"Our customers won't do this because they aren't DECEITFUL" ??????

[SuitedandBooted]

Yes, it is in the Daily Mail, but

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5565999/Row-female-compartments-transgender-people-pits-Churchills-grandson-against-Mumsnet.html

Just how the hell can Serco vouch for everyone who uses this service?
Women will be perfectly safe sharing a sleeping carriage with ANYONE as there is a button they can press?

Hello Mr Soames, Real World calling!!

Stillscreaming

Men don’t need to dress up as women to sexually assault women. This is true. What you are failing to grasp is that there are men who want to do it anyway. It’s the whole point of their fetish. They exist. I have met them, and it’s my job to stop them doing it again. Self ID is going to make my job much harder.

What’s more, once self ID is in place, a sex offender won’t actually have to dress as a woman to access the safe space anyway. It will be enough to say “I am a woman”

Yes the odds of meeting a male sex offender dressed as a woman in your sleeper carriage are minute, so what? A couple of months ago the risk of that happening was 0, that’s what. And all those minute possibilities will grow and increase every time you go anywhere that used to be a sex segregated place that becomes non sex segregated. All this to validate the identity of a few 1000 people apparently.

Honeydragon - there's a story there, what happened?

I'm also saying that I can find any evidence that men do dress up as women, in order to commit those crimes.

And you never will. Because no man who does it is going to say, or even needs to say, ha ha I'm not really trans.

That's the whole problem.

It's entirely subjective. They don't have to dress up as anything. They just have to say I'm trans. Or, more accurately in terms of reporting, I'm a woman. Or a man one day, and a woman the next.

So all those men identifying as women in the numerous links upthread, are genuinely trans, according to you.

Unsurprising we don't want them in women's spaces, eh?

This is true. What you are failing to grasp is that there are men who want to do it anyway. It’s the whole point of their fetish. They exist. I have met them, and it’s my job to stop them doing it again.

Okay, if I accept what your saying, that there are men who's fetish it is, to dress up as women, so that they can attack women. Can you tell me what you're currently doing to keep us safe, given that we can all 'self id' into public toilets right now, with no changes in the law, and that there hasn't been a spate of cross dressing sex attackers.

The Probation Service don't seem dreadfully keen to keep offenders like Warboys locked up, so I assume, that the people you're talking about are even less likely to have their probation requests turned down and are on the streets, why haven't I heard about an increase in attacks on women or any cross dresser attacks?

Men don’t have to dress as women to commit all sorts of crimes. But they do:

www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/man-shot-dead-in-dublin-by-gunman-dressed-as-woman-1.2247902?mode=amp

www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/man-dressed-as-woman-found-guilty-of-murdering-victim-outside-dublin-pigeon-club-797128.html

What we're doing to keep us safe, Screaming, is campaigning against self-ID

And also for the existing sex protections to be made stronger and for gender reassignment not to trump sex as a protected characteristic.

What we are doing to keep you safe is keeping those caught on licence conditions which prohibit them from entering women’s spaces. Which we cannot do if the law recognises them as women. Or we lock them up in male prisons where there are no women, again not an option if they are legally recognised as women. We also give them access to treatment, which cannot cure, but can help contain, but only if the offender wants to change and stop, which becomes less likely when large portions of society are telling him he has a legal right to access high risk places. Also difficult to engage treatment when we cannot actually address reality, ie you are a man with a deviant fetish, not a woman.
There isn’t a spate of offending across the news as most sex offenders never get caught. Most offences never get reported, and those that do, don’t get to conviction. And even when they do, they are so little regarded that they rarely make it beyond a small paragraph in the local press. Man abuses woman isn’t really news, irrespective of what the man wears.

Okay, if I accept what your saying, that there are men who's fetish it is, to dress up as women, so that they can attack women.

No, there is overwhelming evidence to show that men who identify as women HAVE attacked women.

You can try and muddy the waters all the day long day as to their motivation.

Loads of men dressed as women, have attacked and murdered women. From a sex segregation point of view, I don't care if they are trans or not.

Although, having gender dysphoria suggests that using your penis as a weapon would be anathema. So perhaps they are more likely AGP. Or not trans at all. You can have a cross dressing fetish without calling yourself trans.

But there is no doubt that transvestite fetishism is prevalent in the trans community. Which comes with a significant dose of resentment and jealousy towards women.

I don't know whether a man, any man, is going to attack me or not. But I do know that a cross dressing fetish is going to make a man fetishise me and my actions in an intimate 'female only' space.

That's the whole point of the fetish.

And the answer is, and always will be, no thanks.

And I certainly won't be giving credence to those fetishists themselves, nor their advocates.

A man suggests self-ID could lead to deceitful behaviour - where are all the TRAs shouting about the literal violence and threatening the speaker? Oh that's right - because it's a man who has spoken.

Those YouTube videos Basil. How anyone can watch that and still say it won't happen is beyond me. That's your evidence right there Stillscreaming.

Colditz

It was a simple admin error at source. When our local pool had their software systems changed they had to redo the direct debit payments for swim memberships and lessons. They accidentally listed my sons name instead of mine somehow. Realised, and cancelled the account and redid in my name.

Serco noticed a cancelled direct debit (that had never existed) and sent a letter to my son (then six) chasing payment. Unfortunately when I rang the number I got through to their collections department, they got more and more aggressive when I tried to explain, cited data protection and said they wanted to speak to my son. Told me I could pay the outstanding debt if I wanted to avoid legal action etc, all the usual aggressive tactics, without once listening to to my suggestion they look at his DOB or the account in my name.

Long story short they kept chasing and threatening court for the outstanding £65 plus their charges. I told them to go ahead and sue.

They eventually sent it to their independent litigation department to pursue. Who obviously were not impressed and sorted it in a 3 minute phone call to me. And billed Serco anyway

What we are doing to keep you safe is keeping those caught on licence conditions which prohibit them from entering women’s spaces. Which we cannot do if the law recognises them as women.

So you're asking me to believe that there is a kind of rapist who is, so law abiding that he keeps to his licensing conditions, not to enter women's spaces, but is so un law abiding that he will rape in a women's space? I've problems with that, I'd rather see that offender kept in prison.

I hope you don't mind, I'm going to cut and past something someone has said elsewhere about how the probation service works becasue I'm interested in how the proposed changes in the law could, possibly, be used to keep sex offenders locked up.

The Parole Board aren't allowed to punish the prisoner for what he did. That's for the Judge to do and his case only comes to the Parole Board once the punishment part of his sentence has ended. They can then only assess his current level of risk and whether he can be managed under strict licence conditions in the community or not. They can't say "He hasn't done long enough for the crimes he committed in our view." That's beyond their powers and they would rightly be judicially reviewed for that. He can be recalled to prison by Probation at any time for the rest of his life and that is hardly ever mentioned in the reports

If the risk can't be managed by the licensing conditions your refer to, then the parole board will have to keep the offender locked up, won't they? Additionally, the ones on licence, with those conditions, will have to be recalled to prison, won't they?

Wouldn't that be a result for all women?

What idiots Honeydragon!

So you're asking me to believe that there is a kind of rapist who is, so law abiding that he keeps to his licensing conditions, not to enter women's spaces, but is so un law abiding that he will rape in a women's space? I've problems with that, I'd rather see that offender kept in prison.

It's unrealistic to expect all men convicted of any sex crime to remain in prison for life. So disingenuous. And for the hundredth time it's not just about rape.

That's your evidence right there

It's not. Someone has already done the maths.

"Between 2006 and 2015 there were 878,707 reported cases of rape in the United States. The YouTube video that attempts to correlate transwomen with violent sexual offenses against other women in restrooms depicts 26 trans women and 2 trans men over 40 years.

Twenty eight trans people or men dressed as women over 40 years.
Let’s say that is over 10 years That would represent .000031% of the total reported rapes In the US over the past 10 years. We still need to devide that number by four."

Every rape is a tragedy, we need to do all we can to cut down the number of violent assaults on women but I'm not convinced that this is where the problem is.

Stillscreaming

When I was growing up, I was told: "if a man bothers you, find a woman. If you can't find a woman, find the women's loos".

The rationale being that a) there would be women in there who would be able to raise a stink if the male followed me in and b) even the most brazen pervert would think twice about entering female space in a public area because they would arouse suspicion. And indeed, assaults on women and girls have been avoided because bystanders saw a man enter the women's loos or changing rooms and rightfully questioned him and stopped him.

That's one protection we're losing right there. We will no longer be allowed to even question the presence of a male in female space. Nobody is going to think twice now about a man going into the ladies.

It's a small, but vital protection that makes it possible for women to be out in the public sphere.

We already know that the people women are in danger from are men. There is no question about that. And now, instead of being at risk only from the most brazen of perverts, you want to throw the room wide open to any man who wants to go in and give them free range and you are telling women that they get no choice in who they share their safe spaces with anymore.

You have been shown examples of how wrong that can go and you've chosen to ignore them. You're a misogynist that thinks more of deluded males than you do of women. You want to throw women under the bus for a very, very small percentage of genuinely disordered males.

It's unrealistic to expect all men convicted of any sex crime to remain in prison for life.

It's not unrealistic to expect anyone who is still a threat to remain in prison until they are not a threat or have served their full sentence. That's exactly the kind of thing we could and should be fighting for.

The police saved a chunk of money by not prosecuting Warboys for all the crimes he committed, they told the victims who's rapes weren't prosecuted, that he would never be released. Now, it seems that after his review he is likely to be released becasue he can be held to 'licensing conditions'. Fuck that. Warboys is a real danger to women, I'd much rather go after him than some theoretical danger.

Stillscreaming

There is a catagory of sex offender who will abide by licence conditions because they are scared of going to jail. It’s not all of them, and part of my job is to work out who is safe to manage in the community and who isn’t. The thing with a licence condition however is it allows us to recall someone to jail before they actually commit a sexual offence, during the phase where they are building up to it and testing boundaries. The rapist who isn’t prepared to follow licence conditions, yes, Id prefer he be in jail, and would do my best to keep him there.

Your quote from the parole board is accurate. However it’s only a result for all women if the jail you are locking him up in isn’t a women’s prison, full of vulnerable women. Which it will be following self ID.

I personally would prefer much longer sentences for all sex offenders, but that’s another story. If you are suggesting that because of self ID, the parole board would lock people up for longer, due to difficulties managing the risk, you are wrong, as they wouldn’t be able defend that decision against a human rights challenge.

I am well aware that they do. I'm arguing that men don't need to dress up as women to access women only spaces to carry out those crimes

Ummm so if they don’t have a dress on but still say “I identify as a woman” what then?

Stillscreaming you asked for evidence that it could happen because you hadn't seen any.** A poster posts evidence but it's not good enough?

*That's one protection we're losing right there. We will no longer be allowed to even question the presence of a male in female space. Nobody is going to think twice now about a man going into the ladies.

It's a small, but vital protection that makes it possible for women to be out in the public sphere.*

The thing is that we do have trans people now, in much bigger numbers than we did before, not just trans women but trans men too and, sex segregation, would mean that we get trans men in women's loos and other women only spaces. We can't tell what sex everyone is from looking, I've attached a photo of a trans man, who would be sharing the women's loos with sex segregation, I'm sure he's not a sex offender but the lines have already been blurred if he's weeing next to us.

Every rape is a tragedy, we need to do all we can to cut down the number of violent assaults on women but I'm not convinced that this is where the problem is.

No, because you have a pro trans rights agenda and are happy to throw women under the bus when their rights, feelings and concerns conflict with it. It's awfully clear.

I know that I am about to be flamed for this, but as someone who has used the Scottish sleepers in the past, I am not hugely comfortable with sharing such a small space with anyone I don't know, including someone with two X chromosomes. I do though, and I would also share with a fully transitioned woman but I would never share that space with a man as I would feel threatened. That is not transphobia, it is phallophobia: I do not want to share that space with anyone with a penis regardless of how they say they identify. I don't say this to be offensive - for me it is about sex and not gender..

In future I will fly whenever possible and when not I guess I will have to pay the extra to have a sleeper to myself - however I find it really frustrating that my right to a "same-sex" cabin has yet again been over-ridden by the rights of people of the opposite sex.

Grabs hard hat and runs......................