"Trans Criminals are not Women" says Priti Patel

[Fluffymule]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10124021/Priti-Patel-orders-woke-police-stop-recording-offences-trans-women-female-crime-stats.html

I thought this was interesting.

So, what's the TRA argument against this going to be? Surely a backlash against this ruling from the Home Secretary by insisting these criminals, including rapists must by named as Women would simply shine huge amounts of sunlight on an unpalatable issue?

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

JudyGemstone But our workplace has never had separate toilets for example, and it’s never been an issue despite a range of religious and cultural backgrounds.

Interesting. Memory tells me there was a law passed back in the seventies (possibly 1972?) which said that any place of employment with more than I forget how many it was employees of both sexes must provide separate lavatory facilities for each of the two sexes.

I remember this because the place where I was working counted heads, established that we were too few for that to apply to us, and were glad not to have to try to fit another lavatory into our top-floor workshop somehow. (We also debated whether we were employees within the meaning of the act, since we were all self-employed.)

Does anyone else remember that law coming in? I might start to think I had imagined it if I started to credit all the "women have never had single-sex lavatories available at work" stuff that I now see being put forward.

I don't remember it but found this: 1970 lawbooks.google.co.uk/books?id=uUogAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=workplace+laws+1970s+on+need+for+single+sex+toilets&source=bl&ots=s6idFag8m7&sig=ACfU3U27ZMxI0MUrGcPyRZwA6puFb0zskg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjn7ueV2ePzAhXhA2MBHRW_D5UQ6AF6BAgkEAM#v=onepage&q=workplace%20laws%201970s%20on%20need%20for%20single%20sex%20toilets&f=false

Occupational Safety and Health Act 1970.

@LonginesPrime

She is now saying the Home Office is working with forces to improve the figures

Yes, but if you read the government's (mad) response to the petition that they posted just last week, they say they don't understand the question because biological sex doesn't exist, and they then go on to say if by biological sex you mean anatomy and chromosomes, then that's unethical to check, so no.

And if you mean sex assigned at birth, then GRC blah blah...and they trail off avoiding answering how they actually record sex for the majority of people who obviously don't have GRCs.

But they link to their transgender policy, which, hidden in footnote 5, reveals that actually they just let everyone self-identify their gender when they arrive at the prison (although presumably they knew whether to deliver them to the male or female prison based on something).

And then if anyone says they're trans, the policy tells them they should look at their hair and their clothes and their mannerisms, any prosthetics, and so on, to decide whether they are in fact a woman or a man on this inside or whether they're just taking the piss. This is all in the Prison Service's trans policy, which would have been mandated by Stonewall.

So I don't see how they are going to even know how to implement Priti's order to record biological sex at this point because they've tied themselves in knots already.

Undoing the current mess isn't as simple as just "stop messing around and record biological sex" - they're in a real pickle at this point.

I know I don't disagree at all. That response was so stonewalled it wasn't true. It is her and the Tory Front bench's issue to sort out. I wonder when all the people (me included) who have contributed £ to try to get these injustices overturned (Maya etc) will be compensated lol. This really shouldn't have been necessary in a democracy so maybe the next thing is demanding an enquiry into Stonewall's influence. We need to undo this and stop a lobby group overreaching like this in future.

Interesting about the GRC first being in 2004, I was a Labour Party member then but then moved abroad for several years. I have no recollection of it as an issue whatsoever though.

@jhuizinga

The Tories were in coalition with the Lib-Dems from 2010 until 2015. I wonder to what extent the latter were responsible for laying the foundations of this huge mess (I think some evidence of this was given in an earlier thread but can't remember what it was).

Good point though I don't remember them being particularly pro trans at the time.

Really this has the sniff of stonewall.

And previous lobby groups.

The end of the line, as women have been predicting here for years, is that eventually it will be admitted that any policy that has been involved with Stonewall, uses any of their advice, or has been written by anyone trained by them or by another lobby group, is compromised. And it will all have to be torn up and begun again from scratch by people actually doing their job properly, from a position of impartiality and actual law.

Although as pps explain so well; the law is now a total confused mess, through lack of people doing their jobs properly, applying their own policies and using basic common sense. That is going to be a lot harder to undo. But Patel's words today show that they are realising; there must be limits in reality on how far individual choice of gender identity can go before harms to others must be faced up to.

Please God we get there soon...

Good point though I don't remember them being particularly pro trans at the time

Stonewall was already embedded in corporates and government back then, but it was nowhere near as totalitarian about its agenda as it is today. They were incredibly shrewd about the way they engineered the policy capture from the inside - it's actually really impressive, in an evil genius kind of way.

Stonewall was unapologetically trans-exclusive itself until 2015 when it caved to transactivists' pressure. They basically told Stonewall it was transphobic for not including them and then took it over and told everyone the same.

@dotoallasyouwouldbedoneby

Occupational Safety and Health Act 1970.

Wasn't that in America?

Apologies if it was a USA reference . There was a UK health and safety at work act in 1974. ...maybe that covered toilet provision as well.
www.hse.gov.uk/legislation/hswa.htm

twitter.com/lgbtcopuk/status/1452330003631415296?t=wm3O-etthxPdCtvh-RBRgQ&s=19

No words for the absolute bloody state of this

@Missmissmiiiiiiiiisss

Good Lord I think I agree with something Priti Patel said Not sure how I feel about this.

I don't wish to worry you but she probably also believes that the world isn't flat. When 95% of the population are in agreement about something (round earth, males aren't women etc.) then doubtless they will consist of a wide variety of people.

@MummBRaaarrrTheEverLeaking

twitter.com/lgbtcopuk/status/1452330003631415296?t=wm3O-etthxPdCtvh-RBRgQ&s=19

No words for the absolute bloody state of this

She's hidden it. But people took screenshots - James Dreyfus being one.

twitter.com/DreyfusJames/status/1452386889202348032

@JudyGemstone

“If this is the best you can do, it would be better to stop thinking”.

Why do you choose to be so unpleasant? I am allowed to review my fully GC opinions on the basis that I don’t think most trans women are a threat to anyone. I still don’t believe they’re women but that’s different.

Most men aren't a threat to anyone. Doesn't mean that women take chances, instead most women will assume that any stranger is a risk. It's not just about the threat, it's also about the comfort and dignity of victims of sexual abuse and who are living with PTSD. You may be absolutely cool with a male in a female space, but you've no right to impose that on others.

@Warmduscher

Finding common ground with Priti Patel is proper doing my head in.

My fewlings exactly!

Women have been pleading for those who have the power to change things to take notice and acknowledge our concerns. Whatever I may think of some of Priti Patel's other statements and actions, she IS the person with the political clout to enforce protection for women in prisons and I welcome her involvement.

I'm absolutely shocked that this LGBTcopUK person has posted this, and I hope the women she is responding to in these tweets make proper complaints to her Force as a result.

Demanding that women should not be recorded as VICTIMS if trans CRIMINALS cannot be recorded as women is disgusting in itself but why has she then gone on to tweet about trans victims not being recorded as the gender they identify with?

In the space of just a few hours, she's somehow changed criminal into victim in this debate very quickly and easily.

Meanwhile, she doesn't seem to acknowledge that being a victim of a crime, such as being raped, might leave a woman feeling that her identity has been erased, or that the rapist did not see her as a person (and that's before we get to how the police, lawyers, court systems etc might make a rape victim feel like her entire identity, womanhood, and personhood has been striped away). Especially if that woman then has to start calling her rapist 'she' and watch everyone else involved put her rapists hurt feelings first.

Fucking outrageous. Complaints need to be made and this officer needs to be disciplined for these comments.

I’m pleased that someone high up has finally spoken up. But the more and more I think about it, the more sure I am that this is backtracking. The police and government are both involved with stonewall, the police have been doing what they are told. We all listened to the Stonewall documentary, and I presume it’s sent some serious ripples through parliament. They’re backtracking on policies they’ve okayed to soften the blow when this comes to the publics attention. And it will end in a public enquiry, I’m almost certain.

It will, however, be funny to watch Labour and the other parties try and condemn them for it.

Demanding that women should not be recorded as VICTIMS if trans CRIMINALS cannot be recorded as women is disgusting in itself but why has she then gone on to tweet about trans victims not being recorded as the gender they identify with?

OK, her argument now makes more sense to me (NB, I don't think it's a correct argument but it is more understandable than it was).

tbh, I'd have thought TW who report incidents/crimes must be recorded in their gender by the police or how did SH manage to have Glinner interviewed/taken to court etc.? My impression is that they are recorded so the Co-Chair is making a very odd equivalence here.

Ah, I wondered if that would be where she'd go with this.

Well, how trans people are recorded if they are victims of crime is changing the subject. I'd hope that the police and other officials deal with all victims of crime sensitively and compassionately. But surely it's in the interests of the 'trans community' for accuracy of here too - recording both sex and gender identity - so that it can be discerned if there is an excess of crimes against them?

First time poster!

It is hoped that this changes, trans need to sorted correctly, and sex is the only way transwomen are just men so kinda answers where the trans needs to go does it not?

As the vast majority of men would refuse a transwoman as a partner regardless of surgery then they would be safe in the cells and prisons for men!

I'd hope that the police and other officials deal with all victims of crime sensitively and compassionately.

The Co-Chair in question has 16-17 years as a PC behind her so I'd hope that she shares your wish. I'm startled by her lack of empathy for women that she's so prepared to use the statistics as a bargaining chip. "If you don't do [X] for this group then I demand that you destroy data collection for women. And I am not providing any evidence for my assertion that [X] doesn't happen although it's plain that it does and addresses a different topic."

Yes, that now-hidden post was definitely WTF appalling.

@IdrisElbow

Good news. Now they just need to get them out of the women's prisons where they have absolutely no business being.

👏👏👏

If they are accurately recorded as being men presumably any "argument" that they should be in a women's prison disintegrates.

I detest the Home Secretary but if she follows through with this it will keep so many women safe from violent male offenders.

@Duckyneedsaclean

I just came on to see if someone had posted this. 436 rapists recorded as women! Now all in women's prisons I suppose? I wonder what they're getting up to there.

Never mine that under UK law it is impossible for a woman to commit rape. How were they even convicted of the crime if they are women?!?