"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?

@MishyJDI

...Transwomen are no more a threat then cis women.....

Really?
Would you like to reconsider?

twitter.com/PostAshley42/status/1450908799880024066?t=QFpzwInaR9HfkAJdVsIZFg&s=19

twitter.com/dospeakuplouder/status/1449769512610549771?t=l2vLrh62vmxlfmWqPOAVew&s=19

twitter.com/trudylynch64/status/1449546246444683264?t=P4Jf_zK2kKe4KjiMKo9UmA&s=19

For example

''Karen White'' et al.
www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white-how-manipulative-and-controlling-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison

Transwomen are the same threat level as other males not women
So no if i see a TW or bloke in Tescos I will not be recoiling in fear, however I would if I found myself incarcerated with them

As glad as I am about this as a step in the right direction, I don't quite understand the logic that says that TWAW, but if a TW then commits a violent and/or sexual crime, that magically allows us to determine that they are not a woman.

Is the implication that if they commit such crimes, they must be only pretending to be a transwoman, because nobody who actually truly identifies as a woman could possibly behave that way...? Because that's frankly ridiculous.

Or is it saying 'No, they still are a woman if they say so, but we're recording the crime as male because we've realised what will happen to the crime stats otherwise'?

@MishyJDI

GreyhoundG1rl Yeah you do. In the same way you dont pre-judge anyone else. Transwomen are no more a threat then cis women. Punish wrong doers, not innocent women.

You know you got the comparator wrong.

Well, you didn't, you said what you meant. But we aren't fuckwits. We can see it.

Transwomen are no more or less a threat to anyone than any other man.

We know this, you know this. The difference is you don't care as long as you get whatever it is you are among for.

And women will continue to say no!

@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.

I too think the majority of TW pose no threat. I also think the majority of men pose no threat. I still don't want to be in a hospital bed next to one, or a refuge, or a prison, or a gym changing room, or a train sleeper carriage, or a hostel room, or have my smear test or mammogram carried out by one.

These facilities are separated by sex not only to keep women safe, but to ensure privacy and dignity. You may not care about your own privacy or dignity but I sure as hell care about mine.

While I agree with her, you don't suddenly stop being a woman just because you commit a crime.

They were never women, people who are law abiding and male are no more women than people who are criminal and male.

“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?”

Absolutely, everyone’s feelings need to be considered. It’s obviously a really tricky area with conflicting rights between two groups. I’m not saying women who aren’t comfortable with it are wrong. I don’t agree with self ID.

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. Of course I accept that people are allowed to want different things, but I can see how it’s difficult to please everyone in practice. I don’t think that gives anyone the right to be rude to me.

Women need to be protected in Jail from rape by men who identify as ''Women''

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life

Even if hypothetically women commited sex crime at the same rate as men (i.e. in imaginary land), so what. A woman can't get you pregnant.

You wouldn't suffer the extended trauma of deciding whether or not to keep a baby, or bring an unwanted baby into the world , or explain to your husband that you are pregnant because a woman raped you.
A transwoman can get their victim pregnant. Like any other man. They need to get out of our safe spaces.

Fantastic posts at 10.37 and 11.46, ArtichokeLeaves.

All excellent points, among which I want to highlight this one:

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.

This is what women need to understand. There is still a lot of denial about how deep and widespread misogyny still is, how unconscious it often is. The fact is it’s ingrained in all of us. The world we have all grown up in is so extraordinarily biased, skewed in favour of the male sex, and against the female sex, that we cannot even see it most of the time, it just feels normal.

Just as men have been socialised to put themsleves first, women have been socialised to put men first and ourselves last too. We underestimate the impact of this at our peril. This is how we get to #BeKind (only ever expected of women, of course) and Lisa Nandy enthusiastically endorsing the idea that a paedophile rapist should be housed in a women's prisons if that’s what he wants.

How we get to women defending the “right” of some males to access women only spaces, even if they’re not in favour of full self ID.

How we get to men like Harrop proclaiming that women are “appropriating” the very word woman, and Lammy accusing us of “hoarding our rights”.

They honestly think that males having 90% of everything and females having 10%, roughly speaking, is balanced, and anything more is women taking more than our fair share. Because that feels normal to them. Blind to the horrific extent of the inequality, of the disparity of power, of opportunity, of autonomy that still exists between the sexes.

We need women to wake up en masse to what this world is really like. Wake up and be filled with rage. Priti Patel has awoken at least to some degree here. Good for her. On this issue, which is what this board exists to discuss, I am behind her 100%.

Oh @JudyGemstone

We don't want to be nice. Being nice got us here, with men who have been convicted if sexual violence sharing prison cells with women and sexually abusing them.

With women being hounded out of jobs, off social media.

With women being forced to call their male attackers 'she' and being punished, in a court of law, when they couldn't comply because their eyes and experience saw a man, not a woman.

Being nice, polite, softly spoken is the curse of female socialisation. We are allowed to say no as forcefully as we want. We don't actually need permission and we don't have to accept any condensation for doing so.

Just because you are a person of "faith" does not mean that faith is not bigoted and inclusive. What would Jesus do?

Not sure why Jews, atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, animists etc would be terribly concerned with what Jesus would do but, then again, Mishy's posts never make any sense.

I wasn't a fan of priti Patel until just now.

@JudyGemstone

“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?”

Absolutely, everyone’s feelings need to be considered. It’s obviously a really tricky area with conflicting rights between two groups. I’m not saying women who aren’t comfortable with it are wrong. I don’t agree with self ID.

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. Of course I accept that people are allowed to want different things, but I can see how it’s difficult to please everyone in practice. I don’t think that gives anyone the right to be rude to me.

It is not tricky. Men (including transwomen) are excluded from women's single sex facilities to protect the safety, privacy and dignity of women. There is no 'right' for men (including transwomen) to have access to women. Women are not there to support them.

There is a lot of evidence that the disciples were actually male and female pairs and that there were 12 pairs. The women went to spread the word to women and the men to men. Men to women would have been disrespectful and absurd. This was whitewashed out of history during the 1st to the 4th century AD when men chose which biblical texts to include and exclude.
Interesting - it would be to see some of this evidence.
I know that Jesus had women followers. But Paul addresses and refers to female members of the early church with no mention of a female intercessor.

While I agree with her, you don't suddenly stop being a woman just because you commit a crime. They were never women, people who are law abiding and male are no more women than people who are criminal and male.

Exactly. That was what I was (considerably less effectively) trying to say.

@MishyJDI

GreyhoundG1rl Yeah you do. In the same way you dont pre-judge anyone else. Transwomen are no more a threat then cis women. Punish wrong doers, not innocent women.

I wonder what the psychology behind this is. Mishy knows, and the vast majority of regular posters on this board know, that this simply isn’t true. So why say it?

I think when you have to lie to try to make your argument, it’s a very clear sign that you don’t actually have an argument worth making at all.

As multiple pp have pointed out, the stats are very clear on this. Biologically male trans people commit violent and sexual offences at at least the same rate as other male people, which is to say at a vastly greater rate than biologically female people.

It is simply a bare-faced lie to say that the people Mishy calls “transwomen”, ie biologically male trans people, are no more a threat than the people Mishy calls “cis women”, ie women. Adult human females. As a class, they are indeed much more of a threat, however many of them as individuals are perfectly harmless.

Mishy has spent long enough on these boards to know these stats, to be extremely familiar with them. And yet chooses to brazenly misrepresent reality, to try to obscure the very real threat that males as a class, including those who identify as trans, pose to females as a class.

It’s despicable, deeply misogynistic and anti-feminist, and somewhat pathetic really, given Mishy knows that most of the women on here know the reality of the situation. Is it done in the hope there will be some newbs around who might read these lies and be deceived into thinking there’s any truth in them? There might be. Which makes the intent utterly malign, as far as I can see, and utterly bad faith.

The only other conclusion I could draw is that Mishy is so far divorced from reality that Mishy really believes this, all the well-documented and oft-repeated evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

It’s kind of morbidly fascinating though, whatever the intention. How big a lie can I get away with? I suppose once you’ve signed up to the original lie about some male people really being female people, anything is possible.

Isn’t it some kind of sign of sociopathy or something, to want to see how many lies you can get away with, how big those lies can be? I’m not an expert, so not making any actual claims; just wondering.

I will now happily vote conservative, I am a single issue voter these days. Hopefully this will be a wake up call to the other parties

@Warmduscher

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

Me too!

Maybe Mishy is thinking about all those lovely pictures of Jesus with long hair, wearing a dress and thinks Jesus was a woman.

What worries me is that the police just seem to ignore her. She asked them to stop recording non-crime hate incidents and I don't think that's obeyed across the board. Where is the supervision of the police from the Home Office? Will they do as she asks on this?

Also, will the historic recording of these crimes be corrected now?

And what about women having to refer to their rapists as she/her in court? They should be tried as men too.

@lazylinguist

While I agree with her, you don't suddenly stop being a woman just because you commit a crime. They were never women, people who are law abiding and male are no more women than people who are criminal and male.

Exactly. That was what I was (considerably less effectively) trying to say.

This is what I thought interesting when I posted originally last night.

By saying 'Trans Criminals are not Women' she is effectively saying 'Trans Women are not Women', and I think this makes her the most senior UK politician to say so so specifically, and to be quoted as such in the UK's biggest online media news site.

@TalkingtoLangClegintheDark

Fantastic posts at 10.37 and 11.46, ArtichokeLeaves.

All excellent points, among which I want to highlight this one:

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.

This is what women need to understand. There is still a lot of denial about how deep and widespread misogyny still is, how unconscious it often is. The fact is it’s ingrained in all of us. The world we have all grown up in is so extraordinarily biased, skewed in favour of the male sex, and against the female sex, that we cannot even see it most of the time, it just feels normal.

Just as men have been socialised to put themsleves first, women have been socialised to put men first and ourselves last too. We underestimate the impact of this at our peril. This is how we get to #BeKind (only ever expected of women, of course) and Lisa Nandy enthusiastically endorsing the idea that a paedophile rapist should be housed in a women's prisons if that’s what he wants.

How we get to women defending the “right” of some males to access women only spaces, even if they’re not in favour of full self ID.

How we get to men like Harrop proclaiming that women are “appropriating” the very word woman, and Lammy accusing us of “hoarding our rights”.

They honestly think that males having 90% of everything and females having 10%, roughly speaking, is balanced, and anything more is women taking more than our fair share. Because that feels normal to them. Blind to the horrific extent of the inequality, of the disparity of power, of opportunity, of autonomy that still exists between the sexes.

We need women to wake up en masse to what this world is really like. Wake up and be filled with rage. Priti Patel has awoken at least to some degree here. Good for her. On this issue, which is what this board exists to discuss, I am behind her 100%.

Exactly.

I find asking the question 'what's in it for women?' quite interesting. Partly for the answer, because it will absolutely be, at the very least 'slightly less than they have now'. But also because of the reaction.

I've asked it in real life, and most women simply don't even think to put themselves at the forefront of the situation with that question.

I've heard, why does there have to be something in it for women? Or it's not always just about one sex. And then the oppression Olympics kicks in generally along the lines of, why should we not be accommodating for people less fortunate than ourselves.

It's a fascinating observation of how women are socially conditioned to never put themselves first. And sometimes find it quite uncomfortable. Even when it's blisteringly obvious that not putting them first is detrimental.

So, to the poster who thinks that if a transwoman is not a criminal, then they might feel differently, that's my question.

What's in it for women?

@GingerAndTheBiscuits

I think that 400+ figure may include some joint enterprise prosecutions and possibly also other forms of penetration? Trying to find original reporting of the figure

The offence requires penetration with a penis. Penetration with other things is recorded as sexual assault