Woman, 41, pretended to be a boy to groom a girl

[TurfClub]

Jacinta Brooks is a serial paedophile

metro.co.uk/2018/10/01/trans-woman-pretended-to-be-a-boy-to-groom-a-girl-7994533/

"Prosecutor Berenice Mulvanny said that police found screenshots of the conversation with the girl along with hundreds of child abuse pictures. Brooks gave no comment during a police interview but admitted she ‘couldn’t argue’ about being attracted to children. Miss Mulvanny said: ‘Brooks knew the girl was underage but sent her sexual messages. The defendant originally pretended to be a 14-year-old boy but soon admitted her real age.’

Some have experienced sexual assault. And yet they’re so at pains to parrot TWAW and ask, with no hint of irony, whether it’s helpful of them, as allies, to put their “she/her” pronouns in their Twitter bios. Because we mustn’t assume a person’s pronouns, should we?

Jacinta Brooks, Karen White and Christyl Knight’s preferred pronouns are she/her.
Police, Court Officials, witnesses, prison staff, probation staff, prisoners, journalists are all required to respect their pronouns.

Deliberate misgendering / deadnaming is a hate crime.

Jacinta Brooks, Karen White and Christyl Knight’s preferred pronouns are she/her. Police, Court Officials, witnesses, prison staff, probation staff, prisoners, journalists are all required to respect their pronouns.

I dont understand how this isn't causing employees to raise grievances/ sue their employers because surely it creates a hostile / intimidating workplace environment?

Sorry I haven't RTFT but I must say something about how appalled I am by MN's airy note that it is fine to call this person a man.

So women have to achieve some standard of VIRTUE to achieve their femaleness?

this just shows how medieval the whole thing is. It's a bizarre form of witch ducking or something.

I feel very sorry for the extremely disturbed person in the photograph. Anyone who has committed crimes must go through the justice system. But humankind comprises criminals along with all other variations of who we are. Surely it is wrong to discount someone's personhood for being a criminal, or not of a certain physical appearance. What kind of nonsense are these conventions if they are couched in terms of the most sensitive respect and yet they encourage us to pick and choose whom we give this basic respect to on the basis of how they jump through the most regressive social hoops?

Am I not a woman if I am a criminal? What if I have facial hair?

Well why not this person then?

Side note: does anyone else think Jacinta might have FAS?

So women have to achieve some standard of VIRTUE to achieve their femaleness?

Nope. A pair of X chromosomes (or in rare cases an appropriate medical diagnosis of a recognised intersex condition) is both necessary and sufficient.

Female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

HTH.

There's a discussion upthread as well as a separate discussion thread about someone who is arguing for consistent pronouns using the Niemöller gambit.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3383043-First-they-came-for-the-rapists-and-I-did-not-speak-out-because-I-was-not-a-rapist

What are you on about?
You are a woman if you are an adult human female.
Female as defined by biology at birth.
People can argue about what we call transsexuals as much as they want, but you cannot force everyone to buy into the idea that anyone who claims they are the opposite sex MUST BE THE SAME AS THE OPPOSITE SEX.
This person, Jacinta Brooks, is a dangerous predatory paedophile offender who is, CLEARLY and ADMITTEDLY, an adult human male (i.e. a MAN). This man was previously known as Duncan Smart, who now says they are a woman named Jacinta, who also identified as a young boy in order to prey on girls.
Pull your head out of the post-modernist-queer-theory-echo-chamber nonsense for one second and think about why the hell you are taking this person's word over what you can see with your own eyes, and the clear evidence of this offender's manipulative behaviour to meet his own actually evil needs. This guy is a dangerous liar.
Paedophile hill is really not somewhere anyone reasonable should be making a stand. In fact, trans people really ought to distance themselves from this shit, because ordinary people will lose all sympathy for the trans cause if you keep up defending psychopathic male rapists and paedophiles who are obviously exploiting the system.

Sorry R0wantrees, I probably didn’t explain myself too well. My educated, woke female friends are putting “she/her” in their Twitter bios even though it’s patently obvious that they’re, well, adult female humans. It’s virtue signalling on numerous levels - look how woke I am, even though there’s no onus on “cis” women to state their pronouns, here I am doing it to make a point... mustn’t make assumptions eh kids?

I'm fine with TRAs and the media being consistent with pronouns, and calling Jacinta a transwoman. Saves us the bother of constructing a Reductio ad absurdum argument if they'll do it for us.

It's where this fiction intrudes on reality and messes up statistics and safeguarding that there is a problem.

YeahCorvid
Yes it is quite medieval (although we'll probably disagree on the reasons why).

As I said upthread, 'Woman' is not a club you join by your purity. If MNHQ are allowing this self-identified 'woman' to be called a man because he has committed disposable crimes, then they are displaying the heart of the problem with self ID.

The lunatics pushing #RapistHill are entirely right on just one thing - if TWAW, there is no reason to exclude Jacinta.

As it is, TWANW, and therefore the reason we don't call Jacinta 'She' is because Jacinta is a man. It has nothing to do with Jacinta's morality. It is a simple fact. If I commit a hideous crime, you wouldn't exclude me from the 'woman' club. You would still use she/her pronouns because being a woman is not about behaviour or sincerity.

Disposable= *Despicable

Haworthia completely understood your point.

I also think those who do this might also consider how such coersion and obfuscation can work and be exploited.

The uberwoke can call Jacinta what they like. I'm sticking with 'that', personally. Do a quick vox pop around the streets of justaboutanyfuckingwhere, and ask people if they think calling a rapist a woman takes precedence over protecting children. Wow, suddenly at least 99% of the population are 'bigots'.

As for the practice of putting your pronouns in your Twitter bio, well, whatever you believe about gender identity, that's pure wankery.

not sure you get me @sittingaround1?

The lunatics pushing #RapistHill are entirely right on just one thing - if TWAW, there is no reason to exclude Jacinta.

Exactly.

YeahClovid oops I've been following this thread whilst dealing with my unruly children.
Yes if TWAW because that's what they feel then they can't really make exceptions.

Sarahjconnor, sounds like you understand perfectly.

For clarity, and at the risk of a deletion, it's none.

This is delicious MN fudge.

You know, I'm actually leaning towards the perspective that we should be talking about "transwoman Jacinta Brooks, who according to Stonewall and the Labour and LibDem parties and Theresa May is just as much of a woman as your nan" at every opportunity. The official guidance says this person is a woman? Fine, let's rub everyone's noses in it until the cognitive dissonance forces a reevaluation.

I managed to peak some of my colleagues today by talking about this person, so there is that.

I've been thinking about the #rapisthilltodieon tag, or whatever it is.

And the Duluth wheel.

I think this is the same sort of behaviour you see in a certain type of abuser - the one who tells you what an abusive shit they've been to their previous girlfriends. They are testing the water to see how much shit you'll put up with, whether having a red flag waved literally under your nose just makes you shut your eyes.

And there will be some handmaidens who will do just that.