly don’t like that, but if you want it to change, you’ll need to write to your MP and lobby for a change in the law.
I think you’re misunderstanding my stance. The person I am referring to has done none of the things you state. No GRC (thank you to the memory jogger!).
Let’s just stick to the specifics which is what I am doing. I’m not talking about all trans people. I’m talking about this man who r@ped children but because he’s been allowed to self identify as female after the crime but before conviction he’s now not being sent to prison for r@pe but for sexual assault because the uk law doesn’t recognise that women can commmit r@pe because to r@pe someone in the uk you would need to have a penis and uk law suggests women don’t have a penis.
"I agree with you about this case specifically. This male-bodied person should not be placed in a women's prison. | |||
"I don’t have an opinion on this because I don’t care about the misgendering of a sex offender but wouldn’t this be like saying Caitlyn Jenner won gold at the olympics? Caitlyn says Bruce won the medals so this should be the same. Caitlyn can only speak for herself on that subject, not every trans person will have the same opinion as her. True but if they were identifying as a man at the time of the crime surely it is a man that has committed the crime. " This is very much how I feel, it would have been a conviction of r@pe | |||
| |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. I think this is just a little pop at the idea that all trans women are women idea. Some take it to the extreme that just saying your a woman means you are And I guess this is their way of popping back at that idea. As Tina said above, seems low to use such a shitty situation to take a political shot at the trans movement I’m not sure anyone is taking a pop at the trans movement, I’m more concerned that a convicted male sex offender is now in a women’s prison. If that safe for anyone concerned? I think the point I’m trying to make (I think) Is that some people would support a violent nan going into a woman’s prison by falsely claiming he’s a woman, purely because it would support their idea that “all trans women aren’t women” I dunno how to word what I’m saying It’s like one said is saying “all trans women are women” And the other side is saying “Ok then let’s push for any violent offender to claim trans and get into a female prison, that’ll prove our point!” All while completely ignoring the victims I think I’m gonna shut up now. Sorry One of the points in the article I read was that if a male assaults a female with penis penetration it is and can be classed as r@pe. Our current legal system doesn’t allow for a woman to be charged with r@pe because she doesn’t have a penis, therefore this person has been charged with sexual assault although they used their penis as part of the attacks. I am definitely thinking a lot about the victims and how they will feel knowing the crimes against them have been miss recorded thanks to the UK legal system supporting self id. I’m more concerned that women in the UK can’t get in trouble for rping someone R@pe is (in law) defined as penetration with a penis, I believe. I really don't want to Google it..... That’s quite concerning. Especially thinking about my past girlfriend r@ping me while I was asleep. Guess I was just sexually assaulted " I’m sorry you’ve had to deal with and be victim to something like this. Assault is never “just” assault but your comment completely sums up how most people feel about the difference between hearing about a r@pe and hearing about a sexual assault. | |||
"** UPDATE ** Sussex Police have now released a follow up statement following the ongoing debate. In it they state that “An earlier reply to a comment on Twitter was inconsistent with our usual style of engagement; we apologise for this and have removed the comment. We recognise the rights of the public to express themselves freely within the boundaries of the law.” So that’s that then? As per the statement the comment outlined in my opening post has been removed from Twittter." Does that mean we stop talking about it like it didn’t exist? | |||
"Women can and do commit sex offences. There was a terrible case of a woman who worked in a nursery who abused children. And of course, we've all heard of Myra Hindley, Rose West etc. The gender doesn't really matter. A human being has committed horrendous crimes and they have been convicted of this. Glad they've been convicted and hope they receive a suitably long sentence. But gender does matter when it comes to crime, that’s why we have specific things in place to tackle things like VAGW. I think " Yes, indeed it does. Gender is a rather vague thing, but biological sex cannot be changed, although transgender people who have been surgically and biochemically altered may have lost their original visible sexual characteristics. 'Post-op.' 'male to female' people can't commit some sexual offences that ordinary men can, of course, but otherwise they can and should be regarded as male if they do so. | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. I think this is just a little pop at the idea that all trans women are women idea. Some take it to the extreme that just saying your a woman means you are And I guess this is their way of popping back at that idea. As Tina said above, seems low to use such a shitty situation to take a political shot at the trans movement I’m not sure anyone is taking a pop at the trans movement, I’m more concerned that a convicted male sex offender is now in a women’s prison. If that safe for anyone concerned? I think the point I’m trying to make (I think) Is that some people would support a violent nan going into a woman’s prison by falsely claiming he’s a woman, purely because it would support their idea that “all trans women aren’t women” I dunno how to word what I’m saying It’s like one said is saying “all trans women are women” And the other side is saying “Ok then let’s push for any violent offender to claim trans and get into a female prison, that’ll prove our point!” All while completely ignoring the victims I think I’m gonna shut up now. Sorry One of the points in the article I read was that if a male assaults a female with penis penetration it is and can be classed as r@pe. Our current legal system doesn’t allow for a woman to be charged with r@pe because she doesn’t have a penis, therefore this person has been charged with sexual assault although they used their penis as part of the attacks. I am definitely thinking a lot about the victims and how they will feel knowing the crimes against them have been miss recorded thanks to the UK legal system supporting self id. " The emotional punch of the above offence is powerful and has the power to move hearts and minds, sure. The logic at the heart of your argument falls, when you consider that the references to the parts of the body also specifically include those changed through surgery - so a trans man’s penis can be used in the commission of the offence and a trans woman whose vagina is penetrated is also covered. And the law uses “person A” and “person B”. | |||
"** UPDATE ** Sussex Police have now released a follow up statement following the ongoing debate. In it they state that “An earlier reply to a comment on Twitter was inconsistent with our usual style of engagement; we apologise for this and have removed the comment. We recognise the rights of the public to express themselves freely within the boundaries of the law.” So that’s that then? As per the statement the comment outlined in my opening post has been removed from Twittter. Does that mean we stop talking about it like it didn’t exist? "I don’t know. Does it? | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. I think this is just a little pop at the idea that all trans women are women idea. Some take it to the extreme that just saying your a woman means you are And I guess this is their way of popping back at that idea. As Tina said above, seems low to use such a shitty situation to take a political shot at the trans movement I’m not sure anyone is taking a pop at the trans movement, I’m more concerned that a convicted male sex offender is now in a women’s prison. If that safe for anyone concerned? I think the point I’m trying to make (I think) Is that some people would support a violent nan going into a woman’s prison by falsely claiming he’s a woman, purely because it would support their idea that “all trans women aren’t women” I dunno how to word what I’m saying It’s like one said is saying “all trans women are women” And the other side is saying “Ok then let’s push for any violent offender to claim trans and get into a female prison, that’ll prove our point!” All while completely ignoring the victims I think I’m gonna shut up now. Sorry One of the points in the article I read was that if a male assaults a female with penis penetration it is and can be classed as r@pe. Our current legal system doesn’t allow for a woman to be charged with r@pe because she doesn’t have a penis, therefore this person has been charged with sexual assault although they used their penis as part of the attacks. I am definitely thinking a lot about the victims and how they will feel knowing the crimes against them have been miss recorded thanks to the UK legal system supporting self id. The UK legal system doesn't support self ID. Plans for that were scrapped. " Apologies, I meant specifically Sussex police in this instance allowing this case to be upheld with a man self identifying as a trans female and being convicted as a trans female and not as the man that r@ped the children. | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. " Quite so! | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. I think this is just a little pop at the idea that all trans women are women idea. Some take it to the extreme that just saying your a woman means you are And I guess this is their way of popping back at that idea. As Tina said above, seems low to use such a shitty situation to take a political shot at the trans movement I’m not sure anyone is taking a pop at the trans movement, I’m more concerned that a convicted male sex offender is now in a women’s prison. If that safe for anyone concerned? I think the point I’m trying to make (I think) Is that some people would support a violent nan going into a woman’s prison by falsely claiming he’s a woman, purely because it would support their idea that “all trans women aren’t women” I dunno how to word what I’m saying It’s like one said is saying “all trans women are women” And the other side is saying “Ok then let’s push for any violent offender to claim trans and get into a female prison, that’ll prove our point!” All while completely ignoring the victims I think I’m gonna shut up now. Sorry One of the points in the article I read was that if a male assaults a female with penis penetration it is and can be classed as r@pe. Our current legal system doesn’t allow for a woman to be charged with r@pe because she doesn’t have a penis, therefore this person has been charged with sexual assault although they used their penis as part of the attacks. I am definitely thinking a lot about the victims and how they will feel knowing the crimes against them have been miss recorded thanks to the UK legal system supporting self id. The emotional punch of the above offence is powerful and has the power to move hearts and minds, sure. The logic at the heart of your argument falls, when you consider that the references to the parts of the body also specifically include those changed through surgery - so a trans man’s penis can be used in the commission of the offence and a trans woman whose vagina is penetrated is also covered. And the law uses “person A” and “person B”. " Ok but irrelevant in this specific instance possibly? (remember / for the late comers, I’m only taking about this case) the person who has been convicted for the r@pe of children has a penis. But has been convicted as if they have a vagina. | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. I think this is just a little pop at the idea that all trans women are women idea. Some take it to the extreme that just saying your a woman means you are And I guess this is their way of popping back at that idea. As Tina said above, seems low to use such a shitty situation to take a political shot at the trans movement I’m not sure anyone is taking a pop at the trans movement, I’m more concerned that a convicted male sex offender is now in a women’s prison. If that safe for anyone concerned? I think the point I’m trying to make (I think) Is that some people would support a violent nan going into a woman’s prison by falsely claiming he’s a woman, purely because it would support their idea that “all trans women aren’t women” I dunno how to word what I’m saying It’s like one said is saying “all trans women are women” And the other side is saying “Ok then let’s push for any violent offender to claim trans and get into a female prison, that’ll prove our point!” All while completely ignoring the victims I think I’m gonna shut up now. Sorry One of the points in the article I read was that if a male assaults a female with penis penetration it is and can be classed as r@pe. Our current legal system doesn’t allow for a woman to be charged with r@pe because she doesn’t have a penis, therefore this person has been charged with sexual assault although they used their penis as part of the attacks. I am definitely thinking a lot about the victims and how they will feel knowing the crimes against them have been miss recorded thanks to the UK legal system supporting self id. I’m more concerned that women in the UK can’t get in trouble for rping someone R@pe is (in law) defined as penetration with a penis, I believe. I really don't want to Google it..... That’s quite concerning. Especially thinking about my past girlfriend r@ping me while I was asleep. Guess I was just sexually assaulted " I am sorry that happened to you. A lot of laws are out of date and don't consider what we in the 21st century would think to be comprehensive. | |||
 | |||
"I think you’re misunderstanding my stance. The person I am referring to has done none of the things you state. No GRC (thank you to the memory jogger!). Let’s just stick to the specifics which is what I am doing. I’m not talking about all trans people. I’m talking about this man who r@ped children but because he’s been allowed to self identify as female after the crime but before conviction he’s now not being sent to prison for r@pe but for sexual assault because the uk law doesn’t recognise that women can commmit r@pe because to r@pe someone in the uk you would need to have a penis and uk law suggests women don’t have a penis. " I don’t think I do, but help me out if I have misunderstood. I don’t know this person, but she has been wifey reported, including in official media releases, using female pronouns, etc. One expects the police and courts haven’t plucked this idea out of the air, and that as such at some point she has provided these details to police/court. As such, she meets the definition under section seven of the EA2010. She does not need to have changed any legal documents, sought medical intervention, or sought or been granted a GRC. According to the law, she’s a woman. A woman responsible for some horrid, vile offences, but a woman. But you disagree with this provision in law. That’s fine, you’re allowed to (you don’t lose your article 10 protection just because I disagree with you, even if you shoplifted on your way home today). | |||
"I think his victims should be able to settle this argument by chopping his/her cock off. "that’s what’s known in the trade as a Bobbitt | |||
"I think his victims should be able to settle this argument by chopping his/her cock off. "Leo, here, showing why it’s a good thing gett’s not in charge of sentencing. (Leo uses gett/off pronouns according to off’s profile, in case you wondered about the confusing language choices. I’m all for neopronouns, but the ones gett has chosen seem to encourage confusion). | |||
| |||
"I think his victims should be able to settle this argument by chopping his/her cock off.
Leo, here, showing why it’s a good thing gett’s not in charge of sentencing.
(Leo uses gett/off pronouns according to off’s profile, in case you wondered about the confusing language choices. I’m all for neopronouns, but the ones gett has chosen seem to encourage confusion). " | |||
"Why does it matter if its recorded as a female sex offence? " A lot of people on Social Media are saying that it skews the male : female sex offender ratios and reporting. Does that matter? I don’t know. I’m just a simple country boy, but that’s what the debate has been mostly about. | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. I think this is just a little pop at the idea that all trans women are women idea. Some take it to the extreme that just saying your a woman means you are And I guess this is their way of popping back at that idea. As Tina said above, seems low to use such a shitty situation to take a political shot at the trans movement I’m not sure anyone is taking a pop at the trans movement, I’m more concerned that a convicted male sex offender is now in a women’s prison. If that safe for anyone concerned? I think the point I’m trying to make (I think) Is that some people would support a violent nan going into a woman’s prison by falsely claiming he’s a woman, purely because it would support their idea that “all trans women aren’t women” I dunno how to word what I’m saying It’s like one said is saying “all trans women are women” And the other side is saying “Ok then let’s push for any violent offender to claim trans and get into a female prison, that’ll prove our point!” All while completely ignoring the victims I think I’m gonna shut up now. Sorry One of the points in the article I read was that if a male assaults a female with penis penetration it is and can be classed as r@pe. Our current legal system doesn’t allow for a woman to be charged with r@pe because she doesn’t have a penis, therefore this person has been charged with sexual assault although they used their penis as part of the attacks. I am definitely thinking a lot about the victims and how they will feel knowing the crimes against them have been miss recorded thanks to the UK legal system supporting self id. The emotional punch of the above offence is powerful and has the power to move hearts and minds, sure. The logic at the heart of your argument falls, when you consider that the references to the parts of the body also specifically include those changed through surgery - so a trans man’s penis can be used in the commission of the offence and a trans woman whose vagina is penetrated is also covered. And the law uses “person A” and “person B”. Ok but irrelevant in this specific instance possibly? (remember / for the late comers, I’m only taking about this case) the person who has been convicted for the r@pe of children has a penis. But has been convicted as if they have a vagina." The offence you’ve named is the irrelevant one in this case. The subject of the article was convicted of 30 counts of indecent assault. Heinous. Vile. And likely having profound and horrific impacts on her victims. Still, wholly irrelevant to your logical gymnastics above and introduction of r@or as a point of argument. | |||
"Why does it matter if its recorded as a female sex offence? A lot of people on Social Media are saying that it skews the male : female sex offender ratios and reporting. Does that matter? I don’t know. I’m just a simple country boy, but that’s what the debate has been mostly about. " It's only one person though? | |||
"I think you’re misunderstanding my stance. The person I am referring to has done none of the things you state. No GRC (thank you to the memory jogger!). Let’s just stick to the specifics which is what I am doing. I’m not talking about all trans people. I’m talking about this man who r@ped children but because he’s been allowed to self identify as female after the crime but before conviction he’s now not being sent to prison for r@pe but for sexual assault because the uk law doesn’t recognise that women can commmit r@pe because to r@pe someone in the uk you would need to have a penis and uk law suggests women don’t have a penis. I don’t think I do, but help me out if I have misunderstood. I don’t know this person, but she has been wifey reported, including in official media releases, using female pronouns, etc. One expects the police and courts haven’t plucked this idea out of the air, and that as such at some point she has provided these details to police/court. As such, she meets the definition under section seven of the EA2010. She does not need to have changed any legal documents, sought medical intervention, or sought or been granted a GRC. According to the law, she’s a woman. A woman responsible for some horrid, vile offences, but a woman. But you disagree with this provision in law. That’s fine, you’re allowed to (you don’t lose your article 10 protection just because I disagree with you, even if you shoplifted on your way home today). " I’ll go right back to my first comment and say, I do not believe this person to be a woman, I believe this person is a man. Furthermore I do not believe that this person should have been tried and convicted as a woman. It was a man that committed the crimes and a man that should be tried for the crimes. This is a very sex specific case and shouldn’t be about the rights of someone to self identify as something other than what they were at the time of the offence. This person should have been tried and convicted as a man and the crime is r@pe which is (rightly or wrongly) something only a man can be convicted of. As said earlier the law doesn’t cover adequately for our wide and varied population in the uk, so perhaps we need to positively lobby to change their pronouns and definitions to allow male r@pe victims to feel heard like one of our peers here tonight. | |||
"Why does it matter if its recorded as a female sex offence? A lot of people on Social Media are saying that it skews the male : female sex offender ratios and reporting. Does that matter? I don’t know. I’m just a simple country boy, but that’s what the debate has been mostly about. It's only one person though? " It’s more the principle I think. Precedence setting? Who knows .. | |||
"Why does it matter if its recorded as a female sex offence? A lot of people on Social Media are saying that it skews the male : female sex offender ratios and reporting. Does that matter? I don’t know. I’m just a simple country boy, but that’s what the debate has been mostly about. It's only one person though? " Accurate reporting is either accurate or not. You can’t just ignore data because it’s only 1 | |||
"Why does it matter if its recorded as a female sex offence? " Cos in uk law its been recorded as assault and not r@pe | |||
"Why does it matter if its recorded as a female sex offence? A lot of people on Social Media are saying that it skews the male : female sex offender ratios and reporting. Does that matter? I don’t know. I’m just a simple country boy, but that’s what the debate has been mostly about. It's only one person though? It’s more the principle I think. Precedence setting? Who knows .. " His crime was recorded as being committed by a male, but yes, given that the big majority of child abuse offences are committed by men it is right to be wary of anything which presents a false picture of offending patterns. | |||
"I think his victims should be able to settle this argument by chopping his/her cock off. "I nearly said “orf with their head” earlier along the lines of queenie liz the first but thought better of it incase someone thought I meant head of penis, so I’m glad you saved me the convo for that cheers | |||
"I think you’re misunderstanding my stance. The person I am referring to has done none of the things you state. No GRC (thank you to the memory jogger!). Let’s just stick to the specifics which is what I am doing. I’m not talking about all trans people. I’m talking about this man who r@ped children but because he’s been allowed to self identify as female after the crime but before conviction he’s now not being sent to prison for r@pe but for sexual assault because the uk law doesn’t recognise that women can commmit r@pe because to r@pe someone in the uk you would need to have a penis and uk law suggests women don’t have a penis. I don’t think I do, but help me out if I have misunderstood. I don’t know this person, but she has been wifey reported, including in official media releases, using female pronouns, etc. One expects the police and courts haven’t plucked this idea out of the air, and that as such at some point she has provided these details to police/court. As such, she meets the definition under section seven of the EA2010. She does not need to have changed any legal documents, sought medical intervention, or sought or been granted a GRC. According to the law, she’s a woman. A woman responsible for some horrid, vile offences, but a woman. But you disagree with this provision in law. That’s fine, you’re allowed to (you don’t lose your article 10 protection just because I disagree with you, even if you shoplifted on your way home today). I’ll go right back to my first comment and say, I do not believe this person to be a woman, I believe this person is a man. Furthermore I do not believe that this person should have been tried and convicted as a woman. It was a man that committed the crimes and a man that should be tried for the crimes. This is a very sex specific case and shouldn’t be about the rights of someone to self identify as something other than what they were at the time of the offence. This person should have been tried and convicted as a man and the crime is r@pe which is (rightly or wrongly) something only a man can be convicted of. As said earlier the law doesn’t cover adequately for our wide and varied population in the uk, so perhaps we need to positively lobby to change their pronouns and definitions to allow male r@pe victims to feel heard like one of our peers here tonight. " Well said! | |||
"I think you’re misunderstanding my stance. The person I am referring to has done none of the things you state. No GRC (thank you to the memory jogger!). Let’s just stick to the specifics which is what I am doing. I’m not talking about all trans people. I’m talking about this man who r@ped children but because he’s been allowed to self identify as female after the crime but before conviction he’s now not being sent to prison for r@pe but for sexual assault because the uk law doesn’t recognise that women can commmit r@pe because to r@pe someone in the uk you would need to have a penis and uk law suggests women don’t have a penis. I don’t think I do, but help me out if I have misunderstood. I don’t know this person, but she has been wifey reported, including in official media releases, using female pronouns, etc. One expects the police and courts haven’t plucked this idea out of the air, and that as such at some point she has provided these details to police/court. As such, she meets the definition under section seven of the EA2010. She does not need to have changed any legal documents, sought medical intervention, or sought or been granted a GRC. According to the law, she’s a woman. A woman responsible for some horrid, vile offences, but a woman. But you disagree with this provision in law. That’s fine, you’re allowed to (you don’t lose your article 10 protection just because I disagree with you, even if you shoplifted on your way home today). I’ll go right back to my first comment and say, I do not believe this person to be a woman, I believe this person is a man. Furthermore I do not believe that this person should have been tried and convicted as a woman. It was a man that committed the crimes and a man that should be tried for the crimes. This is a very sex specific case and shouldn’t be about the rights of someone to self identify as something other than what they were at the time of the offence. This person should have been tried and convicted as a man and the crime is r@pe which is (rightly or wrongly) something only a man can be convicted of. As said earlier the law doesn’t cover adequately for our wide and varied population in the uk, so perhaps we need to positively lobby to change their pronouns and definitions to allow male r@pe victims to feel heard like one of our peers here tonight. " Right, we’re getting somewhere. You have an opinion, that opinion doesn’t reflect the law, like I said. This person is entitled under the EA2010 to be recognised as a woman. She is convicted of indecent assault (multiple, horrific). She could, had she been reported for it, have been convicted of r@pe. A trans woman was convicted of just such an offence only last year. She was given no special protection from her offending on account of her protected characteristics. The change in the wording of the definition doesn’t really change this either. Take the case of Karen White. She was convicted of a 2003 r@pe (this was before the SOA2003 was in force). Still entitled to protection under EA2010. Still a heinous crime. Still convicted. | |||
"I think you’re misunderstanding my stance. The person I am referring to has done none of the things you state. No GRC (thank you to the memory jogger!). Let’s just stick to the specifics which is what I am doing. I’m not talking about all trans people. I’m talking about this man who r@ped children but because he’s been allowed to self identify as female after the crime but before conviction he’s now not being sent to prison for r@pe but for sexual assault because the uk law doesn’t recognise that women can commmit r@pe because to r@pe someone in the uk you would need to have a penis and uk law suggests women don’t have a penis. I don’t think I do, but help me out if I have misunderstood. I don’t know this person, but she has been wifey reported, including in official media releases, using female pronouns, etc. One expects the police and courts haven’t plucked this idea out of the air, and that as such at some point she has provided these details to police/court. As such, she meets the definition under section seven of the EA2010. She does not need to have changed any legal documents, sought medical intervention, or sought or been granted a GRC. According to the law, she’s a woman. A woman responsible for some horrid, vile offences, but a woman. But you disagree with this provision in law. That’s fine, you’re allowed to (you don’t lose your article 10 protection just because I disagree with you, even if you shoplifted on your way home today). I’ll go right back to my first comment and say, I do not believe this person to be a woman, I believe this person is a man. Furthermore I do not believe that this person should have been tried and convicted as a woman. It was a man that committed the crimes and a man that should be tried for the crimes. This is a very sex specific case and shouldn’t be about the rights of someone to self identify as something other than what they were at the time of the offence. This person should have been tried and convicted as a man and the crime is r@pe which is (rightly or wrongly) something only a man can be convicted of. As said earlier the law doesn’t cover adequately for our wide and varied population in the uk, so perhaps we need to positively lobby to change their pronouns and definitions to allow male r@pe victims to feel heard like one of our peers here tonight. Right, we’re getting somewhere. You have an opinion, that opinion doesn’t reflect the law, like I said. This person is entitled under the EA2010 to be recognised as a woman. She is convicted of indecent assault (multiple, horrific). She could, had she been reported for it, have been convicted of r@pe. A trans woman was convicted of just such an offence only last year. She was given no special protection from her offending on account of her protected characteristics. The change in the wording of the definition doesn’t really change this either. Take the case of Karen White. She was convicted of a 2003 r@pe (this was before the SOA2003 was in force). Still entitled to protection under EA2010. Still a heinous crime. Still convicted. " Yeah. I don’t think I’m talking about any of those though am I? You do you - when you get a petition going to change the law so it better reflects our multifaceted society, I’ll consider signing it, but for now, I still think this person should have been tried and convicted as the man that committed the crimes. | |||
 | |||
"Why does it matter if its recorded as a female sex offence? Cos in uk law its been recorded as assault and not r@pe" This is simply wrong. You are staying something t that just isn’t true. If a trans woman uses her penis to r@pe someone and is found guilty in court, she will be convicted of r@pe. In this case, the offence was indecent assault, and that’s what the conviction was for. If there was evidence of a r@pe, there would be prosecution of r@pe. | |||
"I think you’re misunderstanding my stance. The person I am referring to has done none of the things you state. No GRC (thank you to the memory jogger!). Let’s just stick to the specifics which is what I am doing. I’m not talking about all trans people. I’m talking about this man who r@ped children but because he’s been allowed to self identify as female after the crime but before conviction he’s now not being sent to prison for r@pe but for sexual assault because the uk law doesn’t recognise that women can commmit r@pe because to r@pe someone in the uk you would need to have a penis and uk law suggests women don’t have a penis. I don’t think I do, but help me out if I have misunderstood. I don’t know this person, but she has been wifey reported, including in official media releases, using female pronouns, etc. One expects the police and courts haven’t plucked this idea out of the air, and that as such at some point she has provided these details to police/court. As such, she meets the definition under section seven of the EA2010. She does not need to have changed any legal documents, sought medical intervention, or sought or been granted a GRC. According to the law, she’s a woman. A woman responsible for some horrid, vile offences, but a woman. But you disagree with this provision in law. That’s fine, you’re allowed to (you don’t lose your article 10 protection just because I disagree with you, even if you shoplifted on your way home today). I’ll go right back to my first comment and say, I do not believe this person to be a woman, I believe this person is a man. Furthermore I do not believe that this person should have been tried and convicted as a woman. It was a man that committed the crimes and a man that should be tried for the crimes. This is a very sex specific case and shouldn’t be about the rights of someone to self identify as something other than what they were at the time of the offence. This person should have been tried and convicted as a man and the crime is r@pe which is (rightly or wrongly) something only a man can be convicted of. As said earlier the law doesn’t cover adequately for our wide and varied population in the uk, so perhaps we need to positively lobby to change their pronouns and definitions to allow male r@pe victims to feel heard like one of our peers here tonight. Right, we’re getting somewhere. You have an opinion, that opinion doesn’t reflect the law, like I said. This person is entitled under the EA2010 to be recognised as a woman. She is convicted of indecent assault (multiple, horrific). She could, had she been reported for it, have been convicted of r@pe. A trans woman was convicted of just such an offence only last year. She was given no special protection from her offending on account of her protected characteristics. The change in the wording of the definition doesn’t really change this either. Take the case of Karen White. She was convicted of a 2003 r@pe (this was before the SOA2003 was in force). Still entitled to protection under EA2010. Still a heinous crime. Still convicted. Yeah. I don’t think I’m talking about any of those though am I? You do you - when you get a petition going to change the law so it better reflects our multifaceted society, I’ll consider signing it, but for now, I still think this person should have been tried and convicted as the man that committed the crimes. "I’m lost. Why would I want to change the law? It’s you that doesn’t like the current law. If they had evidence of a r@pe there would be a prosecution for r@pe. In this case she was charged with multiple indecent assaults and found guilty of most of them. | |||
"I think you’re misunderstanding my stance. The person I am referring to has done none of the things you state. No GRC (thank you to the memory jogger!). Let’s just stick to the specifics which is what I am doing. I’m not talking about all trans people. I’m talking about this man who r@ped children but because he’s been allowed to self identify as female after the crime but before conviction he’s now not being sent to prison for r@pe but for sexual assault because the uk law doesn’t recognise that women can commmit r@pe because to r@pe someone in the uk you would need to have a penis and uk law suggests women don’t have a penis. I don’t think I do, but help me out if I have misunderstood. I don’t know this person, but she has been wifey reported, including in official media releases, using female pronouns, etc. One expects the police and courts haven’t plucked this idea out of the air, and that as such at some point she has provided these details to police/court. As such, she meets the definition under section seven of the EA2010. She does not need to have changed any legal documents, sought medical intervention, or sought or been granted a GRC. According to the law, she’s a woman. A woman responsible for some horrid, vile offences, but a woman. But you disagree with this provision in law. That’s fine, you’re allowed to (you don’t lose your article 10 protection just because I disagree with you, even if you shoplifted on your way home today). I’ll go right back to my first comment and say, I do not believe this person to be a woman, I believe this person is a man. Furthermore I do not believe that this person should have been tried and convicted as a woman. It was a man that committed the crimes and a man that should be tried for the crimes. This is a very sex specific case and shouldn’t be about the rights of someone to self identify as something other than what they were at the time of the offence. This person should have been tried and convicted as a man and the crime is r@pe which is (rightly or wrongly) something only a man can be convicted of. As said earlier the law doesn’t cover adequately for our wide and varied population in the uk, so perhaps we need to positively lobby to change their pronouns and definitions to allow male r@pe victims to feel heard like one of our peers here tonight. Right, we’re getting somewhere. You have an opinion, that opinion doesn’t reflect the law, like I said. This person is entitled under the EA2010 to be recognised as a woman. She is convicted of indecent assault (multiple, horrific). She could, had she been reported for it, have been convicted of r@pe. A trans woman was convicted of just such an offence only last year. She was given no special protection from her offending on account of her protected characteristics. The change in the wording of the definition doesn’t really change this either. Take the case of Karen White. She was convicted of a 2003 r@pe (this was before the SOA2003 was in force). Still entitled to protection under EA2010. Still a heinous crime. Still convicted. Yeah. I don’t think I’m talking about any of those though am I? You do you - when you get a petition going to change the law so it better reflects our multifaceted society, I’ll consider signing it, but for now, I still think this person should have been tried and convicted as the man that committed the crimes.
I’m lost. Why would I want to change the law? It’s you that doesn’t like the current law. If they had evidence of a r@pe there would be a prosecution for r@pe. In this case she was charged with multiple indecent assaults and found guilty of most of them. "For the avoidance of doubt: the outcome of this case would have been the same regardless of whether the perpetrator was male, female, trans or cis. | |||
"Why does it matter if its recorded as a female sex offence? A lot of people on Social Media are saying that it skews the male : female sex offender ratios and reporting. Does that matter? I don’t know. I’m just a simple country boy, but that’s what the debate has been mostly about. " Depends if you think accurate statistics are important. Whether those stats are used to report on other issues and perhaps justify funding, policy issues etc. Why couldn't the sex at birth be recorded as well as the current gender? | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man self identifying as a woman with no attempt at clinical transition. Therefore this is a man who should have been tried and convicted as a man and should be sent to a mens prison. I doubt the ladies of bronzefield will be very supportive of a male sex offender who has abused children. It’ll turn all lord and lady of the flies any time soon. " Some trans people are unable to fully transition, Equality Act 2010, as soon as someone states their intent to be different to their assigned biological gender, they should be treated from that point as their preferred gender. | |||
"If you were a child when you committed murder but then were caught when you were an adult...." Then you would stand trial as an adult for the murder you committed as a child without the leaniency of child court Please do not quote me on this as I’m no professional But if the nonse has transitioned then if convicted it would not be possible or plausible to be sentenced into a male prison So without committing myself I would say that is why the nonse will go to trial as female instead of a male It’s wrong on all levels but it’s a very grey area in the law | |||
"I was under the impression that this isn’t a trans woman but a man .... Some trans people are unable to fully transition, Equality Act 2010, as soon as someone states their intent to be different to their assigned biological gender, they should be treated from that point as their preferred gender. " I am transgender but my state of health makes it impossible for me to be physically altered (as I would like to be) to resemble a real woman, which in reality is all that we can do, however good a physical imitation we can become. We are not "assigned biological gender", we are born male or female biologically, and apart from a very small number of 'intersex' people (which is a very different and totally unrelated thing) there are two sexes, male and female, and they are fundamentally immutable. I would love to be a real woman but there are no magic wands that allow us to change sex. Until language became ridiculously and incomprehensibly muddled gender meant masculine and feminine (and sometimes 'neuter') and that can change and be a matter of personal expression, identity, and appearance. I am happy being an 'honorary woman' and being treated and behaving as such, especially by my lovely (real) women friends, but I do not demand things in contradiction of biological reality and natural justice, or expect people to pretend anything just to fit in with what I am and would like to be. My 'rights' do not trump the rights of real women, and the noisy and often vicious, misogynistic and very unfeminine 'transactivists' do not represent all or probably even most transgender people and sadly they will provoke an angry and natural if unfair and unfortunate reaction against those transgender people who just want to be accepted as what they are and allowed to get on with their lives without making unreasonable and unnecessary demands. | |||
"Whilst I don’t actually care about the gender of the offender and more about the victims of the offence - criminal is a criminal and the shitstorm clouds the issue of supporting the victims in my opinion but it got me thinking and regular forumites will know thats never a good thing! If a biologically female person was arrested for a crime and it was found subsequently that she had multiple personalities and one if which was male and committed crimes whilst dominant - how would that get categorised? And how would you imprison the guilty party and let the others off with a caution? "Love this thought presumably this is where mental health teams and psychiatric assessment would be upheld and whatever the correct terms are would be applied. | |||
