Talk

Advanced search

Why dont we ban rapists & violent predators from changing legal gender & name?

(8 Posts)
DJBaggySmalls Fri 17-Mar-17 11:47:39

How much support would this get? Any pitfalls you can think of?

allisonslaw.wordpress.com/

Datun Fri 17-Mar-17 12:17:29

I think that is what Harriet Harman was implying on her web chat. That any GRS certificate could be revoked. I think she had an eye on Ian Huntley attempting to identify as a woman. Presumably this would cause national outrage and any application for a certificate would be refused.

It's obviously a start. Although how people have not connected the dots to realise that this is the logical outcome, God only knows.

However, it's rather like closing the door after the horse has bolted. All it would do is get them sent to the right prison. It doesn't stop them having access to victims in the first place.

VestalVirgin Fri 17-Mar-17 12:39:06

Why don't we ban anyone from having all documentation of their real name and sex destroyed?
As I understand it this is what is done in the UK, and it is absolutely bonkers, as very obviously, you don't know about all rapists that they are rapists when they apply for a GRS certificate.

The only case where it would make sense to have one's sex legally changed would be for intersex individuals who have accidentally been assigned a sex that does not match their reproductive organs.
(And for women to get around sexist inheritance laws, but apparently, that's exempt from the bonkers new policy, because misogyny)

In all other cases, real sex should be documented, preferred gender identity can be added, like the fact that someone wears glasses or uses a pseudonym is added.

Datun Fri 17-Mar-17 12:46:47

Completely agree vestal. I'm not interested in half arsed add-ons to try try and deal with the repercussions of what is evidently a ridiculous piece of misogynistic legislation.

Beachcomber Fri 17-Mar-17 12:54:45

Whilst I disagree with male sex offenders being allowed to change their name and be legally recognized as female, I disagree with any male being allowed that.

I can see the reasoning behind this but I fear it would allow the trans movement to disown inconvenient sex offenders who tarnish the image of "laydeez who wouldn't hurt a fly" .

I think I prefer the long game - which is the general public noticing the link between transgenderism and sex offending, sexism, obsessive fetishism, boundary crossing, misogyny, etc.

The whole point of trans feels is that only the individual themselves can declare themselves as trans or not. And sex offenders transitioning is a consequence of that that I want genderists to be forced to own and have their entire movement judged on.

Datun Fri 17-Mar-17 13:04:26

Yes, that's another reason why I don't want add-ons. A compromise is impossible.

I get torn between thinking how on earth could this have happened and thinking bring it on and show it up for what it is.

DJBaggySmalls Fri 17-Mar-17 13:16:22

VestalVirgin
Why don't we ban anyone from having all documentation of their real name and sex destroyed?

I completely agree with this,
But to non radfems, would the above argument act as a gateway to this point?

GuardianLions Fri 17-Mar-17 15:27:30

Totally agree vestal

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now