Caroline Lucas on Aimee Challoner in the Guardian

@placemats CL is writing about the thing AC was originally controversial for instead of the newly revealed issue which is much much more serious. I couldn't imagine a party leader being able to get away with that if the original controversial issue were anything else, e.g. fox-hunting.

Now I have read it, I just want to comment on every paragraph and scream.

It's total batshit!

In Caroline's magical utopia where "aimee being trans doesn't matter", Aimee would have been thrown to the wolves.

Teflon.

Wow. There are just so many things she has got completely wrong in that article. Like talking about gender dysphoria being a genuine medical condition, while at the same time supporting policies that would make dysphoria completely irrelevant to transitioning; and the law "saying TWAW since 2004" when actually the Equalities Act makes it clear that a distinction can be made between TW and women via the sex-based exemptions (ergo they are NOT the same). Not to mention the bizarre omission that sociopaths pointed out.

She also misses the point totally wrt "the theoretical possibility that individuals might undergo gender reassignment for abusive purposes" - firstly, they wouldn't need to "undergo" anything under self ID, and second, unless the current exemptions are maintained or strengthened (as they're currently being attacked from all directions), it'll potentially be hard to prevent any male (with or without GRC) from entering women's spaces. (It almost sounds as though she doesn't understand her own party's policy at all).

And finally, she seems to be under the impression that the whole objection to AC is due to AC being transgender. When actually the two main concerns have been a) that AC's use of DC as campaign manager etc. while it appears AC must have been aware of the charges against him shows, at the very least, extremely poor judgement (but potentially much worse), and b) that at the same time, AC was campaigning alongside DC (who, let's not forget, would himself qualify as "trans" according to the Stonewall definition) for policies that would make it far easier for people like DC to get access to potential victims.

I'm not getting your analogy there Rabbits.

Not read the whole thing yet but the title:

I look to a future in which Aimee Challenor being trans doesn’t matter

• it's not the trans. It's the prior knowledge of Csa in their campaign hq.

Imagine if AC were, say, a Tory in favour of fox-hunting not a Green in favour of Trans.

Can you imagine the headlines if May's reaction to these events was to write a long article about fox hunting protests instead of the total safeguarding and due diligence failure. She'd be ripped apart.

I'm pretty sure she's trying to obscure the Green Party's failures by creating a smokescreen of "oh it's transphobic." No it's not, the concerns are that DC was an election agent and putting up motions, taking photos at Green Party events while facing charges for child rape and torture, AC made him her election agent after (as per A Gilligan) she would definitely have known about the charges as a trustee of Coventry Pride, TC may have been in breach of rules by standing as a candidate despite a recent animal cruelty conviction, we don't know whether the adult Challoners had personal data about members as their address was the Coventry HQ, and we are concerned about the bullying of Green Party members by DC/AC. The Green Party is a busted flush for me now. I can understand that they have small memberships in some areas and overstretched admin so they may not have the capability to vet all candidates. But then the responsible thing to do is to admit that they can't put up candidates everywhere and they have to look like something a bit less than a national party. Which would be a shame for those of us who prioritise environmental issues but, and I can't believe I'm having to write this, you can't prioritise Green Party electoral success over ensuring that child rapists don't get credibility and access to data, or physical access, to vulnerable people. She knows all that and that's why she's saying the problem is transphobia. She's not thick and she knows full well that they have a lot to answer to and it's easier for her to deflect than to answer.

No one is assigned gender at birth.
Sex is a series of physical and genetic characteristics.
This just needs repeating to the people who think they are scientists and speak the truth.

I want no part of Caroline Lucas' dystopian future.

Deer Amy

How y doin hun? Soz bout all the hatez u bin gettin. Honestly, wotz wrong with people they goin on about u not tellin us bout the bad thing (letz not menshun that -lolz) ur dad did?

Fuck the Haterz!!

Girl power! ❤️❤️❤️

U lookin good babe. Can't wait til u can km bk.

All the love, girl!

Stay strong!

Hugs n kisses

Cazza

I was gobsmacked at this bit:

Take one example: despite what you might read elsewhere, there’s no evidence that allowing trans people to self-declare will open doors for predators intent on abusing or attacking women and girls. Rather, obtaining a gender recognition certificate (GRC) will not change anything much other than removing the obstacles for trans people wanting, for example, an amended birth certificate or driving licence. It does not in any way affect whether a person presents as a man or woman on a daily basis.

If an individual wants to present as a different gender to the one they were assigned at birth, they do not need to go through the self-declaration process to do so.

Hardly anybody cares if Bob wants to present as Kate and go about his life accordingly. Good luck to him/her.

We care about the Equalities Act being used to say that once you've got your GRC/ new birth certificate you cannot be kept out of women's prisons, refuges, quotas, for example.

Women have already been attacked in prisons and refuges by men who used a claim of being trans to get into those women's prisons and refuges. You are telling us it will never happen when it already has!

If self-ID becomes law then DC could self-ID to get his GRC. He can prove that he has been cross-dressing for years if any proof is still required. He gets his new birth certificate, he is she and the prison service has to move "her" to the women's estate. That's not fear-mongering. That's the truth, we've already seen it happen with other prisoners.

Why is Caroline Lucas not talking about how to stop the abuses that have already happened under the existing GRC rules and where organisationa "go ahead of the law".

I do not understand how she cannot be engaging with that discussion. She doesn't seem malicious or dim.

I am fast losing my temper and think it's best I go offline for the evening. I cannot trust myself to comment.

I'm gutted. So many mistakes and misunderstandings from someone I formerly held in high regard. I have voted Green many times and as a confirmed lefty I am in support of many of their policies. But I don't think I can bring myself to vote for a party that is so wilfully blind to the issues raised by the Challenor case.

Oh look. A puff piece in the Guardian. The "newspaper" that wouldn't even cover the story... This doesn't look partisan at all.

Headline:
I look to a future in which Aimee Challenor being trans doesn’t matter

Me too, Caroline Lucas, but the "trans identity" is the only thing shielding Aimee Challenor from valid criticism continuing to be heavily involved with David Challenor - arrested for RAPE AND TORTURE OF A 10 YEAR OLD GIRL. AC allowed DC to have influence on political activism and the Green Party. AC knew about the crime. AC either denied it or did not care. If this was anyone else, they would be considered for their ACTIONS. Not shielded from scrutiny by the magic wand of "transphobia."

What did you and the Greens know?

My thoughts are with the survivors of his shocking and disgusting acts.

Plural. Again. Is there more coming?

There have been bomb threats and bots systematically blocking women on social media to try to silence those who are asking whether trans rights put women’s rights at risk. If we want a more equal society we need to talk about how to get there.

The only sensible thing in this whole sorry excuse for an article.

Nor is the theoretical possibility that individuals might undergo gender reassignment for abusive purposes a good basis for law-making. It’s also worth noting that a GRC is a legal document, and results in someone’s details being formally recorded. Anyone seeking to cause abuse would be drawing attention to themselves by using that route, and it’s far more likely that most people with illegal intentions will seek to operate under the radar.

How much more evidence do you need to question this policy than an actual child rapist was campaigning FOR self-ID under the auspices of your own Green Party, the local branch of which was registered to the address where said beyond depraved crime occurred?
What about our other favourite campaigner, Jess Bradley?
There is ample anectodal evidence.
Mountains of it.
Key advisors, especially in the prison context, have warned the government of the dangers of self-ID before.
The very real knowledge that the people who are demanding access to women's spaces are using violence against women to systematically intimidate and harass them should be enough to give people pause. These are the people we should feel comforable sharing our most intimate spaces with? The ones threatening to murder, rape and bomb us? Really?
This is not hypothetical.
The very fact that Ian fucking Huntley is reportedly calling himself a woman, a paedophile has transitioned, and rapists have been sent to women's prisons should be ENOUGH.
It is happening! Already! Which is why we want to stop it!
What number of cases will be enough for you to take this seriously?
Self-ID becoming law is only making it easier for evil people to "legally exploit the system," because the whole concept will now be an unproveable internal "gender identity," not the legal categories of "sex" and "gender reassignment." And it will completely screw up our already muddled understanding of what "sex" and "single-sex" actually mean.

Women are allowed to have boundaries. You are actively promoting their transgression. Against our will.

Handwaving concerns to say that "it would happen already" is..........

I have no words.

Although to be fair they lost my vote with the non-men insult, but if I could take my vote back twice I would.

I can't believe I used to actually donate monthly to the Green Party. Deep deep shame on them, and I am so bitterly disappointed in Caroline Lucas.

They will never again get my vote.

A reminder: Caroline Lucas allowed her party to define women as non-men.

NON-MEN

A 10 year old child suffered horrific abuse at the hands of an evil man who was entrusted with considerable responsibility in the Green Party.

But anyway, let’s focus on not hurting the feelings of a relative of the rapist and making sure we cover our arses so the trans rights activists don’t come after us.

Ridiculous.

Caroline Lucas has just tweeted her support for AC and trans issues retweeting Guardian article

Sorry can't work out how to screenshot

AC is pitiful. Jeez autocorrect

Aimee doesn't like Graham one bit it seems. This is one of Aimee's latest tweets.

twitter.com/alonelybeachhut/status/1035092837552074752

Racist overtones are obvious with this one.

She feels sorry for AC. ACKCHEWLY is indeed pitiful. ACs behaviour is reprehensible. Don't let your pity blind you Caroline.

I have faced many calls for immediate action against Aimee – calls that fail to understand the very limited powers I have as a party co-leader and that assume I would be prepared to ditch the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing. ( www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/30/look-future-aimee-challenor-trans-green-party-caroline-lucas )

Really?

www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/05/11/green-party-suspends-former-parliamentary-candidate-after-transphobic-heckling-on-channel-4/