Man in Brighton exposes himself to children while wearing womens clothes claims athletes foot made him do it

[miri1985]

www.theargus.co.uk/news/15768693.Salesman_in_sports_bra_exposed_himself_in_children___s_play_area/

Don't worry this kind of thing never happens!

Self ID is not a get out of jail free card for sex offences.

Seems to be a 'get into the easier jail' card though.

I find it so odd that anyone is trans if they say they are, until something like this happens when they suddenly become 'fake' trans.

Ignoring the whole trans thing, can we be outraged that his unconvincing athlete’s foot story meant the judge decided he couldn’t be sure beyond reasonable doubt that he was masturbating. Even though this was the second time he’d needed to get his penis out for a scratch next to a playgroup. And he claimed he hadn’t noticed the 15 toddlers. FFS.

So many excuses given in court are pitiful.

I remember the rage I felt about that guy who said he slipped naked onto some poor woman and accidentally penetrated her, and that being accepted

Cohen said he had a fetish for wearing women’s clothing and skipped a day off work to take a run in the park in “a crop top exposing his belly fat” and tight running gear

What's the official name for the above-described fetish?

I also remember there was a guy who cut a woman's throat from behind and it was claimed he acted in self defence.

What's the official name for the above-described fetish?

Quite.

A fetish for wearing women's clothing does not equate to them being trans,

Careful there laudanum, that sort of talk gets you labeled a TERF

What kind of people do this shit? There is a guy with a big beard I saw last year on a bicycle riding down a country lane near Lewes wearing a full pink tutu, pink ballet tights, ballet shoes and a tweed flat cap.
I almost crashed the bloody car

I find it so odd that anyone is trans if they say they are, until something like this happens when they suddenly become 'fake' trans.

Yes, if this guy hadn't been caught wanking, sorry scratching his athletes foot, around kids, he would have been poor oppressed transwoman whose 'identity' no one should ever call into question.

Ignoring the whole trans thing, can we be outraged that his unconvincing athlete’s foot story meant the judge decided he couldn’t be sure beyond reasonable doubt that he was masturbating. Even though this was the second time he’d needed to get his penis out for a scratch next to a playgroup. And he claimed he hadn’t noticed the 15 toddlers. FFS

Indeed. Even though an adult man (who might be assumed to know what a man wanking looks like) reported the crime.

There is a guy with a big beard I saw last year on a bicycle riding down a country lane near Lewes wearing a full pink tutu, pink ballet tights, ballet shoes and a tweed flat cap

Good for him (though a cycle helmet would be better than a flat cap). No problem with this.

My problem comes when he wants to use the ladies loo during his rest stop, or enters the women's bike race, or demands that he has to be called "she" and anyone who refuses is committing actual violence and should face criminal charges for hate crimes

Self ID wont grant him access or licence to commit sex crimes in the ladies, in the park or anywhere.

No. Instead it will remove the right of women to recognise someone obviously not living as a woman, challenge them and expect them to be removed. Which is currently a deterrent to piss takers.

Locking your car won't stop someone determined to break into it. But do you go around leaving your car unlocked? Do you challenge someone acting suspiciously by trying the door handles of cars around them or is about to take a crowbar to the windows? The fact people will challenge and there are barriers is a deterrent.

Self ID is a sex offenders wet dream. If it goes through you will see lawyers having a lovely time getting rich while they see how far 'it's a statement and an identity' and 'right to undress/wank/do whatever in their gender identity toilets' will stretch. And yes, cross dressing is a statement and an identity, it's also an expression of sexuality: how far should AGP men be allowed to carry out their sex lives in public places using women around them as unconsenting props to their getting off? And where are you going to draw the line? Sex offenders? Paedophiliacs? If you agree that one group must be free to express their sexuality as a statement and identity to be celebrated and that it's ok if this uses other people willing or not, then you also have to accept that you've opened the door for a lot of other groups too who will use every inch of the rope you've given them.

It's my understanding that to all intents and purposes any person claiming the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" even for a short time is covered by the law and it is illegal to discriminate against them.

That is my understanding, too. You only have to say that you are intending to transition to claim the protected characteristic.

Amendments to the GRA are about the legal definition of woman and th process by which to become one. At the moment it doesn’t matter whether you are legally a woman or not, as long as you stay you intend to be. Which could be just telling your best mate.

The intention of the law was to aid gender dysphoric transsexuals in their transition.

The result of the law has been that anyone can say they are trans. No questions asked.

There are exemptions that women can invoke, but the wording is woolly and hasn’t been tested. The wording needs to be explicit, and women everywhere need to know they can invoke them.

So you have two things running concurrently. Men are exploiting a law not designed for them, and women aren’t aware that there are exceptions and those exemptions need beefing up.

The GRA needs to be repealed and re-written.

There are men that find dressing in women's clothes a turn on - they're all over the internet, one is the point of this thread.

What on earth makes anyone believe that these men - who like the one here will even wank in public - won't happily skip into the ladies loos to masterbate once it gets round that they are legally allowed in there if they just say they're trans.

What makes you think that what will happen is that the police will be called, and this person dealt with (after all, it took 3 tries for this one, and he was wanking in a public park in front of kids), rather than women just stopping going in public toilets?

You only have to say that you are intending to transition to claim the protected characteristic.

No man will ever be able to be sacked again as they can claim to be in transition and it all be about discrimination and not about being rubbish at their job. Or evidently could masturbate in the women's toilets at work, and claim an itchy penis, and still not be able to be sacked for it. Basically they will be untouchable.

These women who claim we are so 'mean' to trans people aren't getting the fact that is it not trans people that are the issue. It's the implications of a badly thought out policy.

IrritatedUser1960 Yes, we have one like that near where I live. He's been caught more than once exposing himself, yet never jailed. I think the judges are taking the easy option, because they know there'll be uproar from the Tims if they put him in a male prison.

debbie
There are public order offences for behaviour in them that you can be prosecuted for no matter if your genital match the stick person on the door or not. But that stick person on the door has no power to prevent anyone access

Preventing crime is about a lot more than the law and "powers.

There is a criminology theory (which has been tested and supported by evidence) called routine activity theory. This suggests that 3 things need to be in place for a crime to happen: a victim, an offender and the absence of a guardian.
The guardian doesn't have to be the law or a law enforcement officer, it can be things like CCTV, street lights, locks, alarms, or vigilant bystanders.

At the moment it is more difficult for sex offenders to offend in women's spaces because the other people using that space act as the guardian. They can challenge men going in or out and men know that. The risk of crime is reduced as most offenders can only act if the space is deserted with just a victim and no vigilant bystanders around.

What the self ID does in effect is remove that guardian, as people will no longer be able to be "vigilant bystanders" and successfully challenge the man. Because he can just say he's female. So therefore this is creating more favourable circumstances for offenders and crime could increase as a result.

Routine activity theory is described in more detail here:
www.citynmb.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B3FD273E8-4654-4359-9AE1-9C86F704AF44%7D&DE=%7B7FE7466C-E018-411A-B5D5-368D05B6712C%7D

The law would in theory deal with this

There are a couple of problems if this man decided to label himself trans if the GRC changes to self-identification:

1. Women would be less willing to report a crime because they would be afraid of being called a bigot or a transphobe. Given the way that politics is currently working and how people are being doxed this is understandable. I note that anyone who did do this, could be also committing a criminal offense.
2. Women who have been told repeatedly that someone who is trans can not be prosecuted for exposing themselves because its in a women's toilet, may not even realise that a crime has been committed.
3. It could potentially weaken the prosecution case if a crime is in a female space. Currently if a man is in a space they shouldn't be, it automatically raises questions. If the GRC passes and people can self identify, then its an extra thing that the prosecution have to deal with - they have to demonstrate that the person saying they are trans are just using this as a way to avoid prosecution.

There will be - at some point - a case where this comes to a head and the courts will have to judge whether a sex offender is using the excuse of being trans to access women. I am almost certain that the courts will rule against the offender, but it won't be without controversy and it will be a difficult one to demonstrate beyond any doubt. (I do think this possible. At which point it would set a precedent in law that this was deception aggravated the crime).

The point is that there will be many other crimes where it is not reported for a variety of reasons when it undoubtedly would be currently and that it will be harder to secure a conviction.

The proposed changes to the GRA, are a weakening of the protection the law currently has for women.

Not only that but it also potentially will lead to a backlash against trans people who are totally law abiding. If there are lots of hidden crimes, where people think they can not do anything (or some sort of scandal involving poor child protection from a trans person). then the proposed GRA changes endangers trans people themselves by making them tarred by the criminal elements who will exploit what will effectively a loop hole.

Examples like this one are important to point out in the context of the GRA, because you do need to think about how it will impact cases like this and how they work in practise and how it could be used as a loop hole to protect criminals at the expense of BOTH women and trans people.

What really fucks me off about this is the layer upon layer of disadvantage that women are having to suck up.

All this ‘if someone commits a crime they will be dealt with’. When we all know full well men have to commit no crime at all, to intimidate women.

The correctly perceived privilege that is afforded to trans women. Whilst at the same time pushing that they are oppressed and below women. That’s not against the law.

Prominent transwomen wearing clothes and saying things that natal women would never, in a million years, get away with. That’s not a crime.

Disguising a fetish as interest in breastfeeding their baby, a trip to buy clothes, or some kind of performance art. That’s not a crime.

Erasing words that are specific to women (breast, mother). That’s not a crime.

The gleeful gloating over the rape threats and death threats coming from transactivists, which is a crime, and is being utterly ignored.

The general population has no bloody idea that you could say you are trans and it becomes an instant protection.

It’s only arisen because of the tweaking to the GRA.

The whole thing is a stinking, misogynistic mess.

You cannot legislate in this fashion.

All this ‘if someone commits a crime they will be dealt with’.

What annoys me most about the sex segregated areas argument, is that women are told 'oh well, if anyone does anything the police can be called and it will be sorted, easy! See you are worrying about nothing'.

And this totally ignores the fact that if someone did something in the mens, the police could be called. So there is surely no need to be in the womens anyway, given anyone doing anything wrong could have the police called on them? Surely the same argument works both ways right?

‘if someone commits a crime they will be dealt with’.

Indeed Batshite.

If someone thinks the law is being weakened and they think they are more likely to get away with committing a crime, they are more likely to commit a crime.

Its all very well saying the law with deal with something, but it doesn't really help someone after the fact who has been a victim of a crime as a result of the law being weakened and then in turn is less able to get the justice they deserve.

Once you are a victim, saying the law will protect you, is a bit of a shit thing to say, and kind of misses the point.

He's been caught more than once exposing himself, yet never jailed. I think the judges are taking the easy option, because they know there'll be uproar from the Tims if they put him in a male prison.

The legal system has every reason to avoid jailing transgender people unless they have absolutely no other option, which makes the word 'trans' into another unintended useful card for any chancer to grab on to. The government needs to pull its finger out and provide a specific trans prison facility, they're stalling on it because of cost but it's the only way to provide proper safety for the genuine (and that is a human right not being met), while preventing non trans people abusing a useful set of words and identities to play the system.

Action for Trans Health have demanded (their word) that all Trans prisoners be released (Hi Ian Huntley), and that the police be disbanded as a fascist military something or other though, so maybe this is only a short term issue.

The only people who seem to be telling women they can't challenge a male looking person in the ladies loo seems to be feminists portraying trans people as the boogie man.

Yes the argument works both ways re calling the police. But your now equating all trans women to sexual predators which is clearly not the case. We would all be safer if the real predators were dealt with and trans women have to deal with hostility in both bathrooms, using the one that matches their presentation is the least likely to get them assaulted and if they are assaulted in the ladies by another woman the likely injury's (in the UK at least) are going to be less severe.

The interesting flip side to bathroom laws restricting to birth sex is the normalisation of trans men with beards suit and tie being forced into the ladies loo. The same argument then applies that you cant challenge any male looking person in the ladies, they might be a trans man.

The only people who seem to be telling women they can't challenge a male looking person in the ladies loo seems to be feminists portraying trans people as the boogie man.

Look. I'll try this really, really slowly.

This Is Not About Trans People.

This Is About Self Identification.

Offenders Will Use This And Exploit It To Offend.

Offenders Will Then Be Appropriating Trans People's Identity To Offend.

This Is A Major Problem For Women And Trans People.

This Is Why Self Identification Is A Bad Idea.

We Need A Different Idea.

And yes it would be fucking lovely if male violence was actually recognised as the only real issue and dealt with, but that's kind of a long, long, long term aim.

And slower still.

Self ID is not a defence against criminal behaviour.

The only people who seem to be telling women they can't challenge a male looking person in the ladies loo seems to be feminists portraying trans people as the boogie man.

Not portraying trans people as the boogie man. Portraying male people as...male. Difference.

I am not portraying all transwomen as predators at ALL. Same as saying nearly all sexual crime is carried out by men is not saying all men are predators.

Makes no sense to have sex segregation, which is segregated by anything other than sex.