Chris Chandler Mugshot

[ShamelessCurtainTwitcher]

Of course they were booked as a female 🤦‍♀️

I understand that but I don't think it reads that way. Though I agree with you as you can see from my previous posts.

I understand that you feel that way. I stand by what I said.

I've had a look at that Facebook page and I really can't tell if it's satire or not

Thinking about the pronouns thing.

I think the reason for the strong pushback against misgendering and dead naming.

Is not to do with concern for the individuals feelings.

But about a wider point-

TWAW
Should be counted as women in stats etc
Should be in women's prisons

No pushback for cases like this would be seen as tacit acceptance that TWAW is not being adhered to.

And that could raise questions/ weaken the automatic in to women's spaces in general.

If TWAW then you do need to insist on it always. Otherwise it loses a bit of power.

Raping one's elderly, demented mother with one's penis is a profoundly male atrocity. It makes the "we mustn't misgender her!" handwringing all the more unendurable.

They can't concede though. Or even just not say anything.

To do so would be to allow that TWAW is not always true.

And that would undermine everything.

Just realised

It never happens was always explained when it did happen, usually, by saying they weren't really trans.

The fact that it's changed to yes they are a woman TWAW even with something as horrific as this shows that confidence has increased. Things have shifted.

That's not good.

Actually now I'm reading that Trans History Month page, I'm thinking it's GOT to be satire. Surely? I hope...

www.facebook.com/Trans-history-month-104198961728987

Trans folk are unfairly profiled and harassed by the police just like black folk. A disproportionate number of black people end up in prison because of systemic racism. Likewise, a disproportionate number of trans folk end up on the sex-offenders registry because of transphobia.

I imagine a future where a transphobe is mandated by law to knock on all his neighbors doors and say: "Hello, my name is Andy. I am legally required to inform you that I am on the hate-crime register because I repeatedly misgendered my trans colleague and verbally abused her when corrected."

@KittenKong

I suspect such a horrendous crime would earn a prisoner solitary surely?

Ummm horrendous yes, sadly not totally uncommon. I vaguely remember about one man a year rapes his own mother (and gets caught/reported) God alone knows how many are unreported. Anyway means Chris will not need to be in solitary as Chris can stay with them. Also the United nations committee against torture state that no more than 15? Days in solitary.

@NotTerfNorCis

That is exactly what they would have Ms. Millar do🤷‍♀️

I've been aware of Chris Chan for about the last 10 years. This news has raised barely an eyebrow.

Regardless of the cruel trolling, which I always thought was wrong, it was always perfectly clear Chris Chan is a danger to women. Chris Chan should never have been been left in charge of a vulnerable woman to whom Chris Chan could mould Chris Chan's internal narrative. Not even Chris Chan's mother, who has unfortunately became that vulnerable woman.

Chris Chan should definitely not be locked up in a women's prison, although I predict if that happens, Chris Chan will end up being segregated for their own safety (or worse) after treading over the wrong person's boundaries.

I personally think that solitary confinement should be used sparingly/ last resort. It's extreme.

I don't know the USA adheres to internal stuff though? They won't let citizens be extradited even though they expect other countries to act on their requests. Death row ok from telly but in little cages. Use of torture in certain circs well documented. Has death penalty that's definitely against international rights conventions.

Should be in male estate obviously.

I mean FFS all males should.

The problem with violence in prison against loads of men with different things that mean they are vulnerable to the others is the problem that needs dealing with here.

But surely that doesn't include unconsenting sex?
When writing laws about incest, and sexual intercourse (as opposed to mere sexual activity), it would not have been necessary to consider cases involving two women because these sexual offences require the use of a penis in order to count. Women of course do not have penises.

What's the actual law in the state?

I would imagine incest as in CSA / ongoing abuse of a child to adulthood etc carries much harsher penalties than those situations where grown up brothers and sisters meet and get together. (Which I imagine would not be seen as in the public interest to prosecute.

The laws are written specifically to only criminalise incest male on female?

Male and female, rather than on. The underlying reason for the incest taboo is the likelihood of resultant offspring having genetic disorders. It's the CSA angle in penalties for parent/minor child incest that results in apparently more lenient treatment for consensual adult sibling sexual activity, I think. And I imagine there's the Queen Victoria factor where legislation doesn't cover mother/ daughter sexual activity.

I think incest taboo is in all cultures isn't it. I mean not ever- ancient Egyptians were keen. At least the royal types.

Yes it's about inbreeding.

I think it's rare the situations where siblings meet as adults and get together. And I can't imagine they'd come to police attention/ be prosecuted if did.

The vast majority is about access power abuse. Sometimes carrying on to adulthood.

I imagine massively underreported.

I don't believe that there is a loophole in UK law meaning a mother/ sister doing this has committed no crime.

This is going to be the relevant state law anyway.

Yikes!

Imagine v old and not reviewed as rarely used. If ever.

The permitting bit!!!

Incest by a man
(1)It is an offence for a man to have sexual intercourse with a woman whom he knows to be his grand-daughter, daughter, sister or mother.
(2)In the foregoing subsection " sister " includes half-sister, and for the purposes of that subsection any expression importing a relationship between two people shall be taken to apply notwithstanding that the relationship is not traced through lawful wedlock.
11Incest by a woman
(1)It is an offence for a woman of the age of sixteen or over to permit a man whom she knows to be her grandfather, father, brother or son to have sexual intercourse with her by her consent.
(2)In the foregoing subsection " brother" includes half-brother, and for the purposes of that subsection any expression importing a relationship between two people shall be taken to apply notwithstanding that the relationship is not traced through lawful wedlock.

I am sure that facebook account is satire. It has to be.

I would tend to agree.

Those posting in support seem genuine though..

Not cake!

Was meant to be confused!

Perhaps you're right NiceGerbil that this is about different offences carrying different penalties.
Here's another possibility that occurred to me. Perhaps rape is harder to prove (not to us but to the court's satisfaction). Incest is incest regardless of consent. To prove rape, you have to show the court beyond reasonable doubt that there was no consent. Now, it appears the person's mother is mentally incapacitated and therefore almost certainly unable to consent even in the impossibly unlikely event she'd wish to do so. But it's still potentially an extra hoop to jump through, so if you have clever lawyers involved or maybe a less enlightened way of evaluating consent under state laws - I don't know?

Not cake!

One of the least-recently-used phrases in the English language.

He admitted to tying her up and there are some sickening details which I won’t go into, which even from his side of the story make it sound non consensual. I am hoping that the texts are submitted as evidence.