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?

Are you happy for a rapist to try out his first victim on a vulnerable woman in prison just because some doll did a study in prisons?

Penises cause rape and penises should not be in a women’s prison.
or a women’s medical examination.
or a women’s intimate beauty demonstration.
or a women’s bra fitting
or a women’s changing room… you known how you just can’t get that darn bra on without flashing all the ladies your boobs? Or your 9 year old daughter has to drop her towel to put her knickers on. You happy biological men seeing that?

There it is again, women used as human shields for men.

Referring to that Twitter quote.

Rape and violence in male jails is bad but it’s not for women to solve, specially if increases women’s risk.

Wow, a lot of heat on the Starmer thing. I was hoping it was a positive. It definitely sounded as though he defined it as biological sex. I could be wrong.

I was alarmed to hear about the Haldane judgement that sex was biological and legal. I also didn’t realise they GRC changed legal sex, not gender. This is even worse that I had thought.

The argument about the GRC changes not making any difference are just pointing out and consolidating further the fact that women are treated like shit already in this scenario. It’s so insidious.

When I first started reading as widely as I could on and around this subject, I came across academic papers written by criminologists who described themselves as feminists seriously advocating that men who commit crimes of violence against women shouldn't be jailed at all. Their argument was it didn't work, so it was pointless to even go there.

Do you like that idea too...?

I'm pretty sure some of the queer theory advocates are also embracing some kind of weird academic social experiment as well, and rather arrogantly expecting everyone to go along with it.

It's all fine and dandy in the abstract, while musing thoughtfully out the window penning clever little thoughts. And how edgy and modern, standing in front of the conference audience and going where no one else has gone before. Round of applause for the new generation.

In the meanwhile, there's a woman somewhere being raped, another being strangled, three being murdered every week, children witnessing it. Their reality someone's indulgent fucked up 'queering the system' academic paper. FFS. The arrogance and childishness of it is nauseating.

@CryInToYourCornflakesNicola

Put yourself there, see how you would really feel. Be honest about it. Dont think "well ffs I'M never going to prison, it wont ever happen to me. Because you too could one day find a thing you are passionate about like oh I dont know "womens rights maybe? And potentially break laws that are made up or stupid but still law. It doesnt have to take much effort to break these laws, a few words on a website could do it or a sticker, or 3 ribbons.

When I was listening to the dancing around the issue Justice dude (whose name I've forgotten) today in Holyrood, I was struck by how he kept noting that female prisoners were a key important respondents in SPS review.

Why not ALL women, i thought, for the reasons you outline? Not just for ourselves, but our daughters and granddaughters who might end in jail for any reason. We all have a stake in prisons.

This was to @maddy68

I just flicked over to the Mumsnet homepage and saw this AIBU. Seriously, this is what males do to women. In real life. No way to know if the bloke is dangerous or not, but she default assumes the worst (as I would, just to be safe). This poor poor woman isn't even locked up with him in a prison.

My Mum's funeral today and terrified to sleep please can somebody talk to me

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/amiibeingunreasonable/4733003-my-mums-funeral-today-and-terrified-to-sleep-please-can-somebody-talk-to-me

Or even for coherence most of the time.

THIS ⬆

And there are even more who haven't yet been caught @maddy68 - which is why women shouldn't be subjected to male presence in spaces where they are vulnerable - in prison or out of it.

The government should not be facilitating rape.

Rape and violence in male jails is bad but it’s not for women to solve, specially if increases women’s risk.

This.

In spades.

I also didn’t realise they GRC changed legal sex, not gender.

I don't think it did originally - but then sex and gender became synonyms. I'm sure that the GNC also states that there were some situations where, for the safety, privacy and dignity of women a gender-reassigned individual could still be legally excluded (so, for example "she" can join a ladies knitting group, but not go into ladies toilets). This has just been ignored.

Even al of these men in women's prisons are "ahead of the law" (as it is described) because at present this is at the discretion of prison governors - however politicians/Whielhall etc have put pressure on them to accept these trans-identifying offenders. I understand that even the Bench Book, which judges follow for in court practice, doesn't insist on trans-identifying individuals being addressed by their preferred pronouns, just that it is courteous/preferable/ gives the prisoner dignity/ whatever to do so.

I am not a lawyer, and may be in error here because I have read so much conflicting information, but this is what I have gleaned. If I've misunderstood can someone please put me right. Thanks.

Emotionalsupportviper · Today 08:00

I also didn’t realise they GRC changed legal sex, not gender.

I don't think it did originally - but then sex and gender became synonyms.

Has it actually, though? Surely that could be grounds for an appeal of Lady Haldane's ruling? That she's made an error of terminology, because they are assuredly NOT synonymous.

See that’s what I’m not clear of wrt what GRC actually changes.

If it doesn’t ‘change’ sex, then what is the distinction between ‘legal sex’ and ‘biological sec’ that was drawn in the judgement?

And presumably you get a new birth certificate etc, which doesn’t draw the different between ‘sex’ and ‘gender.’

Surely there must be an appeal. I believe that Lady Haldane has a a reputation for being not only red hot on the law but very sensible and down-to-earth. I'm really hoping that she has deliberately structured her judgement to leave room for appeal to a higher court who can rue on the matter definitively (and also hoping that they rule the right way when they do!)

If it doesn’t ‘change’ sex, then what is the distinction between ‘legal sex’ and ‘biological sec’ that was drawn in the judgement?

It is what is termed a "legal fiction" which just allows smooth running of systems eg "For the purposes of catching mice a dog will be termed a cat" sort of thing. Everyone knows that it isn't a literal fact, but it enables things to be drafted without resort to more convoluted language than necessary - the sort of language you get when you try to avoid using any pronouns in order not to mis-gender, but you don't want to say "she" when that's obviously a hairy-backsided bloke standing in front of you.

All the GRC was intended to do was to prevent trans-identifying people being discriminated against because to their trans identity. ie - no-one could refuse them a job just because they were trans, in the same way that the Equality Act meant no-one could refuse a woman a job/ pay her lower wages just because she was a woman. "Gender" is not and never has been a protected characteristic, though the TRA lobby are determined to insist that it is by conflating it with sex - and eventually they will be pushing to use the term "gender" instead of "sex". That's happening all over tha place already. "Sex" is "too complicated"", "Sex" makes "children snigger"", "Sex" is "science" and science is getting new "discoveries" happen all the time" etc etc etc

There are so many tiny little changes in language who actually have a huge impact.

Originally it was "transwomon" ("trans" was a prefix, modifying the word "womon" - and they said this themselves), then it shifted to "trans woman" and "trans" slithered into becoming an adjective, describing a type of woman - just like "white" woman and "black" woman, or "tall woman and "short" woman - and then the argument is pressed that we now need "cis" to distinguish from "trans" Which we don't. Woman is quite enough, thank you - and transwomen are men. And they really should be called "trans-identifying men" and then there would be no confusion, (because a lot of people are unsure whether a "transwoman" is a woman pretending to be a man or vice versa)

IIRC the original act apparently didn't spell out that no-one actually changed sex because it never occurred to anyone (what with them being sane people) that anyone would even suggest that anyone could. Nor did it occur to anyone that it was necessary to legally define a "woman" or a "man" for the purposes of the legislation. Why should it? It was obvious (until it wasn't).

This is long - sorry.

Why don't we have separate facilities for men who transition to women, this should be easy to accomplish in prisons and hospitals, for toilets we could change the disabled toilets to unisex. Sports and leisure centres shops etc. could provide a unisex booth.

That's been suggested for many, many years. A third space is a simple, straightforward solution.

Surprisingly, the MEN who demand to be in WOMEN'S SPACES are vehemently against it.

@Tygger
Two reasons for that,
A, cost who'd pay for perfectly able men to have separate facilities
B, It's not what the trans want,

Why do they not want that?
Removes the power trans gives them over women.

Disabled people should not have to lose one of the few additional facilities they have.

Additional, third, gender neutral spaces seem like a good solution. If you don't like using the designated room for your sex, you can have a unisex one instead. But the TRAs have made it clear they aren't happy with this. Even though it means everyone gets an extra option and nobody loses an existing space. It's got to be the women's rooms. Nothing else will do.

In other words, additional options aren't good enough. The only acceptable solution is for women to lose their existing service.

Why is that, Dana?

Oh god I didn't see that! NO, of COURSE disabled toilets can't just be appropriated like that.

(No disrespect to you, @Tygger - I'm sure you just hadn't quite thought that through)

But no, that's not an appropriate solution.

@Tygger It's not just toilets and changing rooms, it's the actual sports too.

On average females are smaller than males. That's why we're have separate categories where strength is the most important factor (not in horse riding or in motor racing) transwomen will kill women's sports.

Even al of these men in women's prisons are "ahead of the law" (as it is described) because at present this is at the discretion of prison governors - however politicians/Whielhall etc have put pressure on them to accept these trans-identifying offenders. I understand that even the Bench Book, which judges follow for in court practice, doesn't insist on trans-identifying individuals being addressed by their preferred pronouns, just that it is courteous/preferable/ gives the prisoner dignity/ whatever to do so

Yes. Stonewall and colleagues aided and abetted by gender ideologues in government have persuaded thousands of organisations to use self id policies to ‘get ahead of the law’ in a huge unregulated social experiment.

Before she realised that it wasn’t such a good look, Nancy Kelley, CEO of Stonewall used to boast that their dictated policies had reached something like a quarter (or half) of the UK workforce (I can’t remember the exact figure) and that’s not counting customers and service users affected (pretty much all of us.

This huge social experiment has obviously already had some very detrimental impacts on women and children and the harms are becoming ever more apparent despite energetic attempts to suppress data and information on this.

Much of their success has been achieved by bullying, misrepresenting truth and facts (blatant lies in some cases) and the multitude of legal threats issued and often supported by captured judges and police forces. The hate crime laws make it possible for trans activists to have women arrested or put through disciplinary hearings by their employer on the most spurious grounds and as we know, the punishment is often the process (plus there is thf threat if a prison sentence).

False ‘legal’ advice has been circulated widely by Stonewall which until Baroness Falkner took over was backed up by the EHRC. They took this position because but only were they a Stonewall champion but the Chair, David Isaacs was a former Stonewall chair.

For anyone trying to catch up on the sheer scale and depth of this problem, I can highly recommend the podcast by BBC journalist (one of the not captured ones) Stephen Nolan on Stonewall. It will join a lot of dots.

I don't see the problem with reassigning disabled toilets. I think that you naysayers are making a mountain out of a molehill.
The number of transwomen is tiny, I've never seen a queue for a disabled toilet, so what's your problem? All disabled toilets have a sign saying " not all disabilities are visible".
It may be that women outnumber men in the UK and men support women in defending their rights, even the MCP's, so get off mumsnet and get out there protesting, take to the streets, pressure your mp.

Tygger · Today 10:43

I don't see the problem with reassigning disabled toilets.

Disabled toilets are for disabled people, who may, among other things, have sudden need to use a toilet. If it's occupied by a transw, what will they do? After all, there are many men claiming to be trans, who use ladies changing rooms, toilets etc.

It's not just the ~5,000 who have had surgery and have a GRC, it's large numbers.

Then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and no idea of the needs of the people you want to appropriate the resource from.

In the words of the Righteous, fgs educate yourself.

"No disrespect", but you say that I haven't thought this through? With all due respect to you, I have given this considerable thought and discussed it with others. The only dissenting voices are a few of you on mumsnet.