Beauty students asked to strip in front of trans rapist at college AFTER sex attacks

[scratchedbymycat]

My AIBU title taken from this news article:

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/beauty-students-asked-strip-front-29063499

This whole 'Isla Bryson' cluster-fuck has me angrier than I can describe.

These girls had to accept and trust this vile individual in their beauty course on the basis of Isla's claim to be a woman, nothing more. They even tolerated abuse from Isla.

They were not told this individual was facing charges of rape. The college claim they didn't know either. Because 'Isla' said he was a women, these young women felt they had no choice but to strip to virtually naked in front of him. Failing to do so would be 'bigoted'.

But he also happens to be a serial rapist. Young women, some possibly aged 16 or so, stripping to virtually naked while a serial rapist watches. If this was my daughter I would be going mad.

Where is the safeguarding?

AIBU to feel viscerally angry with all our politicians about this?

I so hope you’re right. I really do. I just see so much acceptance of the trans agenda. Schools, newspapers, politicians, employers. Even Justine talking about ‘cis women’ ffs 🙄🙄

Whilst we are this in AIBU can I remind everyone of this case.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11027471/Trans-NHS-worker-wins-discrimination-case-confronted-underwear.html

The female staff were just told that from now on they would be sharing their changing rooms with a transwoman. Shortly after joining he would be found naked from the waist down exposing his penis and the female staff quite rightly objected. When managers questioned this, the trans staff member took them to an employment tribunal and won.

No but my mum does keep on getting sent male carers. They’re nice but she doesn’t want a bloke showering her. Luckily she’s confident enough to say no.

And yet if one of them identified as a trans woman she would be a bigot if she refused.

What fun it is to be a woman in 2023.

So maddy68 claims there were men doing beauty courses decades ago and yet in this article people in the industry still seem to think it's highly unusual for men to be providing intimate services for women. The entitlement of some of the men is shocking; a woman not wanting intimate services from a man is discriminating.

professionalbeauty.co.uk/site/newsdetails/boys-in-beauty

Funnily enough, this very question was implicitly asked via the amendments put forward in response to the GRR. The suggestion that men with a record of raping women should be denied a GRC ... voted down. The suggestion that a man awaiting trial for violent crimes against a women ... voted down. So they are completely OK with ALL violent men identifying as women. Vetoed any restrictions
That's disgusting.
Regardless someone's personal beliefs about the nature of gender, you'd think anyone with a shred of decency would agree that safeguards need to be in place to prevent violent and predatory men taking advantage of a system.

This sounds like they were actively designing a system that facilitates predatory men accessing victims and evading detections.

My mum wouldn’t give a fuck to be fair, but I appreciate that’s not the point.

Can you imagine the scenario of a bright child. Q. What is trans? A. A person who feels like the opposite sex inside. Q. But how do they know? A. They feel like they are in the wrong body. Q. Why?

Bright child told to sit down and be quiet and stop asking awkward questions. This is where we are. We need to be somewhere more coherent with it all. For any parent reading this, not clear that this is currently what schools are teaching in primary, they need to wake up fast.

She might not give a fuck, good for her but what about when the agency refuse to supplier any carers to her because they won't have bigots on their client list.

It's not a far fetched scenario when you look at Rape Crisis Services and what they think of women who don't want men in their sessions.

You are definitely not being unreasonable!
This week at last the daylight has shone on this pernicious group and we can only hope that the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.
Women are SICK OF THIS!

I know, I’m completely with you and she’s fairly unbothered about these things. Plenty of women would be utterly mortified to even have to say no or non verbal or all kinds of scenarios. It’s beyond outrageous.

This sounds like they were actively designing a system that facilitates predatory men accessing victims and evading detections.

I can't begin to fathom how their minds worked. I do think that perhaps they are very stupid.

Scottish women have been tearing their hair out at this - it beggars belief. But here's what's even more baffling: some of the individuals who put forwards those amendments, presumably because they recognised the bill was dangerous, still went on to vote for it after their amendments were defeated.

They voted for a law they thought was flawed and problematic enough to require amending, but then supported it anyway when it wasn't amended.

I'm just quoting someone else. I'm surprised too.

For those not in Scotland it is worth considering the voting that took place on the amendments to the SNP’s Gender Bill. One in particular, the amendment that would make it less easy for a sex offender to change his legal sex, was voted down by 64 to 59. Those voting against were of course SNP and Greens (the Scottish Greens are propping up the SNP administration) - as you’d expect. However they were joined by three Lib Dem MSPs: Cole-Hamilton, Rennie and Wishart. Remember those names. If those three had voted the other way, this sensible amendment would have passed 62 to 61.
Anyone who thinks it’s just the SNP and the Greens who are crazy needs to take a long hard look at the Liberal Democrats. They are a total embarrassment.

I am currently in the process of challenging this in my DD's primary school. They have posters by an "inclusion and equality" provider called No Outsiders. Their posters show the 9 protected characteristics from the Equality Act, but have replaced the 9th "sex" with "gender". All other 8 characteristics are written as they are in law.

The Deputy Head has completely dismissed my concerns, by saying that gender and sex are interchangeable.

She has even contacted No Outsiders, who explain the the choice of gender is deliberate, as it is "easier to explain to young children".

This is despite the other terms, sexual orientation, gender reassignment and civil partnership, being used. How they explain sexual orientation, without reference to biological sex, hasn't been explained.

I have a very long thread on this, including all the emails, in FWR.

They voted for a law they thought was flawed and problematic enough to require amending, but then supported it anyway when it wasn't amended.
That's what I struggle to understand.

A huge safeguarding loophole was identified so those voting were aware that it would increase risk to citizens, but when it came to it they shrugged their shoulders and decided that safeguarding isn't a priority.

It makes you wonder if this is a decision rooted in incompetence or it's a deliberate decision to erode safeguarding, but surely no politicians would want to be known as the person who was anti-safeguarding. It doesn't seem like it's a good position for the campaign trail

Muddying the waters between 'sex' and 'gender'. And, where possible, seeking to replace 'sex' with 'gender' altogether. "Easier for kids to understand"? Fuck right off with that.

It's cynical and dishonest. Nothing but contempt for politicians who facilitate this.

A thousand times this!

Both of these posts.

I have been suspended from MN at one point for saying TW re men; I an permanently suspended from Twitter for pointing out a biological truth; I am sick of the "be kind" (because it only works one way) and the "how does it harm you to say 'she'?" (because it compels my speech and also leads to a cognitive dissonance), and the "we use 'cis' to distinguish from trans" (Bugger that! "Cis" is a slur. The word 'WOMAN" is distinct in its own right.

When we allow words to lose their meaning then we - all of us - lose our rights

She has even contacted No Outsiders, who explain the the choice of gender is deliberate, as it is "easier to explain to young children".
An obvious lie @@Vebrithien.

It is SEX, which is observed;e and immutable which is easy to explain.

Gender is just "woo" - it can mean anything at all, and if it can mean anything, it is meaningless.

Oh yes @Emotionalsupportviper I completely agree. I can copy out the message from No Outsiders here, if you like.

They argue that the are the same, gender is used in law, children will snigger at sex.

I think Sex Matters, or Safe Schools Alliance should be able to help you with this.

The school is acting illegally.

Ah sorry, missed the last bit! I'm sure you've been given plenty of assistance in the other thread.

I've just been blocked by Nicola Sturgeon on twitter for commenting on double rapist Adam being sent to a women's prison!

So much for democracy and free speech!

Pleas epost it - I'd like to see it.

And as for children sniggering at "sex" - only older children have (or should have) and idea that "sex" can mean intercourse as well as whether you are male or female. And let's face it - pubescent boys in particular have sniggered about "sex" since the birth of time. (Plus - do we change the name of the planets because everyone laughs at "Uranus"? I have to confess that I snigger at it even now . . . 😉)

And bearing in mind that there are about 150 "genders" and counting, I can't see what's simple about that. I can't believe that so many people have gone along with this farce - and worse, have bulled and browbeaten anyone who tried to talk sense. "Outsidered" them, in fact.

No Outsiders message to the Deputy Head. I had highlighted that the statutory duties of schools use "sex".

Hi,

I do use the term gender rather than sex in primary schools. This is for two reasons:

I think the term sex muddies the issue. It means something else and young children can read it and think it’s funny. I also don’t want Y2 children going home saying “We learned about sex today” when they actually really talked about gender.
I think gender as a term is useful when you later talk about gender reassignment. You have your gender but then you can also reassign your gender. They fit together – it makes for uncomplicated explanations and conversations further up the school.

For this reason I am clear that the poster is not an Equality Act poster and it doesn’t mention the equality act on there. If we’re talking specifically about the Equality Act with older children and they use the term sex, I will correct them, but I think it is the concept behind the language for younger children that is more important – all different, all equal. The aim of the poster is to make clear and accessible for children all the ways we are different and all the ways we are accepted.

We sell hundreds of these posters and I am often re-ordering them from the printers. Every time I re-order I do consider changing the gender bubble to a sex bubble. But the more I think about it, I always conclude that when I teach children, and they list the ways we are all different, what words do they use? I have never heard a child use the term “sex” to describe boys and girls. Children in my school tend to say “you can be a different religion, different race, boys and girls, LGBT” In the end I don’t think it matters. Some people are definitely trying to make it a political issue, I just want children to know that there are boys and girls and everyone is equal.

I hope that helps. I’m interested if you think we should change the gender bubble in the future. Let me know your thoughts, eager to discuss.

Great to hear that no outsiders is going so well in your school.

The author of No Outsiders, Andrew Moffat, was co-presenter of a seminar called "Queering the Body; Queering Primary Education."