FPFW: conclusive evidence that transwomen retain male patterns of offending

[Clymene]

FPFW have got new data from the MOJ for 2019. Half of all transwomen prisoners (163j were incarcerated for sexual offences (81).

https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-sex-offences/?fbclid=IwAR1e9OfURrnGv6DLey6oaL3XTzkygZNhSPMRcCuEbmLL_UcWNeIhOAQbSMA

As a reminder, there are fewer than 4,000 women in prison in total.

Well knock me down with a feather.

Who could ever have predicted this?

“a male saying they feel like a woman removes their ability/likelihood of committing offences by some kind of vague, magical effect that nobody can or will explain.”

This is why there’s so much insistence that nobody must ever point out that these are men. No explanation is required if we accept that lie. There’s this naive acceptance that these are women and thus the equally naive assumption that therefore they behave like women. We are in the ludicrous position of having to prove that men are not women.

I’ve said it before... people will look back on this period and wonder what kind of madness seized the world when men claimed they were women and governments were credulous enough to give them rights based on something so outrageous.

In other news, bears shit in the wood and the pope's a catholic.

I’m hoping this data has been submitted to the WESC last week. You were not allowed to submit previously released evidence so that might explain the timings.

If I’m understanding this correctly approx half are in for sexual assaults. This is far higher than male pattern offending - it would make TW far and away the most dangerous group in terms of sexual offences.

Can you imagine if half of the male prison population was there for sexual offences.

And no, I’m not suggesting a high percentage of TW overall are sexual offenders. The system is being exploited as in ‘this will never happen’ apart from when it does.

Agree with the poster who said this is Human Rights abuse - locking vulnerable women up with predatory males is not right. Somebody needs to take legal action.

And no, I’m not suggesting a high percentage of TW overall are sexual offenders. The system is being exploited as in ‘this will never happen’ apart from when it does.

Agreed. It's not that men who say they are women are more likely to be sex offenders than other men.
It's that sex offenders want access to women and if saying they are women will give them that access then they will do it.

It's that sex offenders want access to women and if saying they are women will give them that access then they will do it.

I don't think it's just about access. I think it's also about sex offenders using the law as it currently stands to manipulate, control and gain status.

Yep there are only 2 possible conclusions:

1. Men who say that they're women are more likely to be sex offenders than other men.

1. Sex offenders are more likely to say that they're women than other offenders.

Personally I think it's the second option, but in neither case should these people be given open access to women, and especially not to vulnerable women who can't escape.

I wonder what percentage of male prison population are sex offenders. Can’t be anywhere near 50% can it?

I wonder what percentage of male prison population are sex offenders. Can’t be anywhere near 50% can it?

It's in the FPFW report.

Data from March and April 2019 show that 17% of men in prison in England and Wales have been sentenced for a sexual offence (13234 out of a total of 78781 men in prison). However, only 3% of women in prison in England and Wales have been sentenced for a sexual offence (125 out of 3812 women in prison).

Yes I would concur with number 2.
Same as scout leaders or catholic priests (for example) are not more likely to be sex offenders than other roles just that sex offenders can exploit easy access to children by becoming a catholic priest or a swimming instructor or whatever. Or could in the past until safeguarding came along.

@testing987654321

I wonder what percentage of male prison population are sex offenders. Can’t be anywhere near 50% can it?

It's in the FPFW report.

Data from March and April 2019 show that 17% of men in prison in England and Wales have been sentenced for a sexual offence (13234 out of a total of 78781 men in prison). However, only 3% of women in prison in England and Wales have been sentenced for a sexual offence (125 out of 3812 women in prison).

Thank you 😊

There's an article in the DM today about the number of transgender staff at the Bank of England, and in the article there's a section stating that there are 20 murderers now saying they're trans. (Weird article to hide this is, should be its own article.)

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9047753/Bank-England-three-times-transgender-staff.html

Article is boring so here's a screenshot of the section.

The Ministry of Justice figures will intensify suspicion that some violent criminals may be identifying as trans in the hope of getting better treatment in jail or being transferred to a women’s prison.

I really hope the Judicial Review puts a stop to this. There should be a transgender wing on the male estate for these male criminals who suddenly realise they're women.

I really hope the Judicial Review puts a stop to this. There should be a transgender wing on the male estate for these male criminals who suddenly realise they're women.

and I would bet that once the option of being moved to the female prison estate is removed the numbers of those suddenly deciding they are women will drop dramatically.

I'm skeptical that all of the people born male who are counted as female actually have a GRC and female birth certificate.

AFAIK, you don't need a GRC to change the sex markers on documents such as passport or drivers licence. Does anyone know if the prison system asks for a female birth certificate before recording sex?

@ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings

Yep there are only 2 possible conclusions:

1. Men who say that they're women are more likely to be sex offenders than other men.

1. Sex offenders are more likely to say that they're women than other offenders.

Personally I think it's the second option, but in neither case should these people be given open access to women, and especially not to vulnerable women who can't escape.

Yup. It doesn’t look good either way, does it?

Sasha That's what pisses me off most when people come on here to say "Dont you know you're more likely to be attacked by a man in your family than a stranger on the street or whilst using a toilet etc". Like, what do they think is going on there? Do they think that there's something about having children/ being married/being a family friend etc that makes men suddenly more likely to offend? Does it never occur to them as more plausible that men are actually engineering opportunities for themselves to gain access to victims? Do they really think its men with wives/girlfriends/children etc who are most likely to attack us, rather than men with access and opportunity? And the fact that we don't have more attacks in spaces like toilets is precisely because we've limited male access and opportunity, not because men who use these spaces are just magically less likely to want to attack us. I mean, any one who has given it even 5 seconds thought should be able to figure that one out.

Agree with the poster who said this is Human Rights abuse - locking vulnerable women up with predatory males is not right. Somebody needs to take legal action.

Glad you agree but just to be clear on where I stand, I believe locking vulnerable women up with any males is not right. Obviously there’s a signifiant added risk and outrage when they’re predatory, but the assault on the human right of women to be held in a single sex facility persists even if the male in question is a mild-mannered individual whose sexual orientation is towards other males.

@TalkingtoLangClegintheDark

Agree with the poster who said this is Human Rights abuse - locking vulnerable women up with predatory males is not right. Somebody needs to take legal action.

Glad you agree but just to be clear on where I stand, I believe locking vulnerable women up with any males is not right. Obviously there’s a signifiant added risk and outrage when they’re predatory, but the assault on the human right of women to be held in a single sex facility persists even if the male in question is a mild-mannered individual whose sexual orientation is towards other males.

And even if the male in question holds a GRC.

Does it never occur to them as more plausible that men are actually engineering opportunities for themselves to gain access to victims?

this is exactly what bothers me - we know that bad things happen, and they will always happen but normally we take steps to try and prevent these bad things happening again.

The Ian Huntley case brought about the DBS checking as I understand in order to try and minimise the risk of the terrible thing that happened to those two poor girls happening again.

We shouldn't be legislating to make it EASIER for the bad things to happen and give bad people MORE access to women and children......

We always have to ask ourselves: cui bono?

When one group of people has been historically disadvantaged by another group of people, when it has been oppressed, controlled and abused to a truly inhuman degree by that other group, and when that oppression, control and abuse is still ongoing, who benefits when the first group is denied the right to set its own boundaries that exclude all members of the other group, to access spaces and services specifically set aside for this group only, to meet with other members of the same group with none of the oppressor group present, the right even to name itself?

Who benefits?

Women - the ones who are not closing their eyes to reality, at least - know only too well how it feels to belong to a group whose members are actually, verifiably, vulnerable, disadvantaged and marginalised in a plethora of ways, to a greater or lesser extent all over the world, still now. And these things are never intended to benefit us, now, are they?

What I find particularly insulting and hard to believe is that panels of apparent "experts" can conclude that a collection of visual stereotypes makes a male sex offender a woman if he says so. And the fact of having committed a sex crime, something extremely rare for women, does not count against his application in any way.

You can be the most violent misogynist, but pop on a skirt, heels & long hair and you are a woman.

Am I understanding the data correctly that MOJ has categories: women (includes transwomen with GRC), trans (males without GRC who say they are transwomen) and men? That must skew the women's sex crime data quite significantly if so?

We shouldn't be legislating to make it EASIER for the bad things to happen and give bad people MORE access to women and children......

It's almost like we've learned nothing about access from the major sex abuse scandals of the last few decades. Dame Janet Smith's report into Jimmy Saville highlighted, among many other failings and in other institutions, that Saville had access to girls and young women at the BBC via TOTPs. Male sex offenders identifying as women in prison (and let's assume it's a decision made because they know they will receive privileges as a result) should not be allowed anywhere near female prisoners, it's so obvious.

We shouldn't be legislating to make it EASIER for the bad things to happen and give bad people MORE access to women and children......

That argument makes far too much sense to be admissible in the debate over all this, gardenbird. Don’t you know it’s transphobic to have a rational argument with which to back up your opinions? A deliberate act of hostility towards people who aren’t similarly endowed with rational arguments to back up their perspective!

@ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings

Avery valid point. Women are more likely to be attacked by men who have access to them in their personal spaces.

@TalkingtoLangClegintheDark

Agree - incarcerated women should be in single sex units. Naive as I was I thought this was exactly the kind of scenario single sex exemptions in legislation were designed for.

Female prisoners may not be a group commanding much sympathy with the general public but no excuse to deny basic human rights such as privacy and dignity. Our prisons have gone beyond that not only are privacy and dignity thrown under the bus of trans ideology / fashionable queer theory but woman are being put in physical danger.

I do not care how many Risk Assessments are done - it’s appalling. Can you imagine a dystopian novel where they find neglected and vulnerable women on the periphery of society and lock them up with a few male sex offenders who have requested to be in there? Problem is it’s not fiction.