More than one “woman” a week prosecuted for rape?!?!

Wow Helleofabore, those posts….

They are not very nice posts are they?

They are accusing posters of all sorts without a shred of evidence.

They seem to also seem to say that posters have said all sorts of things they haven’t .

I would be very cross with my 12 year old if they did that. And tell her off.

I think most posters here would be open to a detailed data discussion though. And factual points.

And it seems that we need a lot more data on this issue. And that we need to record both sex and gender. This would enable us to separate into sub categories of biological men and biological women. It would also enable us to investigate whether it is a problem with transwomen committing rape and if this is skewing the statistics. Or if it isn’t a problem. We just would like to know.

Yes, those links are interesting. What is happening is fairly incredible, isn't it? And women are being adversely impacted in real life. Real life damaging consequences for women as a result of ideas that would have better remained at the theoretical level in the definitely not hallowed confines of a social science/ Arts department.

I think MNHQ are trying very hard to let people put their views across.

Of course, there are some views that you may not be allowed to express. A misogynist may think that all women are worthless and stupid. And may argue this point and also that a certain poster was an example of the general inferiority of women. This post would probably be taken down. As would racist, homophobic and transphobic posts.

You also cannot blanket accuse anyone who disagrees with you of racism, homophobia, misogyny, transphobia just to get the discussion shut down.

Most women here are very keen to discuss specific points. I believe many posters here are academics so detailed data processing and problem with statistics can be discussed in depth.

Hope this helps.

And yes, you did in fact call me a 'transphobe'. I have the post on my phone.

I think perhaps you have a very different interpretation of 'extreme' and other terms that you have thrown around to many other people. No one has called you names, no one has expressed transphobic views (unless you subscribe to the extreme activist style guide of transphobia).

Oh stop it!

Many of us have all had warnings, deletions, bans etc. Some may even have occurred because of your reporting, who knows?

We all know what the emails read like.

The only limitation that has been placed upon you is one of being polite!

You have already said that one specific post that others, including MNHQ and the person it was about, understood to be rude, against T+Cs, was in your opinion not rude. It is your understanding that is at odds with the T+Cs.

WHat you see as egregious is probably soemthing you disagree witrh stated quite balldy, but not personally. That is allowed.

And if you are trying to assert that we GC posters of MN reports lots and lots of TRA style posts you are definitely rowing against the tide. Many of us post that we would not want posts like your deleted, as was said about on of the posts here. We tell MNHQ that and they will often leave such stuff standing, unless others report it in numbers.

Yet we, the regular GC posters get zapped on a fairly regular basis, often (according to MNHQ in past explanatins) by readers who are not site members. Those we call The Monitors, sone of whom relish the fac that the disrupt, collect such posts and Twatter the living daylights out of them!

So maybe believe that we know you are over egging that paricualr pudding. You'll not find much sympathy for taking that tack here - though I do undertsand it will read really well when Twattered!

Maybe start again - honest discourse!!

Again, I'm very limited in terms of what I can say here. But, doing my level best to stay on the acceptable side of the line as set out by the mods, I believe I have responded in exactly in the same way in terms of content, tone and politeness as other posters have shown me.

However, my posts have been removed and I've been warned with the ban-hammer. Others have not.

I have specifically flagged multiple posts that breach Mumsnet T&cs - in every case, far more egregiously than even the most negative interpretation of what I've said. In some case, these posts are so extreme that they likely cross the threshold into criminal offences.

Mods have told me that these posts are acceptable and will not be removed.

It's tough to escape the conclusion that what is allowed to stay up vs not is not the result of a fairly and consistently applied content policy but rather is based on whether the underlying views themselves are acceptable.

@Itsanewdah I am hoping you are reading the links out up for you. I would be very interested to hear what you think now you can see that your assumption was seemingly incorrect.

There is a lot more oft discussed stuff about the female estate, MoJ etc. If you are interested you only have to ask. Most of it is offical stats, MoJ publications, court cases etc. No opinions, just facts.

YOU believe you were not rude.

The MNers you commented upon, or others reading your comments think you were

MNHQ agreed with those who reported your posts that inclued personal, or generalised, unpleasantness.

You can of course discuss the topic we are all here discussing. If your understanding was correctthen we would all have been deleted, the thread removed, the forum zapped.

But here we all are, discussing the same topic as you, ot being deleted and sent messages explaining our trangressions.

So I believe you must have misunderstood what MNHQ told you! about the posts that were deleted!

Simples.

Meanwhile this individual seems to have transitioned post-trial.

extract from the BBC, November 2012

A man who raped a 12-year-old girl from Hampshire after posing online as a teenage girl, has been jailed for 14 years and four months.

Gary Cooper, 47, pleaded guilty at Winchester Crown Court to the sexual grooming and rape of the girl.

Cooper, of Windsor Drive, Hertford, fabricated a profile in a social network site in which he purported to be a 15-year-old girl called Chantelle.

Passing sentence, the judge called Cooper "highly manipulative".

The court heard how Cooper had used the online site to meet his victim in July 2011 and then took her to Hertfordshire, via Essex, where he raped her.

After being reported missing, the girl was found by Hertfordshire Police the following morning.

A police investigation uncovered a series of offences against the 12-year-old and another girl to which Cooper pleaded guilty.

Det Insp Dave Storey, of Hampshire Constabulary, said: "This incident highlights the ease with which online paedophiles can use social networking sites to communicate with children and parents should be mindful of who their children are communicating with and any arrangements that are made following contact."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-20330163

So where is Cooper now?

Among the prisoners at Littlehey jail in Cambridgeshire is an inmate called Carrie Cooper. In a previous life on the outside, Carrie Cooper was delivery driver Gary Cooper, a paedophile whose crimes included the rape and abduction of a young girl.

But Cooper is serving her sentence, totalling more than 20 years, as a woman after changing her identity following her imprisonment in 2011.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7287343/PAUL-BRACCHI-1-50-inmates-male-prisons-claim-transgender.html

Cooper didn't seem to have dysphoria with that penis when raping that 12 year old girl.

@Itsanewdah this absolutely happens regularly. It should bother trans people as I can’t be the only one who is skeptical about the timing of their sudden discovery they are trans mid conviction given the relative amenity of a women’s prison vs a men’s prison. If I were trans I’d suspect some of these men are not genuinely trans, just opportunistic men, and be pissed off they are doing genuinely trans people no favours at app by giving them a bad name.

I've no idea which post you're referring to - I don't believe I was rude to anyone.

I se your post where you were rude to me because I’d made an error (which I accepted and apologised for) has been removed. That’s probably the sort of stuff you’ve been asked not to say.

I’d rather it had been left up - it said more about you than it did about me.

extract

A transgender woman who committed a string of sexual assaults on girls as young as four over a 17-year period has been jailed for 22 years.

Jessica Brennan, known as Allan Brennan at the time of the offences, groomed then sexually abused the four children between1998 and 2016.

The 54-year-old tried to rape one of the children and another girl was subjected to systematic abuse over the course of a decade, which involved 'multiple' incidents.

York Crown Court heard the victims, who cannot be named for legal reasons, were haunted by the abuse and their lives had been 'ruined' by the paedophile.

Brennan, from Harrogate, North Yorkshire, was charged with 16 separate offences including sexual assault of a child, indecent assault, sexual activity with a child and one count of attempted rape of a girl under 13.

The Ministry of Justice would not reveal which prison Brennan will be sent to following her sentencing, though she was in male-only HMP Hull prior to her court appearance.

Under UK law, transgender people are initially sent to prisons based on their legal status - but can request a transfer to another prison.

From: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9596003/Transgender-woman-sexually-abused-girls-young-four-jailed-22-years.html

Those offences continued up until 2016. And then suddenly, facing court, a 54 year old discovers that they're trans

See... there you go again...

You are making inferences about posters on this thread.

Anyway, back to the thread at hand.

They would have told you, as they have been telling us for years, that you cannot make negative generalisations about a group of people

I certainly can't, that's for sure!

You guys, on the other hand...

I'd like to my previous posts on the data issue to stay up for context and so don't want them to be removed under the pretext of my account being suspended for comments elsewhere.
I’m happy for this to happen. I’m not sure it will have the effect you think it will though!

You're not following. I'm not being threatened with suspension for insulting anyone or anything like that, not that I have done that anyway.

It's the substance that are the issue - I've been specifically barred from making certain points on this subject.

I doubt that MN said that this is a prohibited subject. They would have told you, as they have been telling us for years, that you cannot make negative generalisations about a group of people, including MNers.

And you cannot personally attack someone by name calling and calling them transphobic. Which you did.

But, whatever. Your point is quite obviously based on quite dreadful foundations and cannot be supported.

I haven't called anyone any names. But, as I said, I can't discuss this further because my account will be suspended if I do. It's been made explicitly clear to me that this is a prohibited subject, I'm not allowed to say certain things and I'll be booted if I keep discussing it or challenging what I'm seeing.

Totally fair enough - it's a private forum and so Mumsnet is free to impose whatever party line it wants on any discussion. I, obviously, couldn't care less about whether I keep my account but I'd like to my previous posts on the data issue to stay up for context and so don't want them to be removed under the pretext of my account being suspended for comments elsewhere.

I'm unable to respond to this point for the reasons previously given.

So, you cannot engage with posters with any engagement at all apart from denigrating them or with condescension or without casting aspersions on their motivations?

Are you 10?

irony klaxon! irony klaxon!

irony klaxon! irony klaxon!

if I limit myself to "approved" views.

Or you could try discussing things without name calling people?

I'm unable to respond to this point for the reasons previously given.

Because of this, I'm unable to continue this discussion - it's simply impossible to have any kind of open discussion when I can only participate if I limit myself to "approved" views.