Woman exposes herself in car park ...

Person with a penis arrested for indecent exposure. Yes. Makes sense. Logically.

Thing is it's not logical.

1. Trans people must be reported as trans if they are a victim of crime. If a trans person is the criminal, the report must not mention trans status and just report self id. Which usually means woman arrested for xyz reported as such and tbh often seems to be sex crimes. Although papers are obsessed with those and any woman who is the suspect etc gets loads of coverage.

1. It's only female people who are ovulators etc. Men are still men. So in the single crime I've seen committed by s trans man they were described as a trans man and female pronouns were used. Trans women are always just women and female pronouns.

If you're looking for consistency or logic you won't find it. And that has made me twitch from the start (I like things to be consistent and logical iyswim).

If women are "people who menstruate" or "vulva owners" then surely male flashers are "people who expose their penis in public"?

Nothing else is consistent, surely?

Given the genitals are relevant here, why aren't the woke demanding these types of crimes are reported as "a person exposed their penis"?

Sadly, as has been explained above, you can't refer to someone as a 'person' and still show a photo of them because it's considered exclusionary by stealth. And obviously papers want to print photos.

Perhaps 'a woman exposed her penis' would be more fitting.

Given the genitals are relevant here, why aren't the woke demanding these types of crimes are reported as "a person exposed their penis"?

Yep. For reductio ad adsurbum , 'a woman exposed her penis'. Isn't that what the 'ladydick' folk would want? If not, why not?

Given the genitals are relevant here, why aren't the woke demanding these types of crimes are reported as "a person exposed their penis"?

If we have to be people with a vagina when we need period products, why aren't flashers "people with a penis"?

Unless the feelings of male sex offenders matter more than logic, consistency, accuracy or women's rights?

A thank you, Janice, from me as well. I know you have to tread a fine line.

Thank you.

Newspaper editors these days are so incredibly stretched that they’re mostly interested in filling papers, not getting sued and not getting on the wrong side of IPSO, I’m afraid. People who want them to be more than that are going to have to start paying for the news they consume!

Thanks for that, Janice - I think we all appreciate the difficult position the current situations re court reports and IPSO put journalists in.

I think in this case my headline would have been ‘Suspected flasher to appear at crown court’. But you have to get that past an editor and most of them are men who have no interest in and no knowledge of the gender critical movement.

Aren't newspaper editors usually somewhat interested in some or all of: freedom of speech, accurate (or at least, not grossly misleading) information and 'the public interest' (not merely 'the interest of the public')?

I’m a reporter and have to write more stories than you’d imagine about trans sex offenders. The original article on this has most likely been written from the court list without the reported being in court. The only details on the list are a name, a ‘gender’ (I know), a date of birth and the wording of the charge. I’m sure the reporter here knows the score, most reporters are fed up to the back teeth of navigating the abuse they get from all angles when reporting this stuff, but they would be in contempt of court if they changed the gender in their reporting of this case to male, and it would also go against all IPSO guidelines.

When I see this kind of bullshit in court I make a point of going along (often on my day off) to listen to the case to ensure I can report it accurately. But I’m still bound by IPSO and tbh I can’t afford to lose my job. The way I get around it is to use no pronouns at all so nobody gets offended. Some examples of my stories are in the thread referred to above. It’s really, really hard work to write 500 words without ever referring to someone’s sex but it is possible.

I think in this case my headline would have been ‘Suspected flasher to appear at crown court’. But you have to get that past an editor and most of them are men who have no interest in and no knowledge of the gender critical movement.

It turned out to be Smith, in male persona. Police were called and arrested her. A mugshot picture taken shortly afterwards shows a person with obvious stubble.
From the Sidmouth Herald's article. But apparently it "never happens". Just lucky that this time it was a sting and not some real child - got knows what "she" would have done to them.

Identity is a matter of agreement after all.

Why own it when they can blame a ‘woman’ for it?

Must have accidentally switched from ‘girl’ mode to ‘pervy bassad rubbing his penis furiously in public’ mode.

Sorry but just reporting this as an offence carried out by a woman (when clearly wasn’t) is seriously offensive to me as a Woman. Male crime - men need to own it.
(Actually I’m not sorry either).

@Bobkitten why does your OH think this "And that none of this affects me personally, since... and after all, I’ve never had a problem in a toilet and nor am I likely to" ? Unless you never use a public toilet, that's quite an assumption, I would say.

And get your gender critical teenagers to do the same. If 85% of six formers in a largely white intake school suddenly self identify as trans, or gay, and mixed race, what then?

I'm starting to think they only way back from this madness is for sane people to start an orchestrated campaign of fucking with officially collated figures and stats on how we identify. On race, gender, religious affiliation, ethnicity and absolutely everything else, at every single possible opportunity until those stats become so inaccurate as to be absolutely meaningless.

What sense does that make?

It doesn't make real world sense. It does make sense to those people for whom this is all an intellectual game and believe that they and their family (by virtue of their class status) are never likely to be affected by it.

However, iirc, it's been discussed that some work arounds are not acceptable because they are, in effect, commenting on someone. So - a 3rd space that is gender-neutral alongside sex-restricted provision has been argued to be prejudicial because the assumption is that only an excluded class of people would use it.

Neutral pronouns are not accepted in the ETBB that some judges adhere too in a remarkably zealous manner. It's not an adequate compromise that a crime victim should testify with neutral pronouns (still difficult for some) but that they should be compelled to use the pronoun of the suspect's/defendant's choice.

There are objections to the suggestion that there should be a prison estate which is solely for people who are trans identified because such spaces are not gender affirming. (Other logical problems apply.) However, several years ago, this was one of the reasons, iirc, that a very humane plan to develop some more localised, family-friendly female prison estate wasn't developed.

I think that current regulations might mean that there could not be accompanying photographs and it would be unlikely that news organisations would opt for this rather than something that permits pictures.

Why?

So you can refer to someone with a penis as a woman if you show a photo of them not looking much like a woman at all, but you can't call someone of any sex or gender identity 'a person' and still show a photo of them? What sense does that make? We are all persons. The word person is not exclusionary in any way.

As James Kirkup has written in several pieces, IPSO has been heavily captured.

If I saw a headline that read something like "Person exposes self in public car park" I would immediately think that the person is male as females rarely commit sex crimes.

True, or at least men don't tend consider things done to them (while asleep for example) as sexual assault in the same way that women are encouraged to, so they tend to go unreported because often the cultural perception of the act is not the same, even though, in actual fact it may be identical in nature. Therefore we can't really know the extent of 'sexual assaults' committed by women, if we are going to view 'flashing' and uninvited touching in a comparable way.

The point is that when there is absolutely no doubt over the biological sex of a perpetrator of a crime, and that person does not identify as anything other than their natal sex it can be reported as 'a man' or 'a woman' and the crime stats won't be fudged either way.

When there is a gender identity issue in the mix and particularly when it is a sex crime, we need to find a way of getting to the heart of whether the perpetrator is in possession of a penis, or not.

The problem with being to 'change gender' or self-indentify with ease as a woman or a man or something else, is that in law it can't be easily disputed. What's to stop EVERY perpetrator of EVERY crime identifying as something else just for the kicks and to mess up the system on purpose?

I don't know how these things work in the criminal justice system but perhaps as an answer to this, everyone should be compelled to disclose a) their biological sex at birth and b) what they identify as now, when being charged with a crime. Then anyone who identifies as something other than their natal sex should automatically go into a third category. So you have Man, Woman, Person. That doesn't mean they are misgendered. We are all persons.

A refusal by the CJS to refer to a transman or transwoman as anything other than 'a person' for the purposes of a criminal trial and compiling sexual crime statistics would go some way towards clarifying the situation.