Trans identified woman sex attacker convicted, July sentencing

[aweegc]

"Following a trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court, today (Wednesday, 25 May 2022) Singh was convicted of three counts of assault by penetration, six counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and one count of making a threat to kill."

This is a horrific case for the victims (one was 16 when they met) who have in addition to the above been manipulated and betrayed in a horrific way. I hope there's help available for them. I also think they should be commended for reporting to the police.

As for the perp, who is referred to as "born a biological female" in this report and newspaper reports, I do wonder which jail they'll end up in. Or whether it wouldn't be "fair" for them to receive a custodial sentence because of the trans identity. I'm hoping he gravity of these crimes do result in a custodial sentence. But if this had been a trans identified male, equally without surgery, they'd be pushing to get in a woman's prison, wouldn't they. With support because of their identity. I'm curious to see how the arguments around this work the other way around.

I'm also curious about the defence that was made in this case and whether it hinges on their trans identity and a man implied or explicitly claimed victimhood as a result of that.

I also wonder if there are men who have experienced this with trans identified men but who haven't reported it because they felt ashamed - not that they should, but I can imagine some may.

And I wonder what the reaction to the ruling is going to be from those who say "Don't tell them your identity until you're well I to the relationship".

And I'm waiting for the "women are sex offenders too!" comments..only it would appear that for a large part of the group who would love to claim that they can't, because they'd be misgendering!

www.cps.gov.uk/london-north/news/sex-attacker-who-posed-male-trick-women-relationships-convicted

It's interesting that when the perpetrator is female, the CPS doesn't seem to have any issue in correcting sexing them. When it's men who identify as women, they're much more coy.

Unfortunately this revolting individual will need to be held in the female estate, because she is female. I wouldn't want to be the one trying to keep her safe in a male prison.

Not only transgender but also trans-racial? 🤨

@ChuckBerrysBoots not sure what you mean by transracial. I’ve met known black men with similar names.

There have been cases like this before.

There seems to be a difference in the way it's reported and in public attitudes than when the sexes are reversed. This way around is condemned far more harshly.

How does this case fit with the ideology of trans women being lesbian pre surgery?

When it's a born female they really make it clear don't they? Born male not so much

Well, the existence of transwomen doesn't preclude the existence of lesbians, or indeed lesbian sex offenders.

Its an interesting case, for sure. Huge sympathy for the poor women who were attacked.

Surely if TWAW and TMAM then this is not a crime? It absolutely is of course and my heart goes out to the victims.

That makes very strange reading. Disgusting behaviour on the defendant's part.
It just wouldn't read that way if a TW was the offender.

It makes it very clear though, having sex with someone without declaring your trans status is assault. I'm quite shocked by that. It's not the prevailing message.

A friend discovered someone she'd known quite a while was a trans identifying woman. It hadn't occurred to her he was anything other than a smaller end of average man. Clearly it's an easier confusion than the other way around.

Yes the difference in reporting is stark "born biologically frmale" couldn't be any clearer. Unlike the reverse cases where no mention of their biological sex is mentioned. I don't suppose the TRAs will be campaigning to ensure he is housed in a male prison somehow. In view of his crimes though surely he should be segregated from Females?

This, absolutely ^!!! I can't believe I'm saying this but we (society) are actually really lucky (!!) that the CPS prosecuted in this instance and that the court convicted them. Because the TRA dogma which seems to have been swallowed hook line and sinker in much of the criminal justice system (including police and prisons, and courts too) is that gender (not sex) matters, and you are whatever gender you say you are.

The women victims thought they were having sex with a man, and this vile individual says they are a man, so move along folks!!! The victims aren't victims at all because they got exactly what they wanted!!! No crime committed and nothing to see!!!!

I honestly think this could have gone the other way and indeed if it had (ie police decided not to investigate/CPS decided not to charge - because TMAM after all!) we may never have heard about it.

That may already be happening of course, and it's only the fact that the numbers of female born sex offenders (aka women sex offenders) are generally so low that we're not hearing a lot about it.

'gender deception' - all of the cases mentioned in this article involve female perpetrators:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNally_v_R

Removing the offense of 'sex by deception' was one of Stonewall's stated aims.

gendercriticalwoman.blog/2019/10/16/sex-by-deception-perjury/

Dr Alex Sharpe (appearing at Allison Bailey's tribunal, iirc) hs written a whole book on 'sex by deception'.

www.amazon.co.uk/Sexual-Intimacy-Gender-Identity-Fraud/dp/1138502553/

And the BBC seems to be supportive of the general principle that nobody should have to disclose their sex before sex:

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0bqqgq8

That's not "unfortunate', it's completely appropriate. Prisons need to be single-sex, not segregated by self-ID.

The surname Singh is overwhelmingly used by people whose families originate(d) from SE Asia, ditto Tarjit which is Sikh/Punjabi. This individual does not appear to be any of those things. So it's a legitimate query to raise.

Thank you for your far more informed (than mine) post @MagnoliaTaint , I have been on a very steep GC learning curve but can see I need to educate myself further. What an utter disgrace Stonewall is (though to be fair, I’ve known that at least for a while).

"It's interesting that when the perpetrator is female, the CPS doesn't seem to have any issue in correcting sexing them. When it's men who identify as women, they're much more coy"

but imagine explaining this one, while still trying to be coy

This is really interesting. There was a case of a young couple that they made a documentary out of a few years back and the trans lobby said the perp had done nothing wrong and that the genital preference of the victim was the problem.

Gosh I posted this so flooded with thoughts that I hadn't joined the dots and realised that if TWAW and TMAM then there is no crime here (well there's the ABH and death threat but I don't believe they'd have been prosecuted in most cases).

But while TWAW we all know that TM are not really considered M by all the people who claim TWAW. As this case shows.

I’m curious, too, why she changed her name from
Hannah Walters to Tarjit Singh. Singh is always a Sikh name, she’s obviously not ethnically Indian, and Sikhism would abhor the assaults, so what’s up with that?

It's been going on for a very loooooooooooong time, girasol.

I've just had a look and can't see any reference to 'sex by deception' on Stonewall's website.

It definitely used to be there. but seems to have been removed.

I think this is a very valid point.

If transmen ARE men, as we've been told they are, then surely there's no deception?

Yes, how does this get explained?

I'm afraid the TRAs would explain it by saying that the law is wrong and needs to be changed, that women should be deemed to consent to having sex with every and any trans person that wants to penetrate them and if they object they are bigoted Nazis.