Suella Braverman is wrong to tell the police to describe transgender rapists as men.

[theilltemperedclavecinist]

First, calling a trans woman a man is misgendering, which is transphobic even if unintentionally.

Secondly, it is not accurate and precise enough. A trans woman is not a man, but she is not just any woman, either. Accuracy and precision are important for good record keeping, for research purposes, and for correctly informing the public.

Thus, a transgender rapist should be recorded as such in police and cps records, and should be referred to in press releases as per Stonewall guidelines (transgender woman, then trans woman for subsequent mentions).

If there is any doubt, I suggest a default of assuming a suspect is trans, to avoid giving offence. Stonewall guidelines make it clear that trans is an umbrella covering many things, including men who only very occasionally cross-dress, for whatever purpose.

It would help if all press releases included an explainer box about what a trans woman is, given the surprising number of people who don't seem to know.

This approach may make the use of 'cisgender' (eg for other suspects) unavoidable, which I know some will dislike. But avoiding ambiguity about what is really happening seems more of a priority at the moment.

You can’t change your sex though.

You can become a millionaire.

I agree with your tactics, OP.
I think the #NotOurCrimes campaign is misguided, and the policy of people like Kathleen Stock and Victoria Smith of referring to male people with womanly gender identities as she / her trans women unless (until!) they commit sexual violence is utterly wrongheaded. I think both of them are brilliant, but wrong on this.
Trans women are male people who are no less likely to commit sexual crimes as other males. Siphoning off trans women offenders when they are caught, and from then on referring to them as men, is an utterly perverse No True Scotsman. It means the fallacy that "no trans woman has ever committed a sexual crime" seems true because we stop referring to these males as trans women once they're caught.
Rub the public's nose in it, exactly, we want "trans woman convicted of ..." headlines.

Transwomen are men. Their crimes need to be recorded as male crimes and their trans id also recorded so we have accurate data. I have absolutely no problem misgendering a rapist. Zilch.

Ultra-spicy straight ?

What pronouns do they give themselves to show their extra special solipsistic status?

I propose sheheshe / herhimher / herhisher.

And don't dare mispronounce the las one with a 'sh' sound or you'll be scolded.

Agree, this jumped out to me as well. Utterly ridiculous.

That doesn't account for the males who undergo penis inversion. Still capable of raping females. Still genetically male. Still should be sent to male prisons. All of these males need to be accommodated in the male sex class where they belong. Using male facilities, perhaps in a sectioned off area but it MUST be part of male facilities. Females are not human shields. Time to say no to toxic masculinity, misogyny and homophobia and get it into law. No males in female spaces, I will refer to trans males as trans people but never women or female. We need to stand up for gay children, trans children still preferable to gay children in some families hence transing conversion.

I think the simplest thing might be to return the language to what many people assumed it was. That is, a trans man is a male person with a trans identity, and a trans woman is a female person with a trans identity.

This is what many people would logically assume, as I did when I first started seeing and hearing information about trans people. I remember being muddled at first and having to clarify ‘which was which’ because the natural terms are as I listed in my first paragraph.

Stonewall have purposely corrupted and reversed that language for their own ends. If we return it to logical, instinctive terms, we then can ensure accurate recording of crimes, and make it easier to maintain single sex spaces. We’d have men and trans men (both male) and women and trans women (both female). I know that some people use the term “trans identified *” but I think that’s now seen as combative so might be best avoided.

So, rapists would all be men, trans or not. We could then separate out the trans men to see if a trans identity was associated with a higher, lower or equal rate of offending. All men, trans or not, would be sent to a male prison. Men who needed extra protection, whether that be because they were trans, gay, disabled, very old, etc, etc, could be accommodated within that male prison.

Women’s toilets would be for women; women’s sports would be for women. The language I’ve suggested really represents how most people feel, I think, and also the tacit social contract between trans people and other members of society - that is that both sides know their sex but we understand that trans people wish to be the opposite sex.

Correct sex should always be recorded. Its non negotiable. A second recording of 'presents as' or similar should sort out the stats for these types of offences and who is commiting them.
As for causing offence, to a rapist? A person who has removed the human rights of another for their own gain? Give over.

It really isn’t hard to record TW as a subset of men for statistical purposes. You can make it a non-mandatory sub category. Everyone classified as male or female in the crime stats, but some people with the additional ‘trans’ information.

There’s literally no reason anyone ever needs to use the cis prefix. No matter how loudly TRAs shout about it. It’s not a you must be trans or cis (nor NB). It’s that a minority of people have a trans identity.

Just like some people have a sesame allergy. You don’t need to categorise everyone as allergy or no allergy. Just to add an additional identifier for people who have an allergy as appropriate.

Rapists are men. HTH.

They could use M for men without a trans identity and M (TI) for men with a trans identity. This would record the statistics accurately. There should be no ‘woman’ in the record of male people.

I agree about cis being totally unnecessary. Most people aren’t trans and don’t share a belief in that ideology. We don’t call atheists “non-Catholics” or “non-Christians” or whatever, nor do we call meat-eaters and vegetarians “non-vegans” and define everyone by their relationship to veganism.

TW are men. This is a fact.

Calling someone 'cis' when they have not themselves chosen the label is like telling someone you've decided to label them Catholic and don't care what they actually think or what they define their beliefs are. Except worse, because you're forcibly involving them in a belief system that subordinates and harms women and others based on labelling everyone and stuffing them in boxes to subordinate their interests and equality.

When a man has raped someone, injured them and destroyed their lives in search of his jollies, what makes him happy and not feel offended is no longer of any interest.

All of this is a polite fiction, all of it. And that's fine, but the limits are trampling on other people, their equality and their lives. At that point, the deal is off. Those that do not want to hear that need to work more on not behaving in ways that force others to having to bluntly state truth and reality to them, and stop whining that when they stamp on someone else's foot their feelings are hurt by being told to get the hell off.

I genuinely don’t think these ‘polite fictions’ help anyone. Least of all people who are distressed by the biological
realities of their own body.

Why are “polite fictions” necessary anyway when we’re talking about rapists?

It ends when people are no longer conferred special social status.

A rapist claiming to be trans and demanding a new name and pronouns is just furthering his controlling behaviour.

The media should always use their male photograph when discussing the case.

How does this even work? If you are in a situation when you can change ‘legal sex’ on your day so, then how genuine is this?

This troll must surely be full now? No need to feed them,or the sealions.

Absolutely. As the BBC did in reporting recently on that monster in Scotland who abducted a teenage girl: they called him “a man dressed as a woman” and showed a photograph in which he’s clearly very male. As rapists are.

Polite fictions can fuck off.

Magdalen Berns was right:

Rape with a penis is a male crime. Even if the rapist has lipstick, stilettos and fishnets on. Sex is immutable. Now grow up, catch up or buzz off back to wherever you came from.

So true PaperWalk.

I agree, but it would be hard to lobby for in the current ideological environment.

Plus TWs won't want to call themselves TM and we can't force them My more modest proposal is to keep loudly reminding people that TW=man-who-says-he-is-a-woman, bearing in mind that 30% don't know that and lots think TW=post-op.

Yes 'her penis' is offensive to virtually everyone, which makes it useful for peaking people whilst avoiding being silenced for using WrongSpeak.

Yes we need legislative change