"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?

DH has studied a little bit about the historicity of Jesus, gnostic and various other gospels... I think his general answer to WWJD is 'nobody has the faintest notion but not necessarily anything nice'.

Be that as it may - what we do know is that at this point in time there are various religions which are deeply misogynistic and exert various forms of control on women. If there are no single sex spaces, women who are in such communities may believe they shouldn't use mixed spaces or not, but regardless they may be prevented from doing so by their husbands/fathers/other family.

If the T was only added to LGB in 2015 by Stonewall, a lot has happened 'under the radar' really quickly under 3 different Tory PMs whilst everyone was distracted by Brexit (2016).

Good point, Dotoall. Looks as if Stonewall slipped that through cleverly. But it was the Labour government under Tony Blair that slipped the Gender Recognition Act through in 2004, when everyone was distracted by the invasion of Iraq. I don’t recall even hearing of the GRA back then.

@Needmoresleep oh yeah, I know there aren't many GRC holders so it's theoretically a small problem in terms of numbers, but it is still a problem. The legal fiction of sex change is a massive part of why we are in this crazy situation now. I think all this bad legislation needs repealing.

Good point re DNA @ErrolTheDragon and I would hope they might do this but I can foresee legal challenges over supposed discrimination and invasion of privacy.

@Mummyoflittledragon , we women have had enough of being mansplained into believing that women can have penises,

If we were being honest though, a woman would have to be
(i) hiding her truthful belief (from kindness or fear), or
(ii) be a credulous simpleton
if she states that any male adult is actually a woman.

Maybe the fear/kindness thing is because it is demanded or there is coercion that she profess that belief; with consequences if she doesn't.

@ArabellaScott

If the Tories will properly stand up for women, I will vote for them.

I mean, given that much of this mess was their doing in the first place, it's not going to be enthusiastic support, but I will not see women sacrificed for the left's purity mission.

Nailed it for me, too.

@Needmoresleep

Goodie, there are only 5,000 GRC holders, and several hoops need to be jumped to get one. TRAs have long complained that the process is too bureaucratic and expensive, though someone quite high profile and litigious was claiming that the process can be gamed, I assume via the use of sympathetic doctors. I have no issue with a small number of people with gender dysphoria of whom only a much smaller number will end up as offenders, who can be considered on a case by case basis, taking into account any danger they might pose to women.

Its self ID and the ability of male sex offenders to play the system that is very obviously wrong. And the impact on statistics.

Important too to remember: once applied for, things like a long criminal history of serious sexual offenses against women is no barrier to getting a GRC which permits entry into female spaces .

Unfortunately the experiment of 'we can give a small number of sincere and fully or in the process of fully medically/surgically transitioning males access to women's spaces and that'll be fine' has been proven to be unworkable. Largely because of the behaviours of male people as a class, not to mention the utter disrespect of males believing they got to choose who could and couldn't use female spaces without ever considering impact on females as a sex class, their needs, or bothering to consult them first.

It's been proven:

• gatekeeping is impossible in practical terms; if it's one male allowed then in reality it's all males allowed.

• degree of transition is impossible in practical terms to gatekeep (unfair to make dangerous surgery a requirement, medical intervention a requirement, to require a set amount of transition, or to have anyone on the door of every women's loo to check plus all the privacy stuff about no formal ID) so again, any male, fully male presenting

• if male people as a class are given the slightest inch to dominate and control resources for females, they will force it to as many miles as can possibly be achieved.

• regardless of how sincere and lovely a TW may be, or the degree of transition, their presence will still exclude some vulnerable females from the female space, leaving them without any resources to provide male people with more respectful freedom of choice. Which is obviously wholly unacceptable because females are tax payers and equally entitled to equality and access, unless we're saying that sex definitely does exist despite all the 'sex is complicated' waffle, and that being born with a penis means choice, while being born with a vagina means subordination.

GRCs force self ID to happen in reality. This genie is never going back in the bottle.

The only option is to re establish that all female spaces are female only, and provide additional and more inclusive options for males who would prefer alternatives to male single sex spaces. Their needs can and are going to have to be met without removing women's sex based rights. However male people feel about this, their rights are not greater than female humans.

I would hope they might do this but I can foresee legal challenges over supposed discrimination and invasion of privacy.

Discriminating by actually treating them the same as everyone else? As to privacy - dna records being made and kept for defined groups and periods of times is already established.

@ErrolTheDragon i should have put discrimination in quotes. I know it's not discrimination and you know it's not discrimination but that won't stop Gender Identity Theorists from making the clain.

Excellent points @Artichokeleaves

From the guidance to people applying for GRC.

For all sorts of reasons, you may not wish your gender history to be common knowledge. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 safeguards the privacy of transsexual people by defining information in relation to the gender recognition process as protected information.
Anyone who acquires that information in an official capacity may be breaking the law if they disclosed it without your consent. Having said that, the Act does contain a series of exemptions that allow information to be disclosed for valid public policy reasons without your consent, for example, for preventing or investigating crime.
People who might gain protected information in an official capacity include anyone to whom you show your GRC to obtain the rights that are associated with it. This might be someone at a bank, Jobcentre, or a potential employer. In addition, all the people who handle your application for a GRC are bound by law to respect your privacy. Information about your application will not be disclosed to third parties unless it is permitted under the GRA.

You should bear in mind that privacy does not mean absolute secrecy. There may be some situations in which you will be required by law or necessity to prove a link between your current legal gender and your former one. For example you may be required to provide documents to organisations administering your pension(s) to protect the survivor pension rights of your spouse. Although the gender recognition process seeks to safeguard your privacy, you do not have a right never to disclose the fact that you obtained a GRC

I would argue accurate crime statistics are 'a valid public policy reason'.

@ErrolTheDragon

I would hope they might do this but I can foresee legal challenges over supposed discrimination and invasion of privacy.

Discriminating by actually treating them the same as everyone else? As to privacy - dna records being made and kept for defined groups and periods of times is already established.

The provision of the Coronavirus Act 2020 brought in the retention of DNA from anyone who had a test.

"The Secretary of State makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by section 24(2), (4) and (8) of the Coronavirus Act 2020(1).

The Secretary of State, in accordance with section 24(3) of that Act, considers that coronavirus is having, or is likely to have, an adverse effect on the capacity of persons responsible for making national security determinations to consider whether to make, or renew, national security determinations and that it is in the interests of national security to retain the fingerprints or DNA profiles as provided for in these Regulations.

The Secretary of State has consulted the Commissioner for the Retention and Use of Biometric Material in accordance with section 24(6) of that Act."

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/973/made?view=plain

@Warmduscher

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

Yep, I feel the same

Excellent news. Stonewall should never have been in a position to re-write the law to replace sex with gender, especially in institutions such as the police. I hope the government set up an inquiry into how this has happened across so many government departments and institutions. Stonewall law is not the law. They misrepresented sex and gender and were in a position where they trained the police and judiciary to uphold their ideology rather than the law. I can’t believe this was allowed to happen, it’s been massively detrimental to women and girls in the UK. The government seem keen to tackle VAWG so hopefully they join the dots and look at how women’s rights were being picked apart by stonewall.

@JudyGemstone

I’ve been doing some thinking and I think maybe I’m ok with transwomen in female spaces until it comes to any trans women who have offended, especially against women/children

Its great that you're ok with it.

What about the women who are having to share female only spaces, do they get to not be ok with it?

Important too to remember: once applied for, things like a long criminal history of serious sexual offenses against women is no barrier to getting a GRC which permits entry into female spaces.

Why isn't any kind of risk or impact assessment made before a GRC is issued? I've never understood how a man with convictions for sex offenses can even be considered.

Excellent news! Keep pulling, everyone.

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

I don't really get this. You could probably find at least one thing you agree on with virtually any person on the planet, including murderers, terrorists or rapists. On an issue like the gender debate, there are bound to be gazillions of people who agree with you on that but whom you'd hate or who hold other views you find appalling. I absolutely can't stand Priti Patel, but I expect we'd agree on a few things.

Men {people with penises}should not be in female prisons.

@JudyGemstone

I’ve been doing some thinking and I think maybe I’m ok with transwomen in female spaces until it comes to any trans women who have offended, especially against women/children

I hope that was sarcasm

“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.

@Reptar

Important too to remember: once applied for, things like a long criminal history of serious sexual offenses against women is no barrier to getting a GRC which permits entry into female spaces.

Why isn't any kind of risk or impact assessment made before a GRC is issued? I've never understood how a man with convictions for sex offenses can even be considered.

Its the conflict of rights, which government has just tried to hide under the rug in the hope it would go away.

There's the clash of: any male person should be entitled to express themselves and have the identity of their choice, and this entitlement should not be restricted only to some males as this would be discriminatory and limiting their rights.

with: a GRC means total access to female spaces and resources, (exceptions currently pretty meaningless in practice) which should obviously involve gatekeeping for safety of said females, and a responsibility to maintain behaviours that ensure safety for females. (Which would imply that a GRC should be removed for breaching said behaviours.)

It's tangled up with: TWAW, so ideologically no boundaries between female people and TW should ever be accepted as justifiable. But in reality: major bloody impact on biologically female people caused by biologically male people, because sex exists and has a very significant impact even if everyone tries to wish it away. And some male people for example with a history of serious sex offending, obviously should not have that access to biological females, because of a massive sex based disadvantage making a nonsense of sex not being supposed to need to be recognised.

And it's all academic anyway, as even a TW fully sincere and appropriate at all times is still going to exclude some female people from equality and access by the fact of their presence. Because reality doesn't go away.

This is the tip of the ice berg, but excellent that Patel and her department are starting to realise. TW can be TW, unconditionally, fully supported, recognised and provided for. But TW are not females and they need separate provision, resources and data collection. Otherwise unintended serious consequences start stacking up like a mountain range and the disadvantage is heavily sex based and always against the equality of women.

You've missed the point; no one thinks most trans people are a threat.

If you make women only spaces mixed sex, we can't challenge anyone who walks in no matter how they behave as we are the ones who will be in trouble; and many women will be forced to self exclude.

Absolutely brilliant news. I don’t care that it is Priti Patel who has said this; the important thing is that it has been said by someone who has actual authority, that she is behaving like a rational adult on this issue, unlike so many other politicians.

I too used to think I could never vote Conservative, but this is a matter of such urgency that needs must. The current situation is bad enough, the direction we would go in under a government led by Starmer is even more nightmarish. I will continue to vote Conservative, after voting Labour all my life till the last couple of years, as long as they are speaking sense on this issue and, crucially, listening to women, and as long as Labour and all the other alternatives are silencing and demonising us, and planning to restrict our rights so drastically.

And yes, the Tories went along with a lot of this out of fear of being seen as the “dinosaurs” Lammy referenced: my own MP used this very word when I first went to see them about this several years ago, but as others have pointed out it was Tony Blair’s government that oversaw the bringing in of the GRA, in an atmosphere almost of complete secrecy as far as the general public were concerned. We weren’t even informed this was happening let alone asked our opinion on it.

I was one of the voters who brought Blair in; I was overjoyed to see a Labour government in power again, finally. If I’d have known though that this would be one of the results of his leadership, it would have stopped me in my tracks and presented me with a huge dilemma, for sure.

Actually if anyone had told me this was on the cards I would have flat out disbelieved them and dismissed them as a conspiracy theorist crank. I literally wouldn’t have believed it possible. I couldn’t believe it when I did first find out about the GRA, and walked round in a state of genuine shock for several days at least (shock that has never quite worn off!).

Blair made some welcome points earlier this year? last year? about cancel culture etc but he needs to acknowledge the role he played in enabling all this. It was his government that brought in the concept of legitimising lies, mandating them even. State sanctioned lies, leading to state sanctioned abuse of women in all sorts of ways. He needs to own this if he really wants to challenge the current situation.

@lazylinguist

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

I don't really get this. You could probably find at least one thing you agree on with virtually any person on the planet, including murderers, terrorists or rapists. On an issue like the gender debate, there are bound to be gazillions of people who agree with you on that but whom you'd hate or who hold other views you find appalling. I absolutely can't stand Priti Patel, but I expect we'd agree on a few things.

And this is the problem labour have got themselves into.

If you can’t agree with people simply because you disagree with other opinions they have how can any political party make any changes that improve society?

The Tories have a terrible record on disability rights, child poverty and numerous other serious issues. There’s no doubt many of their policies are very harmful. But what happens when they actually talk sense? I doubt many gay people suddenly became right wing bigots once same sex marriage was legalised. I seem to recall that was a call for celebration, not an “OMG are we the baddies now?????” moment for Stonewall and their supporters.

What would most of us do if Tories started listening to women about sentences for rape? If punishments were tougher, if court processes were less aggressive? Would we applaud or change our stance? Well, obviously we would applaud but all the die hard lefties who prefer slogans to logic, where does that leave them? Can you support a good decision made by your enemy?

This is a problem the left is going to see more and more if Boris is smart. If he wants the votes he can appeal to women. Labour and Liberals seem unable to move out of a political “everything we do is good/everything they do is bad” mindset and it is doing no one any good.

@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.

But you do understand that other women are allowed to not consent to it and that someone who does think it is OK, cannot give consent for or have their consent prioritised over those who don't?