Rape suspects can choose to self-identify as female - Times Scotland

[Igneococcus]

Yousaf claims they would need a full GRC but:
"Detective Superintendent Fil Capaldi said: “The sex/gender identification of individuals who come into contact with the police will be based on how they present or how they self- declare, which is consistent with the values of the organisation."
Does that mean the "values of the organisation" potentially trump the justice secretary and the Scottish parliament?

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/aba95fce-9ef0-11eb-a908-ec96e110073e?shareToken=828b6f29f363f02863b00aa4b523a1c0

This makes me feel sick.
To think that defence lawyers can now use this to lower sentencing is beyond disgusting.

Very depressing. So a man can use his manhood to rape a woman but his identification can be skewered to prevent detection.

And to reiterate that the nothing to do with us comment from the government is such a massive cowardly cop out I can't believe they had the gall to say it.

Someone posted this on facebook and various people were apparently shocked and horrified. I'm a bit puzzled. If you buy 'transwomen are women' then it makes perfectly logical sense. It's completely in accordance with the messages the SNP have been telling us for the past few years.

I suppose I'm a bit surprised that other people apparently really didn't realise the consequences of chanting that mantra.

I suppose I'm a bit surprised that other people apparently really didn't realise the consequences of chanting that mantra.

The lack of thought or care is quite damning. This is the grotesque, but logical conclusion. What exactly did they think it meant?

his identification can be skewered to prevent detection.

Somewhat OT for this but do we remember the police forces in England that squared the pronoun circle by issuing misleading public alerts, 'Be on the lookout for/Do not approach this dangerous woman' ? (I can't recall if the alerts were for suspects or escapees.)

I have honestly no iea, Uppity. I suppose they thought they were 'being kind'.

Ella Davies/Daniel Reed, I seem to recall, absconded and the alerts were to be on the look out for a female/woman.

I suppose they thought they were 'being kind'. yes - I think this is true. Unfortunately many people don’t realise that being kind can also be nebulous and manipulated and lead to great harms. Exactly as we have here with this insanity.

'Be on the lookout for/Do not approach this dangerous woman' ? (I can't recall if the alerts were for suspects or escapees

I remember one was for a suspect of a serious sexual assault on a man with a warning that the public should stay well clear, and another was about trying to find a missing child.

The fact that the police are willing to use obfuscating language in making the public alert about potential dangerous suspects, which reduces likelihood of capturing suspects AND locating vulnerable children is completely appalling.

"The sex/gender identification of individuals who come into contact with the police will be based on how they present or how they self- declare, which is consistent with the values of the organisation."

There's a difference between sex and gender identification. Do they mean that sex is based on "how one presents" (going around raping people with one's penis has historically and traditionally been more of a male pastime than a female one) and gender identification on how one "self-declares"? Why do the police care about "gender identification", which has no legal force?

Unfortunately, many police forces are Stonewall champions and given that they should be impartial, it's pretty much a disgrace. My opinion is that being Stonewall champions, they can wear the progressive cloak whilst still being one of the most misogynistic organisations in the UK (I'd put bets on it being around the world). They are unconcerned about our opinions because along with the CPS and many lower ranked legal people, we can shout but we will not be heard. Unless the Home Secretary takes a good look at this, recognising that Stonewall is a lobby group, a lobby group that misrepresents the law and reviews the links, our police forces will continue to become laws unto themselves. Harrumph!!!

Unfortunately many people don’t realise that being kind can also be nebulous and manipulated and lead to great harms. Exactly as we have here with this insanity

Or that 'being kind' should really be extended to everyone, not just certain selected groups. Otherwise it's actually the opposite of kind.

Or that 'being kind' should really be extended to everyone, not just certain selected groups. Otherwise it's actually the opposite of kind.

Absolutely. Unfortunately in this society, certain parts of our society don’t count as equals. And as usual - it’s always based on sex.

We have just created a new thread in FWR about a petition we have lodged in the Scottish Parliament which addresses the issues highlighted in The Times article which prompted this thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4264606-Scottish-Parliament-petition-on-accurately-recording-the-sex-of-people-charged-or-convicted-of-rape-or-attempted-rape

Many thanks.
Lisa, Lucy and Kath

Thank you!

It seems to me as a casual observer that there is a large body of opinion on this site that trans women should not be allowed to use the women's toilets because some men who are not trans will pretend to be so just to be able to access women's toilets. Have I got it right?

If so, can someone explain to me please:

1. How you are going to be able to tell if someone is a trans woman rather than simply a woman that might look a bit like a man?
2. Who is going to challenge this person?
3. What does the woman who looks a bit like a man have to do to prove she's a woman? Pull her underwear down? Leave the toilet crossing her legs if she hasn't got ID on her that you can trust?
4. Where would you expect trans women to go on the toilet, and trans men?
5. Is this ban that many of you seem to want going to stop male violence against women? Would it stop someone, either a man or a trans woman, entering a women's toilet to commit a crime? Is not the fact that someone is prepared to commit a sexual assault suggest that the perpetrator is hardly going to refuse to enter the women's toilet because there is a law against it?
6. Is it not the case that this will result solely in the further marginalisation of trans people and that will be the only result of a ban?

It does seem as if we're back in the 70s and 80s again yet instead of homosexuals being vilified and accused of being sexual deviants it's now trans people. Do you not look at articles from the Daily Mail back in those days and cringe at how appallingly homophobic they were?

Assuming you’re posting in good faith @Collaborate you will find the answers to your questions on the ‘Break it down for me’ thread.

@Faffertea

Assuming you’re posting in good faith *@Collaborate* you will find the answers to your questions on the ‘Break it down for me’ thread.

Thank you. I have had a quick look at the thread and will digest it further. I don't think the first page though addresses any of the questions I have asked.

It's not obligatory that anyone answers them but I'm keen to try and understand both sides.

I'll try, and you can be sure I will only use the most moderate of language as I have been a tad intemperate recently - I am on the naughty step

1. How you are going to be able to tell if someone is a trans woman rather than simply a woman that might look a bit like a man? This comes up quite a lot and is usually phrased as 'passing'.

The bottom line is that if a transwoman passes then nobody will know. No harm no foul in the real world.

Howver, the human body has some sex specific differences and these include the pelvic gridel and how your legs hang of them. The 'angle of dangle, is quite different and this means that the gait of men and women is very very different. It cannot be mimicked by anyone of the other sex , other than with broad brushstrokes that always look like parody

2. Who is going to challenge this person? For decades nobody has. Women may have noticed and felt a frisson of fear, anxiety, unease. But nobody would have said anything. Most, like me, would even have felt shame for that frisson and made a determined effort to make up for it by being 'nice' These days - me! I would challenge it and explain to the transwoman that thses days I feel far less accommodating because of the behaviours and threats to women by activists claiming to be speaking on behalf of transwomen. If that opens up a mutually respectful dialogue, fucking ace! A good job done.

3. What does the woman who looks a bit like a man have to do to prove she's a woman? Pull her underwear down? Leave the toilet crossing her legs if she hasn't got ID on her that you can trust? Don't gp there "Oooh, are you goinfg to check genitals?" is one of those idiotic phrases that has been pushed at women for a while now. We here haven't suggested it, wouldn't do it and don't really see the need. Not going to happen, it's a straw man arguement - see gait analysis and common sense. SIL has been challenged in public loos, she is a very masculine looking lesbian, she laughs and carries on. In motion and when speaking she is obviously female.

4. Where would you expect trans women to go on the toilet, and trans men? No idea and these days I don't really care. Why? Because for years now women have not been asked, we have been told and now I'd like to be the one doing the telling and saying, loudly, no! My voice can and should be heard without my being called names and being threatened - which has happened to some women, see extant threads.

Some will say transmen should use womens loos because they are women, I would say no, they chose to 'other' themselves look as much like men as they can and if men have no issue with them in the mens loos then that's where they should go! Ask men and transmen that question.

Alternatively they can all lobby properly for additional provision of third, gender inclusive space.

5. Is this ban that many of you seem to want going to stop male violence against women? Would it stop someone, either a man or a trans woman, entering a women's toilet to commit a crime? Is not the fact that someone is prepared to commit a sexual assault suggest that the perpetrator is hardly going to refuse to enter the women's toilet because there is a law against it? And again we have seen that argument many, many times. That isn't the point, mainly because the focus on loos misleads. It reduces the whole debate to one small area that has little to do with women's real objections.

It is a very handy misdirection, if you want to belittle the fears and voices of women.

Replace loos with sport in all of your questions and get back to me!

6. Is it not the case that this will result solely in the further marginalisation of trans people and that will be the only result of a ban? So you want women to be nice in order to make some people feel safer. And you don't care how many women that might get hurt? If you do how many is acceptable?

In toilets

In prisons

In hospitals

In refuges

In jobs

In sports

In life

How many women hurt, pushed aside, scared, lost is acceptable to you @Collaborate? What is the number at which you will say "Stop!"?

Apologies for all the mispers, I really though my new keyboard would stop that

It does seem as if we're back in the 70s and 80s again yet instead of homosexuals being vilified and accused of being sexual deviants it's now trans people. Do you not look at articles from the Daily Mail back in those days and cringe at how appallingly homophobic they were?

And that too is one of those arguments that doesn't really stand up.

Gay rights didn't seek to, nor did they in real terms, take anything away from anyone, To overrule, trump, trample the rights of any other group. What was seen was purely a kneejerk reaction, a fear, a religious distaste - all of which a mature society woudl find distatseful. Some of it remans but, for the most part, we are, as a society, more mature than that now.

For the demands of TRAs to be met women would have to lose a lot. Again, it is not about public loos. Can you see now how much that trivialises the whole debate?

If you only look at one single instance of how much women can lose to transwomen Google Laurel Hubbard or Valentina Petrillo.

If you don't like sport maybe Google Professor Kathleen Stock or Raquel Rosario-Sanchez.

As a woman, if I had the choice of:

1, another woman in the toilet/changing room asking if I'm a woman or

2, having to share the toilet/changing room with a man (however he identifies)

I'd happily take option 1 every single time.

I've seen the Times report that showed that the risk of women being sexually assaulted is 9 times more likely in mixed-sex spaces.

Having a social convention whereby women's spaces are segregated by sex makes a much bigger difference than a lot of people realise.

@jellybeansforbreakfast Thank you for taking the time to respond.

I do still feel that there is a large element of distaste in the objections given some of the comments I read.

And for what it's worth in gendered sports it seems illogical to me for people born male to be competing as females in many of the sports. But the debate on MN seems to centre mainly on the public toilets debate, however trivial you say it might be. And it seems to be based on the implication that trans women are a threat to women, when I don't believe that to be true. Men are a threat to women, including those who pretend to want to be women (and I'm not sure how many of these there are, but I suspect there are few of them).