Trans paedophile stays in women's refuge for 10 weeks

[Tryfull]

From the DM: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11392601/Transgender-paedophile-caught-duping-staff-71-day-stay-domestic-violence-refuge.html

A paedophile duped staff into letting her stay at a domestic violence refuge for women and children for 71 days.

She sexually assaulted a ten-year-old girl in a supermarket toilet and secretly filmed another in 2018 and has been in court several times since.

A refuge guest and mum of three said that as a victim of sexual abuse, the situation was 'triggering'.

She said she came to the refuge with her children as she thought it was somewhere safe and that it was horrendous discovering a paedophile had been living there for months.

The mum added: 'I saw her several times hanging around where the prams are parked, she is tall and skinny with long brown hair and always wore a blue surgical mask. The whole thing makes my skin crawl.

They didn't have access, the trans accommodation was separate. If trans accommodation is funded and set up why shouldn't they use it if they fit within the criteria, in this case no criminal convictions. They need to check that like they would anyone else. It seems they weren't checking anyone, natal women in the shelter could have been thieves or whatever they wouldn't have known because they weren't checking.

I presume that rather than saying the 'it never happens' they are actually saying don't tar them all with the same brush. Follow basic safeguarding. Single sex spaces are allowed under the equality act.

Stonewall is rich. Instead of spending money running indoctrination courses, they should open refuges and crisis centres for trans people. Men hoard the pie and women get the crumbs but we're still expected to share those crumbs with those men who hate us having anything. Men who are envious of women having domestic violence shelters remind me of people who are envious of people receiving disability benefits: they hate the idea of others getting something they can't have, even though to qualify one would have to undergo disability.

That why many newspapers use photos of the individuals involved so the readers can see for themselves, it’s the only way around the ridiculous guidelines.
He should be in prison & it should be a men’s prison.

I presume that rather than saying the 'it never happens' they are actually saying don't tar them all with the same brush. Follow basic safeguarding. Single sex spaces are allowed under the equality act.

They have created a sacred caste of men, who can never be accused of wrongdoing. Anyone who commits an offence either did it because they were so distressed by their gender identity that they couldn’t help themselves (a good number have now not been sent to prison with this reason being cited) or they are not “true trans” and are just bad men pretending.

There”s also the constant accusation that we are demonising all men who claim they are women “because of a few bad apples”. No matter how many times we reiterate that we don’t want to exclude these men because they are trans (i.e. demonising them because of transphobia) but because they are men, it is ignored and the accusations of transphobia are reiterated.

We are not tarring trans people, we are pointing out that men (even those who claim they are women) shouldn’t be in women’s spaces, in part, because they show the same criminal and violent behaviour patterns as other men, even following medical transition.

Odd that you’re so focused on the sarcastic hyperbole of women here (“this never happens” is cynical humour) when the hyperbolic statements made by transactivists are so much more extreme. Are you on trans positive forums reminding the activists there that they are exaggerating when they say we are debating their existence?

I'm not on any activist forums, well unless you count this one as a feminist one. I'm not 'focussed' on it, it just seemed odd, if it helps people to quote hyperbole it who am I to judge. I will call out exaggeration and lies where I see it though, as I've done on another thread tonight which was disinformation from start to finish. If I saw a trans person doing the same I would also call it out.

But if you want evidence that we are regularly told that women are not at risk from men who claim they are women, here are several articles where people claim exactly that:

bright-green.org/2020/09/26/trans-women-are-not-a-threat-to-women-they-are-women/

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11292513/Nicola-Sturgeon-insists-abusive-men-risk-women-not-trans-women-row-JK-Rowling.html

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/10/trans-rights-feminist-letter-rebecca-solnit

I will call out exaggeration and lies where I see it though

So you’re here to tone police women discussing the effect on women’s rights when it’s claimed that some men are women, but you’re not making any attempt to criticize the far more extreme lies and hyperbole commonly made by transactivists on forums where they talk.

Got it!

Thanks those were interesting articles, and they all focussed on where the risk actually is: toxic men. That's where our focus should be. Safeguarding for all including trans people, yes but the biggest risk is and always will be men who make up 50% of the population (not all men are dangerous) not trans women who that article said make up 0.3% of the population (not all trans women are safe).

No, on the other thread someone said a paedophile who worked as a drag queen posed in a mermaids calendar. Not true. That there was a BDSM Mermaids calendar. Not true. That drag queen story time readers read stories in their lingerie to children. Not true. How is that tone policing pointing out lies and untruths. Tone policing is the way someone says something isn't it, not pointing out an inaccuracy? I literally said people could use hyperbole if it helps them. And are you really suggesting I join a TRA forum? I wouldn't know where to start looking.

I was furious reading this. This should never happen

the biggest risk is and always will be men who make up 50% of the population (not all men are dangerous) not trans women who that article said make up 0.3% of the population

Can you tell me why you think men who claim they are women present less risk to women than other men? Or is your argument that there are very few men who claim they are women and therefore only a few women will be hurt if those men access women’s spaces?

How is that tone policing

You are tone policing the women on this thread. The other is irrelevant to that fact.

transwomen are a subset of men, hence they are (should be) subject to the same assumptions re risk as the rest of men

its so bloody simple I don't get why people can't see this

Risk is based on probability. That's how a risk calculation is done, more men higher risk. In addition most abuse of women is by men they know. I don't agree with men accessing women single sex spaces, however small the risk is.

Um I literally said it was fine, twice.

Agree the risk percentage of a man or trans women being dangerous is the same, no one disputes that there are stats, hence why safeguarding still applies. However the probability is smaller because the number of trans women is extremely small in comparison to the number of men. In addition most abuse is by a man the women (or child) knows. However safe guarding must apply to all and single sex spaces protected.

They didn't have access, the trans accommodation was separate. If trans accommodation is funded and set up why shouldn't they use it if they fit within the criteria, in this case no criminal convictions. They need to check that like they would anyone else. It seems they weren't checking anyone, natal women in the shelter could have been thieves or whatever they wouldn't have known because they weren't checking.

He had access because he was in a women's refuge. Even in a separate accommodation, he was still in a women's refuge.

How are they supposed to check criminal convictions when men can legally change their name and don't have to declare previous prosecutions?

However the probability is smaller because the number of trans women is extremely small in comparison to the number of men

The whole point is that the probability of any individual man being a predator is unchanged by the claim that he is female, or even undergoes medical transition.

Being fewer in number does not decrease the potential risk from any given individual. That’s like saying there are fewer professional football players than there are men who do not play football professionally, therefore the risk from football players is smaller.

And the whole argument only matters BECAUSE those in the articles I linked are 100% arguing that these men don’t present a risk and therefore must be allowed in women’s spaces. If you agree these men should not be in women’s spaces, then you presumably agree that they present more risk to women than other women?

So you agree then, that for proper safeguarding, men should be excluded from women’s shelters, even if they are given separate accommodation, thus the criminal record of this man is irrelevant because, as I originally argued, he shouldn’t have been there because he was male?

The refuge stated the accommodation was completely separate therefore no access, albeit with a shared garden, for safeguarding I would make sure no access at all including garden. As stated previously on the thread NI numbers don't change.

The probability of an individual is not the same as probability overall, that's not how probability works and I've already stated that. Yes I agree risk is the same at an individual level, I already said that and the stats back that up. That's why I said safeguarding for all. Yes I agree with single sex spaces. No I don't agree with excluding vulnerable with no convictions trans women from domestic refuges specifically funded and set up for them which are completely separate and with no access to other areas. How cruel must you be to think that.

No I don't agree with excluding vulnerable with no convictions trans women from domestic refuges specifically funded and set up for them which are completely separate and with no access to other areas. How cruel must you be to think that.

I specified women’s shelters. Don’t try putting words in my mouth. It won’t work. Lying about what I said is an unpleasant tactic.

This thread is about a woman's shelter. Which you have repeatedly said they should be excluded from, irrespective of their conviction status. Don't accuse me of things, it's an unpleasant tactic, in your words.

I repeat, Trans accommodation is completely separate in the refuge. No access to single sex spaces.

I have said men should be excluded from women’s shelters and you are accusing me of cruelty.

If transwomen are women (as you claim) then excluding them from women’s spaces can only be on the basis that they’re trans. And if you exclude them because they are trans, then you are deeply transphobic.