Child raped in toilet by Transwoman

How do you know though? Can you read minds?
Many people THINK they know someone - until they don't.

None of the men I know are rapists either. I am generally only friends with nice people. None of the transwomen I know have given me a moments concern that they might be any more likely to be a rapist than any of the men I know. That doesn't stop them from being male.

You are friends with nice people. That group of nice people includes various different genders and identities, and that's lovely.

Law is not based on the assumption that everyone is nice. Most people are nice. Some people are bad.

The most vulnerable are protected when all the nice people behave in ways that make it very very difficult for the actions of bad people to go unnoticed and unchallenged. Eg in safeguarding, people in positions of authority and influence are very careful not to be in a totally unobserved 1:1 with someone vulnerable - office doors are left open, another adult is within earshot, buildings are designed with windows in the doors - and that's what is normalised so that someone with bad intentions has to be seen and noticed to break those conventions in order to get into a private 1:1 situation with their victim. Every single good, kind and non abusive teacher, priest or other person who follows good safeguarding practices is helping to reduce the tragedies where safeguarding fails and someone is abused.

Similarly every single good, kind and honourable transwoman who stays out of all-female spaces is helping to keep those spaces safe by making it so rare that a male person breaches that convention that everyone notices and is on high alert if it ever happens. And every single transwoman who uses female spaces is helping to erode the idea that single sex spaces can ever exist, and makes incidents like this more likely even if they never hurt a woman directly themself.

I used to be a TRA as a teenager and so I am reasonably versed in gender identity philosophy. As such, I can tell you that it has long been accepted online that you don't have to have "bottom dysphoria" to be trans. That means, you don't have to be uncomfortable with your genitalia. Transwomen can have penises and enjoy having and using them, and many males aspire to have a highly feminine appearance while retaining their penises. One term for this is "dickgirl".

Assuming that people have to be dysphoric about their genitalia to qualify as trans has been classified as transphobic gatekeeping since circa 2008. Possibly earlier.

Agreed

It’s like the OP is pleased it happened to prove their point

I'll add that Dolatowski continued to offend. As recently as 2022, he was placed in a women's prison.

In 2023 he was sent to a men's prison.

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/courts/4324534/sex-offender-dolatowski-mens-prison/

Lennon/Katie Dolatowski claims to be genuine. After being found guilty of voyeurism against a 12 yr old girl and the attempted sexual assault of a 10 yr old girl (both offences having taken place in Fife supermarket toilets) he was so emphatic of his genuine trans status that he was discharged to a women's hostel.

I'm assuming that you're not in Scotland or you would know of this case.

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/courts/819644/mum-of-supermarket-toilet-sex-assault-victim-warns-freed-attacker-could-strike-again/

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/fife/832849/warning-as-transgender-sex-offender-placed-in-womens-hostel/

This is known as the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy.

This is a logical error where someone tries to protect a universal claim from a counterexample by changing the definition of a group rather than admitting they were wrong.

Ususal example is with an Initial Universal Claim e.g., "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Then someone presents an actual member of the group who disproves the rule (e.g., "My uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."

The Fallacy: Instead of accepting the counterexample, the speaker arbitrarily redefines the category to exclude them e.g., "Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

For rational, non ideologically-driven people, it is clear that this is bollocks and actually the initial universal claim is untrue.

Ah, the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

It's not the first offence either. Two incidents of transwomen sexually assaulting children in supermarket toilets, spring to mind. Plus one of a woman being assaulted. But noooo all they want to do is pee.

Oxymoron.

I know.
Why can't they get it into their thick heads that by the time he's shown he "isn't really trans" by raping you, it's Too. Fucking. Late ?

I wonder if any from the trade unions along with those politicians who are desperately trying to resurrect self-ID in the UK can explain how the fuck we are supposed to identify the 'weirdo fake' trans from the 'genuine' ones? Amazing how these progressives preach that we should affirm and accept any male who says they are women and welcome them into any and all of our protected spaces. Any hint that these TW could be Male is c9nsiderrd transphobic. Then when these creeps show just how male they really are by committing these violent, abusive acts they quickly dismiss this transness.

If you have a penis and were born with it then you are a MAN. You can dress up and play the girlie but you are MALE not a woman just a man playing dress up as a woman. Which I don’t have an issue with but you are how you were born.

What’s the difference between a man and a transwoman, @PensionPTake ?
How can we tell?

Even if we could tell, what makes you think a man who’s a transwoman is less rapey than a man who’s not a transwoman?

It’s funny how no one knows any rapists, all the men people know are lovely, yet still women and children get raped. Careless of them, really.

Yes, while some posters pretend we don't know full well that some men will go to extraordinary lengths to have access to children. No, not all priests, gymnastics coaches, boyfriends of single mothers, piano teachers etc are motivated by wanting unquestioned access to children. But given that we know some have gone great lengths over long periods of time in order to be able to abuse children, why is it unthinkable that some men will see an opportunity, put on a dress and wig and just pretend. It's far quicker and easier than training for and getting a job working with children, and this way no one is allowed to question your motives when you follow a child into a toilet.

This is safeguarding basics. We know men commit these crimes. We know the vulnerable in society need protecting. We have learnt that it's not safe to hold any group within society above challenge and suspicion purely because they claim membership of that demographic. We know the doctor or teacher or police officer might mean others ill. Why is this any different? Especially when the criteria for membership is so vague and open to abuse.

I didn't know any rapey men until a man that I knew well was convicted of rape. It seems that rapists are pretty good at hiding the fact that they are rapists, irrespective of their sartorial choices.

Sadly the girl in the op now does, which is the issue. Don’t minimise it.

While everyone else acknowledges that they are still men in costume.

I wonder if I rented a cosplay cat outfit could I go stay in a cattery for a few nights...

Quite.

Presenting as a woman (in some form...) but behaving like a man - and committing sexual offences at a higher rate than the rest of the male population.

Thats the point...any man can be a transwoman according to the TRAs. So under current guidelines this person is a transwoman because they are a man who is "presenting and acting" as a woman in society.

A good question to ask the "be kind" people is how many attacks on women/girls by transwomen in female spaces they would be willing to tolerate before they agreed that female toilets should be female-only.

In Germany, with legal brothels full of trafficked women?

No chance.

I hope you are being sardonic.

OMG! For real?