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.

Yeah that what's 'presume' means, have a problem with English too? I've been nothing but polite on these threads despite provocation and I won't be bullied. I'll just be rude back, don't like it just ignore, I'll be watching a film in a minute so you can play be yourselves.

Yeah from these threads over the last couple of days, it seems there are activists on 'both sides' telling big porky untruths. It does no one any favours.

Relying on Wikipedia to understand the kind of theories favoured by those who are most likely to edit the site, isn't a great idea. If you are going to do that though, read the talk page.

Here's what one user wrote in 2020:

As above, there's been concerns over this article for years, and its state before I stubbed it was complete nonsense, with no clear definition of queer theory and several contradictions, along with chronic journal spam- in fact, the entire article just seemed to be a series of nonsensical fringe theories. If someone is planning a rewrite, please make sure it doesn't become the nonsense it was before.

Trans gender = less that 1% usually estimated between 0.4 and 0.6
Trans women = obviously less than that as the above figure includes trans men and non binary people.

100 men = less than less than one of them will be a trans woman. Most people have never even met a trans women let alone know one. Most abuse is by people you know, friends, family, coaches, etc. meaning the percentage goes even smaller. Pulled out of a hat maybe, but I know where the biggest risk lies and it's men in general including trans women. That's why we have safe guarding. Doesn't protect against family and friends, wouldn't have protected against mine.

Now I'm going to watch a film with my children. I'll come back if people are prepared to be civil and not slag me off on other threads and accuse me of things I haven't said. Otherwise, happy echo chambering.

I'll just be rude back

Go ahead. I've not seen any reason to take what you say seriously. You keep flip flopping your position to suit your argument and "misunderstanding" when it suits. Like when you responded to Prion and said she was "cruel" for saying that male trans people shouldn't be allowed in women's shelters ever.

Trans gender = less that 1% usually estimated between 0.4 and 0.6

No, the estimate the government use as given by trans organisations is 1%. It's based on a study of which percentage of a supposedly representative sample of the population was gender incongruent, so it can be scaled up or down for any number of people according to said study.

Also this supposes that this specific group of males are completely representative of the wider male population in terms of offending risk. I'm not saying they aren't, but I think your certainty that their offending rate is the same is misplaced.

Trans gender = less that 1% usually estimated between 0.4 and 0.6

Aside from the fact that this is wrong, how on Earth did you get from “transwomen are 0.6% of men” to “transwomen commit less than 0.01% of sexual crimes”?

It's come up a few times in this thread that TW offend at the same rate as other men. Some evidence suggest that they commit sexual offences at a far higher rate:

76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%

125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%

13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison =
16.8%

(stats from: www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/&ved=2ahUKEwj85-jWn5r7AhVVkFwKHbK_A5YQFnoECAwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1nfGy7VvUMk_Nrwv81ai3h - triggers download)

I posted the statement from Leeds WA on the other thread and it is clear they are talking about deception because of name and "identity" provided, not about being trans. So this links to the thread about how prisoners can use this loophole as well.

But I have just checked their listing on Women's Aid directory www.womensaid.org.uk/womens-aid-directory/ and unless I have missed it, they dont say their service is open to trans women, which I thought they were meant to do.

However, I suspect this is despite some feeling that there has been a positive advance in saving sex based services, gender id is now so imbeded in women services, that it is going to be hard to get rid of this erosion of women's rights.

I was reading a list of forthcoming Reclaim the Nights as part of the 26 Days of action against violence against women, many organised by Rape Crisis Centres, and most if not all talk explicitly about being "gender inclusive".

Which makes me think no amount of court cases, public meetings, or even conferences said to be about women's rights, is going to fundamentally change to loss of women's sex based services, unless more of us are prespared to work, volunteer or join the MCs of those services. And it will be difficult to shift the focus back on women, and the next generation coming will nearly all have been through an education system which at the very least has "be kind" to the concept that you can actually change sex.

(Just as a side note, there are no women's "shelters" in the UK, they are Refuges. I believe that they are known as shelters in the US.)