To be depressed and angry that sex offenders will be able to “change gender”

[Ramblingnamechanger]

Following last nights vote by MSPs to reject an amendment to forbid sex offenders from accessing easier access to a GRC, it seems that womens rights to privacy and decency , same sex care , etc is not important. They are still to vote on the whole bill but until the legalities are clearer, surely this cannot be acceptable?

Side by side with the trans loophole in the DBS or equivalent in Scotland, whereby if you are trans [and only trans] you do not have to declare any previous names or addresses. It relies on you calling the Trans hotline and making that declaration outside of the system.

And of course known sex offenders are among the most honest of people, right?

As saying you are trans makes you trans. So anyone who wants to avoid past issues coming up on a DBS check just has to..leave off any previous names and bingo.

Well, no because there is a Trans loophole in DBS which we highlighted on FWR years back. You need to keep up with the loopholes made for sex offenders who say they are trans!

@AlisonDonut you missed my sarcasm the GRR is not responsible law making.

@ILoveeCakes I ask you to consider 'Dave'.

Dave is a man.

Dave is not trans.

Dave is a pint-swilling rugby prop forward who has never has a single second's doubt about his gender.

Dave likes raping women. And girls. He's not fussy about age.

He's careless enough to get caught. But he's not completely stupid. He knows he's likely to be convicted. He knows men in prison tend not to be kind to child rapists. He also knows men's prisons contain no women. So he's facing several years locked up with people who might attack him, and nobody to rape.

Poor Dave.

Luckily, he's in Scotland. So if he changes his name to Davina, and asks the judge nicely, he can be sent to a women's prison. Where the other inmates won't be strong enough to beat him up. And there are lots of women he can rape, knowing they daren't complain because they risk being punished by the authorities if they say there's a man in the prison.

Happy Dave.

After he is released, Dave can get a shiny new GRC and a birth certificate in his new name - which is not linked to his previous crimes.

Or maybe he got the GRC in prison, but once he gets out 'oops!'. He's made a mistake and he really was a man all along! He'd better get another GRC and a new birth certificate again. As George.

Dave then gets a job in a girls school and passes the checks, because neither Davina nor George has a record. And neither has been in the papers for committing terrible crimes.

Dave is still not trans. Dave is just a predatory man.

Keep better records then. Or, what? Because we make up this idea that no one in Scotland can operate a filing system, we have to chuck everything out?

Disclaimer: 'Dave' is fictional character. Any similarity to any real predatory scumbags, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

The point is they have legislated against 'just keeping better records'. They deliberately voted down all the proposed amendments that would prevent Dave doing these things.

Keep better records then.

Keeping better records wouldn't have kept Dave out of a woman's prison in the first place.

So serious question for you. What an acceptable number of women being abused by this system before you have a problem. Is it in the 10s, 100s? Infinite? What?

Put a number on it

They voted against any sound method for linking identities. They voted against collecting data. They voted against a pause in the GRC process for people on trial for sex crimes.

Of course they could keep better records. They have gone out of their way to avoid doing so.

They voted against virtually everything which could mitigate against possible harms. They said that none of those potential harms have / could happen. They shut out people with strong evidence to the contrary. It simply beggars belief.

Keep better records then. Or, what? Because we make up this idea that no one in Scotland can operate a filing system, we have to chuck everything out?

Did you miss the bit where the Scottish Parliament rejected every safeguarding and data collection amendment? It's what the thread is about but you're so caught up in accusing everyone of hate you're unable to see it.

And this is the trick that trans and pronouns as politeness has pulled: men are not a minority. Trans allows men to pretend they are a minority.

As for Nicola Sturgeon, I bet if she or a relative ever needed childcare or social care or medical treatment, she would be in the fortunate position of not having to receive it from whomever the state sends. Nicola isn't at risk of being denied treatment or charged with a hate crime for refusing to be stripped and bathed by a bearded six-footer called Lula-Mae.

Keep better records then.

It's transphobic to keep proper records. Safeguarding is bigoted and hateful.

It would be awful to have to check if Davina had ever been Dave The Rapist; it might upset Davina's feelings. And upsetting a trans person's feelings is MUCH WORSE than being raped.

Why come onto a thread and accuse people of being bigoty old bigots when you don't have a fucking clue about any of this?

Is it just easier to dismiss any and all concerns because we're being hateful, and you then don't have to engage with what this new terrible legislation means?

If women's prisons can't protect against assaults, sexual or otherwise, then they are not fit for purpose. Why are we focusing on the tiny amount of criminals who may decide to game the system by falsely changing their gender identity when we should be angrier about the larger issue of the prison system essentially shrugging its shoulders and saying "sorry, nothing we can do about assaults"?

The name change thing is neither here nor there. As others have pointed out, 'Dave' can still change his name. Therefore if the record-keeping system breaks down when someone changes their gender identity, it will break down just the same if someone changes their name.

We've been screaming into the void about record keeping and loopholes for years.

As if this just occurred to us. FFS.

@amyneedssleep

Because men should not be in women's prisons/domestic abuse shelters etc. There are very good reasons why prisoners are sex segregated, look at the Geneva convention.

Calling yourself a different name does not change the fact that a predatory sex offender is a predatory sex offender and how the FUCK is this up for debate in 2022? Female inmates cannot rape and impregnate other female inmates. Men can. It's not rocket science.

The name change thing is neither here nor there. As others have pointed out, 'Dave' can still change his name. Therefore if the record-keeping system breaks down when someone changes their gender identity, it will break down just the same if someone changes their name.

Another one who hasn't read the thread and doesn't understand the difference a GRC makes.

I think YABU because, if society accepts that gender dysphoria is a real thing and that people should therefore be allowed to change their gender, it is inevitable that sex offenders may suffer from it just as much as normal people might.

We don't normally prevent access to medical procedures based on someone's criminal history, nor do we deny those not in prison basic rights like forming relationships or having a library card.

Is there any actual evidence that allowing sex offenders to change their gender results in people doing so in order to gain access to women's prisons for example? In countries where people are allowed to change gender more easily there hasn't been a significant problem.

FWIW I don't agree with the Scottish position and I don't think people should be allowed to change their gender on their birth certificate. If they can in Scotland there certainly needs to be an online register of people who've done so in order that people outside can check up on who has changed gender, if they decide to move to England for example.

This would be perfectly combatible with existing legislation where processes undertaken abroad are generally recognised but with some exceptions. For example, the law in England recognises marriages from abroad, but if say a man marries a 14 year old girl abroad (legally), even though the marriage would be recognised in England, they wouldn't legally be able to have a sexual relationship there.

In a similar vein gender changes from abroad could be recognised for some things (eg working in Aldi) but not others (eg working with rape victims).

Is there any actual evidence that allowing sex offenders to change their gender results in people doing so in order to gain access to women's prisons for example? In countries where people are allowed to change gender more easily there hasn't been a significant problem.

Funny enough once their sex is changed to female it is hidden within the female statistics.

Of course, we could look at the huge increase of female rape(needs a penis) and sexual assault to draw our own conclusions, but the data is not transparent.

There is a chilling thread on Twitter about the total failure to keep proper records of criminals who self id in Belgium. If you don’t record crimes by natal sex how can you assess offending patterns? https://twitter.com/roisinmichaux/status/1604200438403805184?s=46&t=hBXOA9F039B1R_mq9e11Uw

I guess if you don’t measure it then it isn’t happening.

I think YABU because, if society accepts that gender dysphoria is a real thing and that people should therefore be allowed to change their gender, it is inevitable that sex offenders may suffer from it just as much as normal people might.

But why should changing your GENDER impact your rights to access SEX specific spaces?

All the issues stem from the dishonest conflation of these terms

I think YABU because, if society accepts that gender dysphoria is a real thing and that people should therefore be allowed to change their gender, it is inevitable that sex offenders may suffer from it just as much as normal people might.

The bonkersness of this statement.

When you are so worried about the suffering of males who rape that in order to ease their suffering, you feel that they need to be in female prisons to continue their raping.

This is the argument often stated by transactivists: men rape women anyway so not letting them use the womens changing rooms and prisons isn't going to stop any man from raping a woman.

However, statistics show that if you give certain men an opportunity they will take full advantage of those opportunities. Hence the men self identifying as a woman when they get sent to prison and changing their minds when they leave the womens prison,

So the question remains: how many women need to be abused and raped before you say enough, this was a bad idea? Not 1, we know that, not 10, so 1000? 10.000? We need to collect the data ourself, you see, as the government decided against the amendment that would obligate them to collect such data. So it would be good to know at what figure we can come back to this and say told you so.

This is typical of all countries that operate on letting men self id as women and give them all womens rights and spaces. Bad things happen but every time is called an blip, an anecdote, a single occurence. Nobody is collecting the data as that will tell them it is a pattern of abuse and nobody want to be told they helped make a pattern of abuse possible.