Teenager drop-kicked for saying you need female genitals to be a woman

[youkiddingme]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8965625/London-transgender-women-drop-kicked-stamped-19-year-old.html

Supposedly being celebrated by TRAs

www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tweet/1330041982681571329

The judge's comments were unconscionable and inexcusable.

It also begs the question of whether this crime will be recorded in statistics as having been committed by females. The scenario of a gang of women perpetrating a violent attack probably isn't unprecedented, but I would assume this to be rare. The implication seems to be that transgender women perpetrate violent crime at the same rate as that of other natal men, i.e. far outweighing violent crime committed by women. To suggest otherwise is to skew statistics and potentially create further safety issues for everyone else.

Also for AvocadoBathroom.

I've also been pondering what would happen if the precipitating remark had been different.

What would happen to 4 black guys who did this in response to a white teen racially abusing them? Or to 4 Asian men? Or 4 white men who beat up an Asian teenager for looking at them.the wrong way?

I think we'd be a lot clearer on how it wasn't 50/50 then.

There's never an excuse for victim blaming. We don't do retributive justice. We don't bend the law because 'he deserved it'. We know too well where that kind of justice leads.

Hi @LangClegsInSpace

Victim blaming has long been part of our justice system, as indeed has retribution. Rightly or wrongly provocation is a mitigating factor in the sentencing process, so yes, the law does get bent according to the behaviour of the victim.

(I'm not too sure what this discussion is doing on a board about feminism either, by the way, but some women convicted of DV offences benefit in the sentencing process from victim blaming, and the provocation principle.)

As well as the victim blaming, did anyone else notice how the judge went on from this?

The four of you then were subjected to extremely offensive transphobic and racial abuse. Had it not been for that there would have been no violent disorder.

However that does not excuse what you did, you went far to far in your reactions, but of course transphobic issues are particularly sensitive. [my italics]

There we have it. Transphobia is worse than racism. Worse than anything else in the whole wide world. There is no crime greater than that of transphobia. (And of course no clear definition of what transphobia is.)

In the context of the profile of BLM this year, that really is a strong statement.

@PotholeParadies

I've also been pondering what would happen if the precipitating remark had been different.

What would happen to 4 black guys who did this in response to a white teen racially abusing them? Or to 4 Asian men? Or 4 white men who beat up an Asian teenager for looking at them.the wrong way?

I think we'd be a lot clearer on how it wasn't 50/50 then.

I wonder too. In the light of the judge’s remarks, I doubt he would have found it so easy to excuse them and let them off with a featherlight slap on the wrist.

transphobic issues are particularly sensitive

I think I might start doing my jogging in steel toe caps ready for when I need to stamp on the next bloke who shouts at me to get my tits out. It's all alright apparently, 'cause I'm particularly sensitive to perverts and sexism, and it seems we're allowed to ignore the law as long as our feelings are adequately hurt.

transphobic issues are particularly sensitive

NO SHIT.

transphobic issues are particularly sensitive

Yes, the public are repeatedly told this. See: ipsedixitism.

It is used to mean this is something you are not allowed to question or talk about, this is something you may not argue with regardless of right, wrong or evidence, this is something too complicated for you to understand (so leave it to those who know better and will tell you what to think), and it all serves the same purpose.

No, I don't believe that, I don't agree with that, and I think that very message in itself is a major problem. In the world of safeguarding and mental health the message is that nothing is so bad that it can't be talked about. The sensitive, tricky stuff needs talking about more, not less. It needs unpacking, addressing, facing. No sacred cows, no forbidden subjects, no dramatic and dogmatic lines drawn by those who never quite explain why their voices matter but others don't, and no quietly and undemocratically acquired power over others through using this kind of strategy. Because that way nothing good lies.

Ugh. First I read of this story was a woke friend using it as a gotcha against feminists who talk about 'male violence'. Apparently 'explain this, if most violence is by males? A group of women attacking a bloke'

While he does indeed sound like a not nice person, thats no excuse for a group attacking him! That being said on FWR is..weird. Mind, we have many antifeminists here these days I guess.

First I read of this story was a woke friend using it as a gotcha against feminists who talk about 'male violence'. Apparently 'explain this, if most violence is by males? A group of women attacking a bloke'

Really? Jaysus. Was your friend aware these were transwomen? Because I struggle to believe anyone would be so...well, ignorant.

The link he posted actually said 'transgender women' so yup. He knew. Not the brightest spark really. He is VERY TWAW though, so presumably thinks the transgender part doesn't matter, so it IS a group of women attacking a man.

Blimey Michelle I've just learned another new word (I thought it was a typo at first 😁)

I have no sympathy at all for the boy. If I saw someone subjecting others to racial and transphobic abuse I'd be tempted to kick them in the head too.

@12frogsincoats

I have no sympathy at all for the boy. If I saw someone subjecting others to racial and transphobic abuse I'd be tempted to kick them in the head too.

Yes, let's all have a Hobbesian race to the bottom, won't that be a fun way to run our society?

Guess who goes to the wall first in the sort of society that tolerates meeting violence with violence, eye-for-an-eye stuff?

Handy hint - it isn't able bodied heterosexual white men in their 20s and 30s.

@Elsiebear90

Are you missing the part where it says he subjected them to “extremely offensive racist and transphobic abuse” prior to them attacking him? It’s not an excuse for violence, but he’s hardly an innocent victim.

Then you report them to the police. Unless it’s now legal to respond with physical, potentially lethal violence to verbal abuse.

@12frogsincoats

I have no sympathy at all for the boy. If I saw someone subjecting others to racial and transphobic abuse I'd be tempted to kick them in the head too.

Or, y'know, report it like other decent, civilised, non feral people have to.

They kind of proved his point thought didn’t they. Bit of an own goal!

If I saw someone subjecting others to racial and transphobic abuse I'd be tempted to kick them in the head too.

In fact the more I read this sentence, the more I think how Hobbesian what you're proposing is.

I note that you leave out sexist abuse from your reasons for kicking someone's head in. I'm guessing oversight on your part rather than deliberate omission.

But it's very revealing, because (a) sexist abuse doesn't turn a crime into a hate crime (it's left off the list, despite sex being a protected characteristic under the EA) and (b) it would be simply too far fetched to imagine a woman on the receiving end of sexist abuse turning on the man abusing her and "kicking his head in" because... well, actual sexual dimorphism. She'd come out worse from the encounter. Way worse.

Which is why we need the rule of law, impartially and fairly applied to everyone, rather than revenge attacks and vigilantism. Because the weak - the people most at risk of attack - can't rely on being able to defend themselves, even if such lawless revenge beatings were morally justifiable, which they're not.

Sorry, on a bit of a hobby horse on this one. There was a "one year on" interview with one of the guys who wrestled with the Fishmonger's Hall attacker.

He was very interesting. Because, being an incredibly brave and genuinely decent person, even as he held the attacker down, he tried (verbally) to stop others kicking the attacker in the head. Then he didn't get off when the police asked him to, because he thought the suicide belt was real, and was terrified that if he let go, the attacker would blow everyone in the vicinity sky high.

I want to live in a society with people who react like that man, not like the bastards who carried out this attack (or like frog - though I suspect frog is all mouth and would actually piss themselves if really in that situation).

Hear, hear, Cara. What an amazing man.

Yes, Cara. I heard that interview too. He is an impressive man.

Kicking someone in the head is the act of a feral, mindless thug. Also, the worst kind of inadequate coward does things like that in gangs.

Excellent posts, Cara.

The assailants were convicted of violent disorder which is a public order offence. They were not convicted of assault, which is an offence against the person. I don't understand why, CPS guidance says that where they meet the thresholds for both they should be prosecuted for both, or in some circumstances, assault only.

The threshold for violent disorder is 3 or more people using or threatening unlawful violence such that 'a person of reasonable firmness' present at the scene would fear for their personal safety.

By prosecuting a public order offence rather than an offence against the person, the victim disappears. They weren't convicted for the harm they did to this young person, they were convicted for scaring the public while they were doing it.

Sentencing guidelines appear roughly similar for both offences. There may be technical reasons why it was better to go for the public order offence on its own. IANAL so if there's a reason it would be great if someone could explain because this was very obviously an assault against a person.

According to CPS guidance this attack also meets the threshold for ABH. PP implied that it didn't because the victim only sustained severe abrasions and a black eye. My layperson's reading is that while the actual injuries sustained by the victim are relevant, there are other factors to take into account, e.g. where there has been 'significant violence' or where there has been 'punching, kicking or head-butting'.

Sentencing guidelines for ABH include 'Use of weapon or weapon equivalent (for example, shod foot ...' as an aggravating factor. Also 'Intention to commit more serious harm than actually resulted'. I've seen the video, we all have. The victim was lucky that the assault happened in such a public place and was stopped quickly.

Clearly they should have dragged him out of the tube station and into a dark alley before kicking the shit out of him.

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-order-offences-incorporating-charging-standard

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/violent-disorder-2/

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/assault-occasioning-actual-bodily-harm-racially-religiously-aggravated-abh/

@AuntyPonsonby

There's never an excuse for victim blaming. We don't do retributive justice. We don't bend the law because 'he deserved it'. We know too well where that kind of justice leads.

Hi @LangClegsInSpace

Victim blaming has long been part of our justice system, as indeed has retribution. Rightly or wrongly provocation is a mitigating factor in the sentencing process, so yes, the law does get bent according to the behaviour of the victim.

(I'm not too sure what this discussion is doing on a board about feminism either, by the way, but some women convicted of DV offences benefit in the sentencing process from victim blaming, and the provocation principle.)

The sentencing guidelines list 'A greater degree of provocation than normally expected' as a factor indicating lower culpability in an assault charge.

1. this isn't an assault charge. For whatever reason, CPS chose to go with a public order offence instead of assault. Can you show where provocation is a mitigating factor for violent disorder?

2. In assault charges where provocation is a mitigating factor the aim is not retribution. The law recognises that if someone is severely provoked they may be less able to control their behaviour. This doesn't make what they did less wrong and it doesn't in any way mean that the victim deserved what was done to them.

3. Whole other thread about what degree of provocation should be 'normally expected' if you're a woman.

We don't do retributive justice. Beating the shit out of anybody is always wrong.

Hello @LangClegsInSpace. Thank you for the reply, and for your earlier excellently analysed post, especially for a non-lawyer. (Although I do think that this has very little to do with feminism.)

1. No, and I really don't think to do so would help. Victim blaming (via the principle of provocation) has long been a part of our justice system, rightly so.

2. I agree with you.

3. It would be interesting, and perhaps more appropriate to this board!

We will have to disagree on retributive justice. Retribution is one of several aims of the sentencing process, including prevention and rehabilitation. Please don't make me pull up the authority!