Jess Bradley, first transgender student officer, suspended after flashing photos

[CaitlynsCat]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6003331/Britains-official-transgender-student-officer-suspended.html

"Shocking images on the site show an individual flashing while sitting in a train carriage, in a public park and at a bus stop.

Another photograph shows male genitals being exposed in an office close to a curved wooden desk that is strikingly similar to a picture of a work desk that Ms Bradley posted on her Facebook page. "

The photo have been archived on archive.is, you can search there under the domain exhbitionizm.tumblr.com and include lots of flashing shots.

Bradley has commented:

" I appreciate at this time there is a lot of speculation about my conduct and I am able to tell you that I am confident that none of my behaviour has been unlawful, and that I have not engaged in sexual activity with anyone, or in the view of anyone, without their consent. "

I've followed these boards for months. I'm married to a police man who investigates sex crimes for a living. I'm well aware of the lengths some men will go to to access vulnerable people and how much easier self ID could make it. Also, how much harder it will make his job.

The only reason I posted about rape was that the comment "only men and trans women" can commit rape is the sort of comment that will be screenshotted and placed all over Twitter with captions along the lines of "see, MN are transphobic - women can rape too". I just didn't want to see ammunition for the TRAs.

madvixen
"Can we please stop saying that only someone with a penis can commit rape as it's not legally correct. Women can, under very specific circumstances, be charged and convicted with rape. Stating that only men or trans women can correct rape is legally incorrect and makes easy pickings for people who want to see MN banned."

The UK legal definition of rape:

See: Sexual Offences Act 2003: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents

It is true that rape can only be committed with a penis though - that a woman can be charged as an accessory does not change this.

MRA types having been coming on MN for years making the "women do it too" arguments. Most of us here on FWR are very well versed with these arguments.

“Next to give evidence to the select committee I present Jess Bradley, founder of Action for Trans Hea....I beg your pardon. Hors d'oeuvres Maria?”

LOL Lemon

I also think this should go in aibu with all the sinister tentacles of influence included.

is the sort of comment that will be screenshotted and placed all over Twitter with captions along the lines of "see, MN are transphobic

madvixen, they do that anyway, stuff taken out of context and the slightest thing. Unlike MN, I don't give a shit what the Twitter Twitts screenshot. For example, safeguarding children, becomes 'pearl clutching old bags so out of touch with the hip generation'. bah.

God though, I actually miss the days when MRA trolling on rape and "women do it too" were the mainstays of the FWR board. We used to be allowed to post stuff like this [trolololol] at them Those were the days.

Now we're fighting for women to be recognised as a biological category at all and trying to argue that no, a penis cannot be female, not ever, never ever - without breaking guidelines. On the feminism board ffs

LaSquirrel, I know they do. I was just trying to help avoid one. I'm sick of being called a t**f (in my case within my own family as well as on social media) because of the distortion of the debate. I just didn't want to see it happen with people on here.

I go away for a while and some TRA has hoisted out his petard and hoisted himself by it.

It would be funny if it weren't so bloody tragic and not-at-all-surprising

Missed the link: we used to be allowed to post at MRAs. Now we're minding the very language we use to describe the female experience, female bodies etc, in order not be deleted or even banned.

"unfettered access to women and girls in various states of undress? No one has that right."

Genderskeptic wrote:Unless communal changing areas stopped existing, it seems that women and girls have that right...

No, we women don't have that right. We have the right to have areas with only female bodied people. As there is no guarantee of there being other female's there we do not have "unfettered access to women and girls in various states of hundreds. Our right is not that we will be surrounded by women- it's that we will not be surrounded by men.

So now we have to mind our language when saying that rape is the forced insertion of a penis into another person?

Ah. So not allowing males to exposes their genitals in public is a war crime. Got it.

It's their right to do this. And women's right to protection from this, is a violation of the Geneva convention.

Excellent.

Actually, as usual, Genderskeptic's rewording (a right to unfettered access to women and girls in a state of undress, rather than a right for women and girls who happen to be in a state of undress not to be in the company of men) gives away way, way more about Genderskeptic's attitudes that they intended.

I mean, what sort of a person frames single sex changing rooms in terms of a right to unfettered access to women and girls? What sort of person thinks the raison d'etre for single sex changing rooms is access to a place where women have no clothes on... rather than access to a place where one can get changed safely?

Seems so, Simon.

Plus - and this is why we must fight this - if we accept that "transwomen are women" then women can indeed rape. If we accept that women can have penises, then women can rape.

Rape is male crime - penises are male. This should be fundamental to feminist thought. I cannot believe we're having to argue this shit in 2018. It's a men's rights activist's dream come true.

Sarah Ditum Twitter comment identifies Jess Bradley's focus on prisoners who are transgender:

twitter.com/sarahditum/status/1023486549122592770

cf recent Spectator article by James Kirkup:
'Are female prisoners at risk from transgender inmates?'
(extract)
Earlier this week, it was reported that an inmate in HM Prison New Hall, a women’s prison, had been charged with sexually assaulting four female inmates. According to the Sun, the inmate is transgender. Born male and still possessing male anatomy including male genitals, she now identifies as female. Because of that “identification”, the inmate was housed in the female prison estate; in broad terms, the Ministry of Justice says that transgender prisoners should be housed in the part of the prison system that corresponds to their gender identity." (continues)

(concludes)
"In summary, a representative body for psychologists and the leading expert in the field, speaking for other experts, submitted clear and quite extensive evidence to Parliament suggesting that some male sex-offending criminals have attempted to exploit existing gender-change rules for harmful and illegitimate purposes and that others are likely to attempt to do so in future.

Let me put that another way. In 2015, the experts we collectively trust and pay to study the issues arising from allowing people to change gender told our elected representatives that there are non-trivial risks that some male criminals exploit gender-change rules to gain access to, and commit acts of sexual violence against, women. Three years later, a person born male, has been charged with four acts of sexual aggression against women in the prison system.

Did the backbench MPs, ministers and officials responsible for law and policy on gender issues consider the evidence of the experts, the evidence that women in prison were being put at risk? Did they recognise and act on dangers that were not just predictable but predicted? When setting policy, did they take full account of the interests and views of women, including those women who find themselves confined by the state in the prison system?

Or did they fail in their duty, fail to consider the implications of their decisions for the weakest and most vulnerable among us? Did they fail women?

By way of answer, I note only that earlier this month, the Government published a consultation proposing to make it easier for male-born people to attain the legal status of women, and thus obtain access to the spaces and entitlements that the law currently reserves for women."
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/are-female-prisoners-at-risk-from-transgender-inmates/

Ah. So not allowing males to exposes their genitals in public is a war crime. Got it.

It's their right to do this. And women's right to protection from this, is a violation of the Geneva convention.

Aka the Laws of Gilead. Blessed be the fruit loops.

Am I being thick Doest that definition of rape in the sexual offences act above say rape has to be with a penis and A does it to B. Assault by penetration listed after rape has other body part or other object but that is not part of the rape definition. However it does also say "he" and "his" so excludes a female penis

A rape conviction in the UK (yes, Scotland too, I checked not that long back - the law is slightly different from England and Wales, but not that different) cannot happen without a penis having been put into the vagina, anus or mouth of a non-consenting victim. There may have additionally been a woman involved as an accessory to the crime (to the best of my knowledge there has been one such prosecution in the last decade), but there has to have been a penis involved in order for rape to have taken place at all.

So if you see a report of someone raped by a lone woman, acting without accomplices, then that lone woman was a penis-owner.

When you see a report of official statistics saying six women have been convicted of rape in the last year, well, either that's a sudden and massive spike in the number of cases under "common enterprise", or quite a few of those six women are in fact in possession of penises. I guess in the absence of accurate crime reporting these days we just have to make a wild guess as to which of the two scenarios is the case. Which is a shame, because if there is a sudden sharp rise in common enterprise, surely we should be looking into why that is taking place, and without accurate reporting, we're a bit stymied.

Janie there have been some very rare convictions where, for instance, a woman has held the victim down while her accomplice penetrated the victim with his penis. Both get prosecuted for rape (bit like holding someone down while your accomplice slits their throat - both get prosecuted for murder). But such cases are extremely rare - I have only seen one reported in the last decade.

Ok this is outrageous. A person who claims to be a woman and is a prominent campaigner for an end to sex segregated spaces is apparently a pervert who gets a kick out of exposing their erect penis in public.
WTAF
Surely, surely this is the beginning of the end for this campaign against women and girls. Surely, surely the politicians cannot ignore this.
Is there any way this can’t go the way this seems destined to go?

How long before there are no rapes because the penis becomes female before the trial

Transwomen will be charged with rape, Janie. But they may well be placed in a women's prison if convicted.

twitter.com/helenlewis/status/1023841329707732992

Twitter thread by Helen Lewis - taking on Edward Lewis, and his/their (?) bid to eliminate sex-segregated facilities in the Cit of London.