Man in Brighton exposes himself to children while wearing womens clothes claims athletes foot made him do it

I also remember there was a guy who cut a woman's throat from behind and it was claimed he acted in self defence.

Cohen said he had a fetish for wearing women’s clothing and skipped a day off work to take a run in the park in “a crop top exposing his belly fat” and tight running gear

What's the official name for the above-described fetish?

Ignoring the whole trans thing, can we be outraged that his unconvincing athlete’s foot story meant the judge decided he couldn’t be sure beyond reasonable doubt that he was masturbating. Even though this was the second time he’d needed to get his penis out for a scratch next to a playgroup. And he claimed he hadn’t noticed the 15 toddlers. FFS.

So many excuses given in court are pitiful.

I remember the rage I felt about that guy who said he slipped naked onto some poor woman and accidentally penetrated her, and that being accepted

Self ID is not a get out of jail free card for sex offences.

Seems to be a 'get into the easier jail' card though.

I find it so odd that anyone is trans if they say they are, until something like this happens when they suddenly become 'fake' trans.

Why can't the men who would attack trans people "just be dealt with by police"?

Exactly. This is not about safety, it's about validation.

If people had realised en masse what the EA was going to allow in 2010 I believe the "gender reassignment" section would have been much less carelessly drafted. Laws can change. It can be changed to better reflect women's rights if there is enough public pressure.

immediately outing you as trans and potentially putting you at risk.

Why would males be a risk? Do you only believe cis males to be dangerous? Do men who identify as cis also admit they identify as violence and sexual predators?

Why can't the men who would attack trans people "just be dealt with by police"?

But the GRA was seen as easy and a quick win. Some seem hell bent on making that not the case and actually taking things backwards.

Because all these changes have been made without consultation of other affected protected groups. The trans view has trumped everything. So the debate is happening now.

I remember a particularly upsetting Christmas while heavily pregnant and a I got a raging vag itch. Managed to get myself to an open pharmacy and get something.. I think I bought a pack of gum to make it clear that I was not the sort of person who goes out on Christmas day only looking for vagina cream and then made my way home.

I never once rubbed myself against a passing tree or had my hands down my pants in public. I am the very definition of restraint.

In essence your banned from going to the loo in public, if that is not discrimination then not sure what is.

They can use the disabled toilet on a case by case basis or lobby for third unisex toilet provision. They are not women. They have no basis to have access to female spaces. The fact that people think they should is because women's rights aren't respected.

That was @ debbie

Men no longer need a GRC. They are protected by the Equality Act from the moment they declare they have begun the process of applying for one.

The GRC involves living in your chosen sex for 2 years and counselling. No drugs or surgery are needed, and the fee is means tested.

Women are always out as being women. Putting TIMs in womens toilets potentially puts all of those women at risk. Essentially banning women from using public toilets, by the same logic.

As i said you can protect women and TIMs under the same legislation. They are oppositional interests

Surely thrush is more common than athletes bollocks? And how often to women (actual women) get their vag out to scratch...?

Debbie thanks. So the final bit of paperwork has emotional importance but no legal relevance in practise?

My understanding is that a transwoman with a GRC can expect to be sent to a women's prison. Is that not the case?

If it is the case, how can you reassure people like me that streamlining the process of getting a GRC won't provide predatory male prisoners with a way of gaining access to women's prisons?

I once had athletes vulva. Took a couple of days to figure out what it was, and once I got the fungicidal cream it was gone in a day and has never come back (thank God)

What I did was air my nethers in the privacy of my own room (was bloody itchy verging on painful) and wear loose clothing. When the urge to scratch got unbearable, I excused myself to a cubicle in the ladies, then I boil washed all my underwear/trousers/bedding.

What I didn't do was prance around in the park in tight lycra workout gear, known that I'd have to reach down and rummage at some point. Because that would be very unreasonable.

I don't want to put a crimp on his life by stopping him exercising, I wish him luck in finding a fungicidal cream that sorts out his itchy penis, but he does not need to be getting his cock out in public to deal with it.

Sensimilla
I also think you would be hard pushed to prove that requiring someone to use theee correct facilities constitutes harrassment or discrimination

It does if going about your life as a woman as required by the current GRC process is rendered impossible because you cant go to the loo in the shopping centre, because your banned from the ladies and to walk into the gents whilst presenting female is 1) not living your life as a woman and 2) immediately outing you as trans and potentially putting you at risk.

In essence your banned from going to the loo in public, if that is not discrimination then not sure what is.

ZigZagandDustin wrote - "I got to be a woman with no gatekeeping."

Becoming a woman does involve gatekeeping. You are just lucky that you have not shared the dreadful gatekeeping fate of many baby girls in China and India who were not allowed to become women because they were killed at birth for being female.

Debbie6666 well I would think the person who suffered a material loss would be the natal woman who did not get the place offered to the trans woman. It doesn't sound like it would be very easy for them to get restitution via a charge of fraud.

I agree with PositivelyPERF. I don't understand why real women have to be used as test cases. How many women will have to be harassed, how many women will have to miss out on opportunities, how many will have to go through the gruelling and genuinely traumatic process of bringing a case through court before these concerns are taken seriously? And given the frankly horrifying prosecution/conviction rates for sex crimes, how many hundreds will have to do this before we get five or ten cases that we can point to as evidence of a problem?

Thermostatpolice

Debbie I don't understand. Why are people pushing for the GRA if self ID is already the case?

Because the final bit of paperwork which is not particularly important to the real world but quite important to some is an intrusive and expensive process.

Many trans people live their lives without a GRC because of the process intrusiveness and somewhat reliance on gender stereotypes". Indeed the process requires access and use of all those spaces everyone is getting upset about.

In real terms without a GRC, HMRC wont let you change your gender. The judicial system wont necessarily respect your gender and the prison system has its own policies in place either way much like sports.

They will all make accommodations but you wont be recognised as your identified gender.

To be honest its not the biggest trans issue the government could have chosen to deal with. The 2 1/2 year wait for medial help in some regions would seem more important. But the GRA was seen as easy and a quick win. Some seem hell bent on making that not the case and actually taking things backwards.

Quite OT for this thread though

Its illegal to kill people. But in a recent case we've seen a man using his tinnitus as an excuse for killing his ex partner.

So I am not convinced that its safe to let men self ID as women, use women only spaces, and use the power of the law to protect women from predatory men.

The association clause has nothing to do with self id. That is about the perception of the person doing the harrassment or discrimination

I also think you would be hard pushed to prove that requiring someone to use theee correct facilities constitutes harrassment or discrimination

He couldn't have scratched it anywhere else? I know. It's appalling.

As for this actual case, ffs. Since when do you get to get your dick out near children, even if it is itchy? . He couldn't have scratched it anywhere else?

IANAL = I am not a lawyer?