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?

Just to be clear, I use the term ‘gender’ to mean roles traditionally attached to each of the sexes. Should have avoided using it as it’s so easy to muddy the waters!

Actually...

Does anyone have a handy link to JKR's essay? Now would be a great time for people who're only becoming aware of this issue - and why it matters SO MUCH for the proper safeguarding of children and young people - to read what she said!

16 year old me in 1988 on a building site put up with less misogynist woman hating than now.

progress my Fucking arse.

www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/

Thank you! 🌻

TBF, I heard Keir Starmer interviewed (on a podcast, might have been Newscast or the Newsagents) and he did say that he was committed to protecting some spaces on the basis of sex, not gender.

and he did say that he was committed to protecting some spaces on the basis of sex, not gender.

How fucking magnanimous of him

Some spaces? Some? Gosh how generous. How very chivalrous of him.

Now let's pin down what he means by 'sex', because that'll be really interesting. My bet is on 'and men can be any sex they like'.

All it takes is to say, sex takes precedence in many crucial aspects; no one can change sex so in that respect a man will always be a man.

That is the truth, and that is all it takes.

I am so sick and tired of the cowardice and the lack of integrity.

NO MORE.

The contrast between the lucidity and honesty of JKR's piece, and the mealy-mouthed mumbling from Starmer and Nandy and Co is striking. One you admit the principle of Self-Id, that's it, the dam is breached, men will be in women's spaces left, right, and centre. As we see. You'd think a lawyer like Starmer would understand how the law works. Well, I'm sure he does, he's not an idiot. So stop gaslighting the public!

Beware of weasel words.

Here's the thing.

If Labour say this THEN go on to introduce Self ID and speed up the GRC process as has been proposed in Scotland then men who get a GRC which states that they are women will have the LEGAL sex of female.

A recent judgement stated that Sex in the Equality Act 2010 includes BOTH biological sex and legal sex (those with a GRC).

So the Labour Party may well commit to protecting some spaces on the basis of sex which STILL allow men who identify as women to enter those spaces. If Adam Graham had already obtained the GRC then he would legally be in a woman's prison as his legal sex would be FEMALE.

It's really very fucked up. There is a lot of work to be done to ensure that these men don't get a legal right to female spaces.

No means NO.

The waters are throughly muddied.

This is the Govt response to a request to repeal the Gender Recognition Act

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/628382

The very first sentence conflates sex and gender.

Yes, I realised straight after posting! Irritating as I never use the term anymore for that very reason.

Pin down "sex" and which spaces.

Also define "woman" please Mr S, without using a circular argument. You're lawyer - shout be a piece of wee-wee to you.

Gosh, Sir Keir, with these piffling piddling concessions you are really spoiling us.

He always says this.

He also is up front in saying that woman means 99.9% biological sex and includes some others.

Until I see him absolutely define women as being female only, I don't believe a word he says about this topic.

Exactly.

It must mean 'of the sex that is female'. NO EXCEPTIONS.

See my post above but trans women who have a GRC are legally Female.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/protecting-people-sex-and-gender-reassignment-discrimination

The GRC needs to be repealed otherwise it's impossible to have truly single sex spaces as sex means both biological and legal sex as per Lady Haldane's ruling www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63956604

This applies to the entire UK.

@lifeturnsonadime

If Adam Graham had already obtained the GRC then he would legally be in a woman's prison as his legal sex would be FEMALE.

I'm not sure this is true though. (Genuinely, not sure). I know Lady Haldane clarified this, BUT, even in the GRC and EA there are exemptions which can be applied the transgender women and I assume that can happen even if they are legally female. The problem is, TRAs demonise any organisation that tries to use those exemptions....

I don't know what Lady Haldane was thinking of, unless she was trying to force this to a higher court for a definitive ruling.

But without a definition of "female", and "woman" (and none of them can supply that, it seems), how can you make any definitive ruling?

@Emotionalsupportviper Pin down "sex" and which spaces.

In a recent interview on LBC he very specifically referred to biological sex being very important to 99.9% of women. Or something to that effect.

Yes I’m aware of legal implications as it stands re: GRC.

As you’ve said, it needs repealing. This is all part of that conversation.

But until that happens, the powers that be need to SORT THEIR SHIT OUT and figure out a way to make this mess of a situation work that doesn’t directly threaten women’s and girls’ privacy, dignity and safety.

The starting point is that a trans woman with a GRC is placed in the prison which aligns to their legal sex -

Section 9 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 states that when a full GRC is issued to a person that person’s legally recognised gender becomes, for all purposes, their acquired gender. This means that if you are a transgender woman with a GRC you should be treated in the same way as a non-trans woman. However, following an individual assessment, if they are considered to pose a high risk of harm to cis women, or due to poor behaviour, transgender women prisoners with a GRC can be held in separate accommodation in the women’s estate, or in a male prison. This is similar to cis women, who may be held in the male estate if they are assessed as being so dangerous that they cannot be safely managed in the women’s estate.

I would imagine that the bar will be high for placing them elsewhere, just as it is for violent biologically female prisoners. They are more likely to be in solitary in the women's estate than the mens.

I know that Dominic Raab has said that trans women with male genitalia will be kept out of women's prisons but I'm not sure how that can be achieved for a person with a GRC under the existing legal frame work.

But aside from prisons these men with GRCs that state they are legally female can go anywhere. They are protected both by Sex (female) and Gender Reassignment in the Equality Act.

TangledWebOfDeception · Today 16:59

But until that happens, the powers that be need to SORT THEIR SHIT OUT and figure out a way to make this mess of a situation work that doesn’t directly threaten women’s and girls’ privacy, dignity and safety.

There is the SSE provision, but as Sturgeon is known to have bullied the rape crisis centre, by threatening to defund them, if they didn't accept transw, it's all rather moot. Unless they are able to sue for bullying.