Triple-double peak trans extra-ultra.

Are crimes committed by trans women being recorded as crimes by women, is that really true?

If it is, do we we need to start recording the truth ourselves? A thread without chat just recording each and every published story where the crime is incorrectly attributed to women, capturing all the local media stories as well as ones that make national headlines?

The Craig Hauxley case has really got to me today, and I can't articulate why, I've been trying to post all afternoon but can't make sense to myself so have just been reading.

If the telegraph had used Lisa's case to highlight that most sexual offences are carried out by men it shoudlnt be ignored that transwomen rape and commit sexual offences too and used Lisa's case an example there'd be fucking hell on.

Maybe crimes should be recorded as man/woman transman/transwoman? It would be interesting to see the comparisons between the number of sexual crimes carried out by women to those carried out by trans women.

Dh rang this evening and has said that the men hes with (also locals) have been talking about it tonight, he's listened to me rant about things I've read on Mumsnet over the last few years and id thought it all went over his head but he's been telling them about the concerns about refuges, women's sports etc and he said its been an eye opener for them.

I haven't spoke to anyone who knew about this prior to yesterday's news articles and crime watch show. A couple of dhs colleagues live in Newton aycliffe and were only aware of the concerned for missing woman stuff from months ago.

A few on Facebook are saying they feel that as the crimes were committed in 2001 by Craig, but he was Lisa when victims reported and charges brought in 2015, that police didn't want to appear transphobic by highlighting Lisa was once male, but that it would be upsetting for the victims if Police/local media presented their attacker as a female when it was a female who attacked and raped them So tried to not say anything at all. I know it sounds crazy, but after reading some of the stuff I have today nothing would suprise me anymore...

I'm sorry, but trans-women who sexually assault their victims with their penises are men.

Just that. Men. Piss taking, attention seeking men. There's nothing female or womanly about raping someone.

I agree witching. I do want to be nice (because I am) to the reasonable trans people out there, but I also think that if they are reasonable then they will understand WTAF is going on. In any case, I already do not use incorrect pronouns and instead refer to people by their names, not pronouns. I don't 'misgender'. But I will not tell lies

I think a firm stand has to be taken on the 'misgendering' situation full stop. The trans ideology dictates that pronouns should be used to describe gender, however, pronouns have always been used to describe sex, not gender. For example we don't call a woman mr or he if she wears a shirt and tie, we use the pronouns for her sex not her gender (which is just a harmful social role) and always have done.

Moreover, in reality most people do not really believe that someone can change sex, but they want to be 'nice' and 'polite' and so use the incorrect pronouns for an individuals sex. Well meaning people by humouring believers of trans ideology (calling them the incorrect pronoun for their sex) has allowed the trans ideology to get as far as it has. It has given legitimacy to the ideology and the impression that most people believe in it, when in fact that is not the case.

Of course women have been socialised from birth to be 'nice' and 'polite' (particularly to men), this has allowed men to take advantage of women's socialisation and use it to manipulate women into giving them what they want. In this case that is validation of their belief in an ideology (that men can become women). Humouring men by using the incorrect pronoun for their sex has allowed them to then take it further still, i.e. they have gotten away with that bit of manipulation and gaslighting and so they move on to more extreme forms. For example they claim that a penis is female, that males should be allowed in women's spaces, and so on.

This is classic behaviour of abusive males and is why many women who have been in abusive relationships previously instantly recognise it as such. This sort of abusive gaslighting and manipulation of females on such a societal scale, is of course extremely harmful to females in a practical sense, and also in a psychological sense. It is no coincidence that many middle aged men who adopt trans ideology are diagnosed with narcissism and other personality disorders.

Clearly trans ideology is harmful to females on many levels it must be opposed. The first step in doing that I believe, is by refusing to give legitimacy to it by using the incorrect pronoun for someones sex. Once the core of the ideology is rejected then everything else starts to crumble. Believers in this ideology of course will fight tooth and nail to stop women from doing this, e.g. They will claim we are bigots, meanies, and so on, but I believe it must be done in order to make any real progress.

The telegraph sub-eds are clearly taking the piss out of that academic with her plaintive 'women are predators too', by posting those images.

That article is horrifying! At first I thought it was just ridiculous that they used a picture of Hauxwell to illustrate how women can be sex offenders too. But now I think it's more sinister. It's probably been done on purpose to try to counter all the peak trans moments that will be occurring after people find out about Hauxwell. Because it's basically saying women can be sex offenders too so it's ok to say that Hauxwell is a woman. I don't know if I've explained that right but it's like they realise that women are waking up to the madness so they are applying more and more gaslighting to keep us drunk on the kool aid.
Makes me want to cry.

It's so flipping annoying. Female is a biological term and applies to all sexually reproducing organisms including plants.

You can't call yourself legally a woman unless you have a gender reassignment certificate. And have been living as a woman for two years. Has he done that? If not it is illegal to call him a woman.

Yes, I know that Quentin, but I was hoping for a way of phrasing it that would spare me the ban hammer - quote the relevant bit of the 2003 act and leave the readership to connect the dots themselves.

M0stly, also that Hauxwell is not female so totally irrelevant to the article

What the actual fuck?

That is horrifying. I have no words.

Dammit - it's not open to comments. I was going to post the completely factually accurate statement that Hauxwell has absconded from a prison sentence for rape, and that in UK law, rape is defined as penetration by a penis specifically.

But yes, doesn't even begin to cover it.

Someone posted this on another thread

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/truth-female-sex-offenders/

Well, let's get these ladies locked up, somewhere where they can't rape anymore women. Any ideas?

As things currently stand, it seems the media are supposed to call this rapist 'she' for as long as he 'identifies as a woman'.

I suppose what i mean is, at what point will the media start having to call them 'him' again.

I am a bit thick so hoping someone can help. This person was born male but decided they are really a woman so began to live as a woman (whatever that means). But if they live as a man again, clothes, hair etc, are they now a man again. I can't get my head around it.

Me neither. It seems to be reducing gender to what you are wearing. Wear a skirt, you're a woman. Jeans and a hoody, hey presto, you're a man. And people must take this very seriously, even legally you must only be referred to the gender you are dressed as, with no mention of actually being male or female.

deadringer - the thing to remember amidst all this shitstorm of disinformation in the press is that in UK law rape is legally defined as penetration by a penis - so only someone with a penis can commit rape. So when you see a "woman" convicted of rape, this means that whatever claims they make about their internal gender feelz, they either have, or have had at some point in the past, a functioning penis.

Sexual assault by someone with a vulva is just that - sexual assault - but the sentencing is exactly the same, depending on the severity of the assault.

And according to the prison service's statistics, 98% of the people in prison for sexual offences are people with penises.

(I hope this sidesteps my deletion of last night.)

Sorry. In my post at 1708. I meant the alleged victim.

There's another laydee from South Shields who's accused of raping a man now.

@deadringer Yes. That's it. The police have to look for both identities because he or she could show up anywhere.

I am a bit thick so hoping someone can help. This person was born male but decided they are really a woman so began to live as a woman (whatever that means). But if they live as a man again, clothes, hair etc, are they now a man again. I can't get my head around it.

From 2013 www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=21812

From 2017 www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/south-shields-woman-26-appears-12704587

Hmmmm It seems this laydee has a few identity issues.

My sympathies go to 'her' victim.

Thanks quentin, really, beauty. Clear as mud then, lol.

It strikes me that in years to come when historians are looking at surviving news articles, etc, it's going to be very misleading and very confusing for them.