Woman exposes herself in car park ...

[Bobkitten]

www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/19264825.woman-exposed-glebe-house-car-park-haverfordwest/

The headline caught my eye; the article refers to this person as a woman and uses she/her pronouns. No info about the victim.

I wondered aloud whether this person was likely to have been a natal woman, given the nature of the offence. DH suggested I was being prejudiced; I was leaping to conclusions; I didn’t have all the facts, etc, etc. (Despite the report indicating this person’s middle name is ‘Peter’, along with ‘Diva’.)

This person’s Twitter account appears to confirm this person is trans.

Will this (sexual) offence have been recorded as committed by a woman? I am assuming yes, though perhaps I’m leaping to conclusions again.

This never happens /this happens so often there's no way of stopping it.

This person isn't genuine. Namalt. Etc.

From the headline, I wouldn't doubt it was a woman. I've been flashed by a woman so it's not unlikely. But yeah, reading on it seems that there is more to this person than being 'a woman'.

Lovely

And of course it will be recorded as a woman’s crime

Criminologists are going to have an interesting time if they can't use sex categories.

Certain things do provoke an instinctual "that doesn't sound like one of our crimes" response, don't they?

Relistening to this the other day also made me wonder if there was an important detail being overlooked:

@lubaluca That’s exactly it, though - it’s left me feeling like I’m in the wrong to feel angry about this, because of course women do these things too (in smaller numbers though, right?). So was my immediate assumption born of prejudice? Even if it did turn out to be right?

The two people who have exposed themselves to me have been male. As have all those who have touched me up/pressed too close while on public transport, slapped my bum at parties, cat-called, followed me home, etc.

So was my immediate assumption born of prejudice

That's the end game - to undermine attempts to name and stop male violence and intimidation

[quote Bobkitten]@lubaluca That’s exactly it, though - it’s left me feeling like I’m in the wrong to feel angry about this, because of course women do these things too (in smaller numbers though, right?). So was my immediate assumption born of prejudice? Even if it did turn out to be right?

The two people who have exposed themselves to me have been male. As have all those who have touched me up/pressed too close while on public transport, slapped my bum at parties, cat-called, followed me home, etc.[/quote]
Me too. I've never been sexually harassed by a woman before. I would bet that most women haven't, but almost all will have been sexually harassed by a man at some point.

When I hear of a woman being sexually assaulted, murdered, a victim of violence etc. I always assume it is a male perpetrator.

I can only think of one case where it was a woman - one where a young woman / teenage girl pretended to be a male and sexually assaulted their girlfriend who believed the woman to be a man.

I always believe it’s a man because it 99% of the time is. When it stops me men (people with penises) then I’ll stop making that assumption.

Women on the whole don’t commit these types of crimes. Argue all you like but the statistics speak for themselves- these are male dominated crimes.

Peter the fucking diva needs to take his penis and fuck off

Absolutely. That's the one and only time a woman has ever targeted me like that, and I've never heard first-hand of it happening to anyone else, so it was an anomaly.

Crap though, isn't it? Someone exposed their penis in a car park and 'a woman' gets the blame 🤦

@Bobkitten

www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/19264825.woman-exposed-glebe-house-car-park-haverfordwest/

The headline caught my eye; the article refers to this person as a woman and uses she/her pronouns. No info about the victim.

I wondered aloud whether this person was likely to have been a natal woman, given the nature of the offence. DH suggested I was being prejudiced; I was leaping to conclusions; I didn’t have all the facts, etc, etc. (Despite the report indicating this person’s middle name is ‘Peter’, along with ‘Diva’.)

This person’s Twitter account appears to confirm this person is trans.

Will this (sexual) offence have been recorded as committed by a woman? I am assuming yes, though perhaps I’m leaping to conclusions again.

Thanks for posting!

I will keep an eye and see if I can find out how it is officially reported after conviction.

Bloody cheek!

it’s left me feeling like I’m in the wrong to feel angry about this, because of course women do these things too (in smaller numbers though, right?)

Do they though? There are some things, like exposing yourself, and revenge porn, that seem to be purely male behaviour.

Are newspapers allowed to be more specific - can they say which body part the weirdo exposed?

Because then they could say it was a woman who committed the crime, but saying it was a penis that they exposed would tell the bigger story.

So was my immediate assumption born of prejudice?

No, it was born out of pattern recognition.

One of the Rules of Misogyny states that women’s pattern recognition is misandry; It is clearly transphobic too.

.

Indecent exposure is a very different experience I would say if you are a woman confronted by a male with an erect penis v a man or a woman confronted by a woman exposing her breasts or vulva. There is little chance of a man feeling threatened by a woman doing that .... possible if the circumstances were such that she was older/ in a position of power, but surely more feeling awkward and embarrassed than in fear. A woman confronted by a man exposing himself is in fear of rape. I speak from experience.

This bullshit of we're all human and sex is now irrelevant.. well it's just bollocks...if you'll pardon my french.

So was my immediate assumption born of prejudice? Even if it did turn out to be right?

Don't know about "prejudice".

Knowing differing offending patterns by sex, plus knowing that the press is not currently reporting sex accurately, means that it's reasonable to conclude that in the absence of other information, a "woman" committing this kind of offense could well be male.

I've not seen any proper studies trying to figure this out, but I'd guess the probability of them being male is up in the tens of percent, possibly even above 50%.

Now, is it "prejudiced" to think men commit more sexual offences? Maybe, but it's also true.

I think proper prejudice would be thinking that a particular man was a sex offender without other evidence. Sure he's more likely to be one than a woman would be, but he's still most likely not. That would be prejudice ("an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge of the facts").

But this is the other way around - thinking a particular sex offender is a man. Thinking someone is a man isn't an adverse judgment.

The photograph of this person (google image search/associated with their Twitter account) is of a male born person.

Funny isn't it, how on stories about or relating to trans women, they have their trans status front and centre.

Yet when a crime has been committed, especially sex related crimes, the headline always says 'woman'.......

V annoying. Headline should have been ‘Transwoman exposes themself’ - at least it would then have been fairly factual. I think almost everyone will assume it was a bloke though because, let’s face it, it’s exactly the kind of thing blokes do. End of.

@blackwhiteandstripey

A quick google of such an unusual name as the accused in the article, brings up a Twitter page with the tag line "I am a T-girl"

A quick google didn't bring up a Twitter for me, but ... be careful of your settings, the other results were very definitely NSFW.