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.

So if crimes are being reported as what the person self-IDs as (and I'm asking this as a serious question, with no intention of committing the act!), could I flash my breasts and then claim to be a man/male in which case it's no longer a crime?
Again I've no intention of doing it, just trying to wrap my head around it

Women need to realise as a matter of fact that men in general don't have their interests at heart. There are waaay too many men-children who can't/won't take any responsibility.

I'm half-surprised (not really) that the usual suspects aren't here defending this 'woman's' right to have 'her' gender identity validated by the press regardless of flashing 'her' lady penis in the supermarket

@1lov3comps

So if crimes are being reported as what the person self-IDs as (and I'm asking this as a serious question, with no intention of committing the act!), could I flash my breasts and then claim to be a man/male in which case it's no longer a crime? Again I've no intention of doing it, just trying to wrap my head around it

Haha, of course it doesn't work that way round... somehow the people in power know which type of people to punish! Take a look at what happened with the Man Friday guys trying to swim in the men's pool...

I'm sorry you're married to such a misogynist @Bobkitten.

Do you go to the gym? Next time you go, just accompany him into the male changing rooms and strip off.

I find his response of it won't affect you personally so why do you care very strange, OP.

Putting aside the fact it affects all women and girls.

Is he engaged with politics generally? Does he support any charities? Does he understand why they exist? Has he ever watched the news about a disaster or event of any type and said omg that's awful I hope they get help?

He seems to suggest that no one ever cares about anything that does not impact them personally. Is that really true for him?

Also ask, if he was in the park and saw a girl of about 8 go into the ladies, and then a person who he read as male get up from where he was sitting and follow her in. Would he understand why someone seeing that might feel a bit concerned? I mean not necessarily him, ask in the general. Can he understand how another onlooker might?

Clymene funny but not a good idea!

And the power/ strength/ aggression / tendancy to sexual violence is so massively important.

From my POV.

I've seen women get their boobs out. Hen nights/ festivals. Usually in a crowd/ not aimed at anyone/ not a threat / and it's usually young women and men don't really mind that at all do they.

I've never seen a woman flash her vulva. For a start it would be a bit of a pita with clothing. Like going for a wee, we have to take a whole lot more off/ down.

A woman exposing herself in this way to men would be very vulnerable to them I'd have thought. Certainly there is no underlying threat in the action.

A man showing his erect penis to you, especially in a place with no one else around (which is when it tends to happen), carries a massive subtext of threat.

All of this change to reporting, language, no difference between male and female, women do it too etc, ignores that difference. And trying to conceal this difference is intentional. Ditto the stats.

If course it's not a good idea @NiceGerbil. That's the point though.

He knows that men are a threat to women. All men, regardless of their gender identity. All men know this.

98% of sex crimes are committed by men. Ninety eight percent. A nine and an eight with a % sign. But somehow that's not a pattern and we're not supposed to recognize it.

Sure, Jan.

He’s kidding himself if he doesn’t think that the disparity in offending, particularly in violent and sex offending between males and females isn’t so massive that even small changes in recording crimes committed by males as being committed by females has a massive distorting effect.

Off the top of my head, there are around 300 female sex offenders in prison in England and Wales, and 13,500 male. That’s a massive difference. If small numbers of those males identify as female and are reported as being women, those numbers easily become skewed, and because they are small already, the percentages start rocketing up quickly.

I’d be concerned by his attitude, not because he’s not entitled to his own opinion,which obviously he is, but that he’s belittling yours, and displaying such selfishness with the “I’m all right jack” attitude. Most enlightened humans care about things that don’t impact them directly.

mobile.twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1388945339382648838

Another " female" criminal.

The crime of indecent exposure has to involve genitals, so a woman flashing her breasts might be classed as offending public decency but not indecent exposure.

Even a woman walking naked doesn’t show her genitals as you can just see the pubis, to actually see the vulva would require positioning!

I think when it comes to breasts, being seen breastfeeding a baby in public is a massive problem that requires women to cover themselves in a huge sheet, but throwing your top up for the lads is A-OK.

@Sophoclesthefox

He’s kidding himself if he doesn’t think that the disparity in offending, particularly in violent and sex offending between males and females isn’t so massive that even small changes in recording crimes committed by males as being committed by females has a massive distorting effect.

Off the top of my head, there are around 300 female sex offenders in prison in England and Wales, and 13,500 male. That’s a massive difference. If small numbers of those males identify as female and are reported as being women, those numbers easily become skewed, and because they are small already, the percentages start rocketing up quickly.

I’d be concerned by his attitude, not because he’s not entitled to his own opinion,which obviously he is, but that he’s belittling yours, and displaying such selfishness with the “I’m all right jack” attitude. Most enlightened humans care about things that don’t impact them directly.

And quite a number of those 300 will be self identified as women.

See Not Our Crimes on YouTube.

Eye opening.

The media could get around this by saying 'A person exposed themselves in a car park' if they can't feel they can legally say 'transwoman.'

No-one can argue they've been misgendered or persecuted for being referred to as 'a person.'

We will understand the unwritten subtext.

Trans women commit sex crimes at the same rate as men. That’s why some feminists have an issue with the way trans women want to be presented.

According to Trans Media Watch:

When a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) is awarded, it becomes a criminal offence to reveal the owner’s transgender history. At present the fine is £5,000. It is the individual who reveals the name, not the organisation for which they work, who will face charges. There are no exemptions for journalism as there are with the Data Protection Act. Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act was created with an “expectation of privacy” in mind.

The rules which currently seem to constrain accurate reporting by newspapers really need to be changed. The only benefit of the current situation is that they probably get more clicks from a story which seems unusual than one which is quite commonplace. It is not in the public interest.

The rules for recording crimes by self identified gender rather than sex definitely need to be changed. By all means have a supplemental gender question; if transwomen were no more likely to offend than women then it would be to their benefit to have clear data. And if not... then that should not be obscured.

If I saw a headline that read something like "Person exposes self in public car park" I would immediately think that the person is male as females rarely commit sex crimes.

@334bu

mobile.twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1388945339382648838

Another " female" criminal.

There's been a discussion of that suspect in another thread. Putting aside the self-ID there are several substantial issues around that piece of vigilantism. The adult has learning disabilities and Ritasueandbobtoo9 and CuriousaboutSamphire makes good points about the online vigilantes that target people who are particularly prone to manipulation.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a4226340-Confused-has-this-paedophile-been-sent-to-a-women-s-prison?msgid=106769689#106769689

@YouJustFoldItIn

The media could get around this by saying 'A person exposed themselves in a car park' if they can't feel they can legally say 'transwoman.'

No-one can argue they've been misgendered or persecuted for being referred to as 'a person.'

We will understand the unwritten subtext.

That is a good solution.

If I saw a headline that read something like "Person exposes self in public car park" I would immediately think that the person is male as females rarely commit sex crimes.

True, or at least men don't tend consider things done to them (while asleep for example) as sexual assault in the same way that women are encouraged to, so they tend to go unreported because often the cultural perception of the act is not the same, even though, in actual fact it may be identical in nature. Therefore we can't really know the extent of 'sexual assaults' committed by women, if we are going to view 'flashing' and uninvited touching in a comparable way.

The point is that when there is absolutely no doubt over the biological sex of a perpetrator of a crime, and that person does not identify as anything other than their natal sex it can be reported as 'a man' or 'a woman' and the crime stats won't be fudged either way.

When there is a gender identity issue in the mix and particularly when it is a sex crime, we need to find a way of getting to the heart of whether the perpetrator is in possession of a penis, or not.

The problem with being to 'change gender' or self-indentify with ease as a woman or a man or something else, is that in law it can't be easily disputed. What's to stop EVERY perpetrator of EVERY crime identifying as something else just for the kicks and to mess up the system on purpose?

I don't know how these things work in the criminal justice system but perhaps as an answer to this, everyone should be compelled to disclose a) their biological sex at birth and b) what they identify as now, when being charged with a crime. Then anyone who identifies as something other than their natal sex should automatically go into a third category. So you have Man, Woman, Person. That doesn't mean they are misgendered. We are all persons.

A refusal by the CJS to refer to a transman or transwoman as anything other than 'a person' for the purposes of a criminal trial and compiling sexual crime statistics would go some way towards clarifying the situation.

@YouJustFoldItIn

The media could get around this by saying 'A person exposed themselves in a car park' if they can't feel they can legally say 'transwoman.'

No-one can argue they've been misgendered or persecuted for being referred to as 'a person.'

We will understand the unwritten subtext.

I think that current regulations might mean that there could not be accompanying photographs and it would be unlikely that news organisations would opt for this rather than something that permits pictures.

As James Kirkup has written in several pieces, IPSO has been heavily captured.

I think that current regulations might mean that there could not be accompanying photographs and it would be unlikely that news organisations would opt for this rather than something that permits pictures.

Why?

So you can refer to someone with a penis as a woman if you show a photo of them not looking much like a woman at all, but you can't call someone of any sex or gender identity 'a person' and still show a photo of them? What sense does that make? We are all persons. The word person is not exclusionary in any way.