Not our crime - yet another violent man claiming to be a woman

One of the (many) problems with only using a photo to illustrate the truth of a situation, in an article like this, is that the large-language AI models will be scraping this crap.

That then gets mashed up and spewed back out as tenable looking, but deeply spurious, ‘truth’ - no doubt eventually forming the basis of more than a few lazily-researched ‘Gender Studies’ degrees.

Wankers. I wonder if they deliberately didn’t put it up or if it was up before we thought to look and was taken back down?

JFC that’s a man

InvisibleBuffy · Today 11:51

I really hope you're right that they are subverting the IPSP Code, as best as they can. I think we can assume that some, the Guardian, Independent and Metro etc are fully indoctrinated and don't do this.

The only thing I can say about this bloke is that the judge essentially described him as an unregenerate danger to women, with no remorse; and that he got seven years, with another four on licence.

I can't find the article on their facebook page. It looks like they didn't post it there.

MEN generally get an avalanche of comments via FB so I’m not surprised they’ve updated the article!

Whatever else the IPSO guidelines say, the very first clause is:

The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

Presumably the MEN headline was changed because someone pointed out that the original version contravened this basic point.

Ah that makes sense thank you!

‘A man who claims to be a woman’ or ‘A male who says he’s female’ are my preferred terms but if we use them on here when in discussion with someone who fits that category we are likely to be deleted.

I also usw ‘male with a non-male gender identity’ or ‘man with a special gender’ and ‘medically/surgically feminised male’ where that’s appropriate. Sometimes I use ‘medically transitioned male’ to describe someone who has been through the medical transition process but that one’s not great because they aren’t really transitioning from male to female or man to woman because that’s not actually possible.

After the Spectator’s IPSO slap I am going to propose a new description, ‘Man with a Special Certificate that prevents the press calling him a Man’ (obviously as a general term, not directed at any individual- no need to smite me, MN gods!)

I actually despise the post-modernist language war, constantly shifting definitions of old words and the creation of new terms that are acceptable to TRAs one day (womxn! AFAB!) and supposedly transphobic the next but I am willing to keep fighting the battle if it means women can keep talking.

I first arrived at FWR around the time the ‘talk guidelines’ were imposed and we’ve made loads of progress since, in no small part due to Maya, but also our own insistence on not shutting up (and JK not shutting up either, not even when the odious Vaush told her to).

He. It's a man.

That's a bloke.

I really hope that IPSO's blunder in saying the Spectator couldn't refer to a transwoman as 'a man who claims to be a woman' either causes their downfall or causes them to radically review their guidelines.

We have many years of evidence now that clearly demonstrates that as a class, transwomen act like men when it comes to male pattern violence. Pretending that male people can be women has been shown to actively put women at risk.

Perhaps the ‘Dangerous’ is a quote from the judge?

Fuck IPSO and fuck the GRA - no one is arguing to be able to print slurs or pejoratives towards transgender people, we just want to be able to name reality.

You can’t be a transwoman without being male.

An adult human male is a man.

And humans can’t change sex so transwomen aren’t women.

I don't understand the need for the quotation marks around dangerous.

Oh definitely. They are hugely hindered by IPSO and often their own editors, but put a single photo of the 'woman' and its not only guaranteed that everyone will know the type of 'woman' it is, but also that there'll be social media coverage of people calling it out.
Pretty sure it's a deliberate tactic the vast majority of the time.

These men make me sick as do the journalists and everyone else who validates their identity.

But especially those who continue to advocate for the rights of males to be in single sex spaces for women because they say they are women or those who advocate for us to continue using incorrect sex pronouns in respect of male people.

Enough women have been harmed. Women exist and matter. We are fully human.

Not a woman.

Not an ‘angel’ either. Some of these self-picked names are the epitome of delusion.

Thank for the information. I still find it so unacceptable that any male person should be allowed to be imprisoned alongside women, however harmless he may seem.

tl;dr

He may or may not go to a women's prison. It seems unlikely, however the possibility remains.

Okay, the last update on KPSS says:

'The presumption is that all male prisoners who identify as women with intact male genitalia, or who have a current or previous conviction for any violent or sexual offence (not just against women or girls) should not be held in the general women’s estate. This applies equally to those with and without a GRC: those without a GRC will be held in the male estate; those with a GRC may be held in E Wing at HMP Downview.

Exemptions to this can only be considered on recommendation of a Complex Case Board where there is a high level of confidence that the individual poses a low level of harm to women in prison. Recommendations must be referred to the HMPPS Director General of Operations for consideration and to the Secretary of State for Justice for a final decision.

The policy is retrospective meaning that for all male prisoners currently held in the female estate new allocation decisions will be made.

This policy is not perfect and still allows for male prisoners to be held alongside women. However, it is a considerable improvement and should see a significant reduction in the number of male prisoners in the female estate. It is noteworthy that the policy cuts across GRC status and places far greater emphasis on the risk to women in prison than in previous versions.'

kpssinfo.org/prisons-in-england/

'In a statement read to the court, the victim told how the incidents had affected their mental health. '

If the suspect was male, I assume this may mean that 'Angel' could go to a women's prison?

But also - the rule about the criminal having a history of violence against women - does that mean victims who are actual women, or 'people who identify as women'? What a fucking mess.

Yes. My understanding is that the shifting rules were last that if a man has a history of violence towards women he wouldn't go in a women's prison, in England/Wales. However I'm not sure of the sex of his victim, here.

Yes I also thought the quotation marks were in the wrong place...