To feel sickened that this man is being referred to in this way (WARNING UPSETTING CONTENT)

[bigoldscaredycat]

This man raped a three month old baby boy to the point where the baby needed corrective surgery.

He is now in a women’s prison in Canada where he has beaten up a female inmate.

THIS is where self ID leads. Men like this being incarcerated with women and their crimes being counted as female.

torontosun.com/news/national/feds-deny-paying-for-convicted-pedophiles-implants

www.newwestrecord.ca/dangerous-offender-in-b-c-loses-appeal-for-day-or-full-parole-1.23279132

Go on, Mumsnet, delete me for deliberately misgendering a male baby rapist.

THIS.IS.A.MAN.

Perhaps this story will illustrate why feminists are so up in arms about self ID.

I would love to see even the staunchest anti-women transactivist tell me that this person is a woman and that they belong in a women’s prison.

@LunaTrap Oh no not at all! It was just the specific posts about rape that's all, I didn't meant to upset anyone and don't want to look like I'm defending this disgusting man or anything.

No problem, I misunderstood. Women can be convicted of rape as accomplices though, for example if they help hold the victim down. But a penis always has to be involved.

@worriedupstairsneighbour

Apologies for highlighting your posts. I thought you were yet another poster trying to defend the lowlife by saying "But women are violent too! Look at hinley" as happened a few times today

I am absolutely confident that, as a feminist defending women’s rights in the face of aggressive opposition and threats from regressive liberals, I will not look back and realise that I was on the wrong side of history.

I have a feeling that those defending an ideology that encourages regressive gender stereotypes, the sterilisation of young children, mastectomies and castration of healthy teenage bodies, male rapists in women’s prisons and all based on unscientific faith based beliefs, just might realise they weren’t on the side of right. One would hope, anyway.

Amal, like I said I am new to this topic, I have also said current arguments are being written off as transphobic. This whole argument is just that, an argument, very few posters are interested in actual discussion and those who are get drowned out by keyboard warriors. If this thread is any reflection of the outside world, then we're screwed.

Have read a bit more about the case now, and am more troubled than ever.

This person has a history of self mutilation. He brings to mind Pauly Unstoppable, now known as Farrah Flawless.

Pauly has a lifetime history of extreme body modification. He mutilated his own penis at the age of 11, all but splitting it in two, as part of those body modifications. They have tatooes, piercings and implants including their eyeballs, and a couple of years ago had SRS.

To me, the SRS follows the penis mutilation as night follows day - Pauly/Farrah has always been unhappy in their body and seeking to change it. For them, it was linked with a very troubling pornified view of what being a woman means, as they had rough sex with multiple partners too soon after the surgery (with predictable results)

For some trans people (please note the "some" and the lack of generalisation I'm making), their urge to present as the opposite sex is not because they feel they are the opposite sex, but because they've never been happy as who they are, and it's a form of self harm. Like for Farrah, and I think Laboucan sounds similar.

Never mind a women's prison, I think it seems that Laboucan should be in a psychiatric facility.

Wrong side of history is such an odd threat isn't it. I mean, have you met history? Have you seen how women and girls are treated across the globe and throughout all recorded history? Any women that raises her voice in defence of women and girls is on the wrong side of history.

I don't think it does say we're screwed. I think it actually says that some of us will dare to assert the truth on the really important stuff even when they are falsely accused of prejudice for it - there are women brave enough to be do that. In an age where even the authorities seem to place the safety of the vulnerable below the need to be seen as PC, it's encouraging that not everyone is like that.

Never mind a women's prison, I think it seems that Laboucan should be in a psychiatric facility.
He is in a female psychiatric hospital

I'm with the Leeds Spinners on this 'wrong side of history' bs

Oh I hadn’t picked that bit up, amalfi, thanks.

Amal, like I said I am new to this topic,
And uninformed on the basics yet well heeled enough to scream transphobic at every given opportunity.....

This whole argument is just that, an argument, very few posters are interested in actual discussion and those who are get drowned out by keyboard warriors.
Are we reading the same thread?

If this thread is any reflection of the outside world, then we're screwed.
If the Handmaidens on this thread are anything to go by then yes we're screwed. So caught up in the feelz brigade that they defend a rapist and murder of children.

God help us all

Wrong side of history is such an odd threat isn't it.

...and a ridiculous one anyway. History may well view these things against the context of us not really knowing whether it is a mental illness yet and then carrying on despite clearly being able to measure that hormones, surgery etc do not have great effects on people.

We laugh or express horror at peoples in the past who did such things, their imagination-based quackery and mutilation is the stuff of "horrible histories" but really few of those things were as horrific as lining your society's own DCs up for chemical and surgical sterilization, especially for societies that are capable of knowing better. That's before we get to authorities intentionally locking women in with people like the one the thread is about, trying to redefine womanhood and so on.

Pretty sure that (possibly within the lifetime of people growing up now) this will be seen as a time of madness and medical abuses. Wrong side of history my arse.

Emperors new clothes springs to mind. We live in a strange and somewhat dangerous world.

Is it possible for someone to explain how murdering toddlers and raping babies with your penis indicates an innate internal sense of identity of being a woman?

If they do undergo a sex change - that does not mean you need to accept this change - they are biologically the gender they were born

They are the sex they are born. Gender is a social construct based on sex stereotypes. They will never change sex. It's not physically possible. That is a significant fact about them.

Wrong side of history is such an odd threat isn't it.

It is. Oh no, I must rush to support men erasing women, taking over their sport, their safe spaces, their shortlists. Then I'll be on the right side of history. Oh wait....

Exactly- when women can’t describe ourselves any more because the Orwellian language grab has removed all coherent ability to say what a woman is, then history will hear no more from us. Job done!

That’s how you end up in the “right” side of history- eliminate and silence your opposition.

Do people who threaten this have much of a grasp of history at all?

Feminists have always been told they were on the wrong side of history.

There's a nice little quote in here from a deputy editor
stating that today "the comments on any article about feminism justify feminism",

www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/29/nine-lessons-suffragettes-feminists

"the comments on any article about feminism justify feminism",

They do indeed.

I suppose we could extend that to "The threats made to women who campaign to keep female-only spaces, demonstrate the need for female only spaces".

Well said ToeToToe

If your argument (about transsexuals) is in line with Nazis and other fascists - you're on the wrong side. If you lie with dogs, you're gonna get fleas.

If that's the case then the lefty dudebros really need to have a good look at their anti-Semitism

Jellybean: "And clearly yrs of study and my greys anatomy book is wrong... Having labia and a clitorus and a vagina are not female anatomy"

Well they would be on a female, but a male doesn't have labia, a clitoris (clearly your years of study didn't extend to spelling) or a vagina. At the most, they have a plastic surgeons attempt at superficial female parts. They will never act in the same way an actual females genitalia will.

And as you studied Grays (spelling again) Anatomy, I'm surprised you didn't comment on the approximation (or lack of in some cases) of the mons veneris, prepuce, glands of bartholin, bulba vestibuli and pars intermedia. And of course the fact that the vagina has mucousal squamous epithelia and leads to the cervix, which a neovagina doesn't.

Weird.

(Reference: grays anatomy, 15th edition)

If your argument (about transsexuals) is in line with Nazis and other fascists - you're on the wrong side.

LOL. So if Hitler says the sky is blue I have to say it's green?

Childish thinking.