"Trans Criminals are not Women" says Priti Patel

While I agree with her, you don't suddenly stop being a woman just because you commit a crime.

They were never women, people who are law abiding and male are no more women than people who are criminal and male.

These facilities are separated by sex not only to keep women safe, but to ensure privacy and dignity. You may not care about your own privacy or dignity but I sure as hell care about mine.

Well, you didn't, you said what you meant. But we aren't fuckwits. We can see it.

Transwomen are no more or less a threat to anyone than any other man.

We know this, you know this. The difference is you don't care as long as you get whatever it is you are among for.

And women will continue to say no!

As glad as I am about this as a step in the right direction, I don't quite understand the logic that says that TWAW, but if a TW then commits a violent and/or sexual crime, that magically allows us to determine that they are not a woman.

Is the implication that if they commit such crimes, they must be only pretending to be a transwoman, because nobody who actually truly identifies as a woman could possibly behave that way...? Because that's frankly ridiculous.

Or is it saying 'No, they still are a woman if they say so, but we're recording the crime as male because we've realised what will happen to the crime stats otherwise'?

Transwomen are the same threat level as other males not women
So no if i see a TW or bloke in Tescos I will not be recoiling in fear, however I would if I found myself incarcerated with them

''Karen White'' et al.
www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white-how-manipulative-and-controlling-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison

@MishyJDI

...Transwomen are no more a threat then cis women.....

Really?
Would you like to reconsider?

twitter.com/PostAshley42/status/1450908799880024066?t=QFpzwInaR9HfkAJdVsIZFg&s=19

twitter.com/dospeakuplouder/status/1449769512610549771?t=l2vLrh62vmxlfmWqPOAVew&s=19

twitter.com/trudylynch64/status/1449546246444683264?t=P4Jf_zK2kKe4KjiMKo9UmA&s=19

For example

If you can’t agree with people simply because you disagree with other opinions they have how can any political party make any changes that improve society?

The Tories have a terrible record on disability rights, child poverty and numerous other serious issues. There’s no doubt many of their policies are very harmful. But what happens when they actually talk sense? I doubt many gay people suddenly became right wing bigots once same sex marriage was legalised. I seem to recall that was a call for celebration, not an “OMG are we the baddies now?????” moment for Stonewall and their supporters.

What would most of us do if Tories started listening to women about sentences for rape? If punishments were tougher, if court processes were less aggressive? Would we applaud or change our stance? Well, obviously we would applaud but all the die hard lefties who prefer slogans to logic, where does that leave them? Can you support a good decision made by your enemy?

This is a problem the left is going to see more and more if Boris is smart. If he wants the votes he can appeal to women. Labour and Liberals seem unable to move out of a political “everything we do is good/everything they do is bad” mindset and it is doing no one any good.

Absolutely brilliant news. I don’t care that it is Priti Patel who has said this; the important thing is that it has been said by someone who has actual authority, that she is behaving like a rational adult on this issue, unlike so many other politicians.

I too used to think I could never vote Conservative, but this is a matter of such urgency that needs must. The current situation is bad enough, the direction we would go in under a government led by Starmer is even more nightmarish. I will continue to vote Conservative, after voting Labour all my life till the last couple of years, as long as they are speaking sense on this issue and, crucially, listening to women, and as long as Labour and all the other alternatives are silencing and demonising us, and planning to restrict our rights so drastically.

And yes, the Tories went along with a lot of this out of fear of being seen as the “dinosaurs” Lammy referenced: my own MP used this very word when I first went to see them about this several years ago, but as others have pointed out it was Tony Blair’s government that oversaw the bringing in of the GRA, in an atmosphere almost of complete secrecy as far as the general public were concerned. We weren’t even informed this was happening let alone asked our opinion on it.

I was one of the voters who brought Blair in; I was overjoyed to see a Labour government in power again, finally. If I’d have known though that this would be one of the results of his leadership, it would have stopped me in my tracks and presented me with a huge dilemma, for sure.

Actually if anyone had told me this was on the cards I would have flat out disbelieved them and dismissed them as a conspiracy theorist crank. I literally wouldn’t have believed it possible. I couldn’t believe it when I did first find out about the GRA, and walked round in a state of genuine shock for several days at least (shock that has never quite worn off!).

Blair made some welcome points earlier this year? last year? about cancel culture etc but he needs to acknowledge the role he played in enabling all this. It was his government that brought in the concept of legitimising lies, mandating them even. State sanctioned lies, leading to state sanctioned abuse of women in all sorts of ways. He needs to own this if he really wants to challenge the current situation.

You've missed the point; no one thinks most trans people are a threat.

If you make women only spaces mixed sex, we can't challenge anyone who walks in no matter how they behave as we are the ones who will be in trouble; and many women will be forced to self exclude.

There's the clash of: any male person should be entitled to express themselves and have the identity of their choice, and this entitlement should not be restricted only to some males as this would be discriminatory and limiting their rights.

with: a GRC means total access to female spaces and resources, (exceptions currently pretty meaningless in practice) which should obviously involve gatekeeping for safety of said females, and a responsibility to maintain behaviours that ensure safety for females. (Which would imply that a GRC should be removed for breaching said behaviours.)

It's tangled up with: TWAW, so ideologically no boundaries between female people and TW should ever be accepted as justifiable. But in reality: major bloody impact on biologically female people caused by biologically male people, because sex exists and has a very significant impact even if everyone tries to wish it away. And some male people for example with a history of serious sex offending, obviously should not have that access to biological females, because of a massive sex based disadvantage making a nonsense of sex not being supposed to need to be recognised.

And it's all academic anyway, as even a TW fully sincere and appropriate at all times is still going to exclude some female people from equality and access by the fact of their presence. Because reality doesn't go away.

This is the tip of the ice berg, but excellent that Patel and her department are starting to realise. TW can be TW, unconditionally, fully supported, recognised and provided for. But TW are not females and they need separate provision, resources and data collection. Otherwise unintended serious consequences start stacking up like a mountain range and the disadvantage is heavily sex based and always against the equality of women.

“If this is the best you can do, it would be better to stop thinking”.

Why do you choose to be so unpleasant? I am allowed to review my fully GC opinions on the basis that I don’t think most trans women are a threat to anyone. I still don’t believe they’re women but that’s different.

Men {people with penises}should not be in female prisons.

Finding common ground with Priti Patel is proper doing my head in.

I don't really get this. You could probably find at least one thing you agree on with virtually any person on the planet, including murderers, terrorists or rapists. On an issue like the gender debate, there are bound to be gazillions of people who agree with you on that but whom you'd hate or who hold other views you find appalling. I absolutely can't stand Priti Patel, but I expect we'd agree on a few things.

Excellent news! Keep pulling, everyone.

Important too to remember: once applied for, things like a long criminal history of serious sexual offenses against women is no barrier to getting a GRC which permits entry into female spaces.

Why isn't any kind of risk or impact assessment made before a GRC is issued? I've never understood how a man with convictions for sex offenses can even be considered.

What about the women who are having to share female only spaces, do they get to not be ok with it?

Excellent news. Stonewall should never have been in a position to re-write the law to replace sex with gender, especially in institutions such as the police. I hope the government set up an inquiry into how this has happened across so many government departments and institutions. Stonewall law is not the law. They misrepresented sex and gender and were in a position where they trained the police and judiciary to uphold their ideology rather than the law. I can’t believe this was allowed to happen, it’s been massively detrimental to women and girls in the UK. The government seem keen to tackle VAWG so hopefully they join the dots and look at how women’s rights were being picked apart by stonewall.

"The Secretary of State makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by section 24(2), (4) and (8) of the Coronavirus Act 2020(1).

The Secretary of State, in accordance with section 24(3) of that Act, considers that coronavirus is having, or is likely to have, an adverse effect on the capacity of persons responsible for making national security determinations to consider whether to make, or renew, national security determinations and that it is in the interests of national security to retain the fingerprints or DNA profiles as provided for in these Regulations.

The Secretary of State has consulted the Commissioner for the Retention and Use of Biometric Material in accordance with section 24(6) of that Act."

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/973/made?view=plain

I would argue accurate crime statistics are 'a valid public policy reason'.

From the guidance to people applying for GRC.

For all sorts of reasons, you may not wish your gender history to be common knowledge. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 safeguards the privacy of transsexual people by defining information in relation to the gender recognition process as protected information.
Anyone who acquires that information in an official capacity may be breaking the law if they disclosed it without your consent. Having said that, the Act does contain a series of exemptions that allow information to be disclosed for valid public policy reasons without your consent, for example, for preventing or investigating crime.
People who might gain protected information in an official capacity include anyone to whom you show your GRC to obtain the rights that are associated with it. This might be someone at a bank, Jobcentre, or a potential employer. In addition, all the people who handle your application for a GRC are bound by law to respect your privacy. Information about your application will not be disclosed to third parties unless it is permitted under the GRA.

You should bear in mind that privacy does not mean absolute secrecy. There may be some situations in which you will be required by law or necessity to prove a link between your current legal gender and your former one. For example you may be required to provide documents to organisations administering your pension(s) to protect the survivor pension rights of your spouse. Although the gender recognition process seeks to safeguard your privacy, you do not have a right never to disclose the fact that you obtained a GRC

@ErrolTheDragon i should have put discrimination in quotes. I know it's not discrimination and you know it's not discrimination but that won't stop Gender Identity Theorists from making the clain.

Excellent points @Artichokeleaves