Today is a horrendous day for women.

[Catsanfan]

I haven't the energy to explain, just skim Aja's twitter this morning. So much there, I am losing heart. Especially the police thing.

The West Midlands police put into special measures over sex offender failings? That force?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-67518400

PointBreak83 · Today 12:45

Would you like to explain how you've decided all 0.5% of the trans population all work for the police force AND conduct a strip search a week?

No, but it'd be nice if you read my original post and explain why the only thing you quoted correctly was "0.5%" !

Honestly CHA scrolling back that far but I do apologise if I have been mistaken with the context/figures.

I mean if we're going to get all 'something dreadful is remarkably unlikely' then the chances of someone like Wayne Couzens murdering a woman is remarkably unlikely. Does that mean we should not bother trying to improve the police force to make it even MORE unlikely - and, more to the point, to ensure that the police force does not actively enable abusers / those with criminal intent to escalate as Couzens did by giving him a green light for his earlier sexual assault?

Honestly, I'm just so sick of it all. Treating women as less than human, using unconsenting women's bodies to validate men. These sort of attitudes of 'it doesn't matter because it'll only possibly affect a few women' is the thin end of a Taliban-esque wedge.

We've only been recognised as equally human compared to men for a relatively short period in history and here are people gleefully giving away our rights for an even tinier number of men than the 'remarkably low' chance of women being negatively affected by this policy.

Somehow when it's a vanishingly low number of men's Malaga airport feelings, policies across multiple police forces have to change and loads of police time gets wasted completely changing policy to accommodate that tiny fraction of men. We see it for what it is: sexism, misogyny and removal of women's rights.

It hardly ever happens so it never happens? The chances of me being in a car crash are low on any particular journey, but I still wear my seat belt.

There is a huge elephant in the room you're ignoring, TW are overwhelmingly responsible for more sex crimes than any other group.

They see accessing women and girl in vulnerable positions as a right, they seek situations out.

They also have many supporters.

Riley Gains had to hid behind a locked door because she called out this BS. Posey Parker was attacked and had to leave New Zealand for her own safety, another woman was punched in her face at the same rally.

Wake up, these are not just another minority.

"There is a huge elephant in the room you're ignoring, TW are overwhelmingly responsible for more sex crimes than any other group."

Yes, and also ignoring the issue that some TW actively seek out opportunities to strip search women. It's another way to transgress women's boundaries, and some TW find this very exciting and gratifying.

Is this for real ? How fucking fragile are these people. The met should be focussing their energy on weeding out the rapists, domestic abusers, racists etc instead of this pandering nonsense.

Good to know we are safe under a Tory government eh ?

But think how much worse Labour, Lib Dem’s and the greens are.

It’ll be worse

I wonder if the creators of the GRA stress tested with - if a male is legally female can they strip or do intimate searches on a woman?

More well thought out laws like that one that completely rearrange boundaries without consent

WeAreFairCop posted on twitter “Any woman strip searched by a trans police officer will have our full support in getting that officer and Chief Constable prosecuted for sexual assault.”

Just so we all know.

How fucking fragile are these people.

Men who want to get into a position of power over women and force women into a position of not being able to say no to them, are unfortunately neither fragile or rare.

As women's language is so constantly and consistently policed I will choose my words carefully and emphasise, NAMALT, equally not all trans people are like that. Not even all 'trans women' are like that. Some trans people are lovely, some are not. [ I don't believe you CAN generalise about 'trans people' beyond that they apparently believe that gender identity exists and is important which is shared by a number of people who don't describe themselves as trans. ]

But some men are like that, and some of the men who are like that are in positions of power and authority. And some of the men who are like that have the authority to get loopholes written into rules meant to stop abuse. And then some of the men who are like decide that they're going to transition.

If you create a class of people to whom safeguarding rules do not apply. A class of people with privileged access to women and children. A class of people who have power over women and children. A class of people who have enough social standing to be almost immune to accusation and criticism. The men who are like that will see the loophole (even if they personally had nothing to do with its creation) and move into a position where they can exploit it.

So no thank you, no new priestly class thank you.

Imagine there was a rule saying that pink BMWs could ignore the rules of the road. The number of pink BMWs has got to be small but that doesn't mean it's acceptable to make them exempt from the same rules as everyone else. Or is it ok if someone gets killed because they were speeding on the wrong side of the road because there aren't many of them so it won't happen very often?

We can't act surprised when policies that allow people to be harmed, cause harm. It doesn't matter the amount of the potential victims, any policy that permits harm to even 1 person isn't acceptable

And if that rule were passed, the number of bad drivers buying pink BMWs would increase.

Now now, nobody would go to the effort and potential humiliation of getting a pink BMW just to take advantage of a policy

I suspect when all this was planned, people had bought the 'most oppressed' and 'poor little shy gentle people who are so vulnerable' schtick and believed that these men would be in good faith, with the capacity to care about women and not to take advantage or exploit the access given in ways that would be harmful. And that men who were not transsexuals (who were the group being thought of) would never gleefully grab any agenda that provided them with a nice vehicle for harming women and stamping all over their equality while being able to claim that it's only through their righteousness and feminism that they do it.

And fuck me are we all a lot sadder and wiser now.

When police are actually saying that men being permitted to search women under this loophole is actually part of making policing more attractive to men who are genderologists how bloody obvious does it need to be?

This is apart from, as with health professionals, any male prepared to push their right and entitlement to intimately handle a non consenting woman in their care using her body to meet their needs, should not be in a job involving a position of trust. To put it bloody mildly.

Someone should ask male Lammy, who was there at the time pushing for the law, maybe knowing it would make it a crime if we say no -

if a women should call her rapist she, and if a man can do intimate searches on women

Lammy is no friend to women. Well not the female type of women. Funny how he knows which are which? It’s almost as if there is a difference.

From the report: Page 25

'Employers should treat people in accordance with their lived gender identity, whether or not they have a GRC, and should not ask Transgender colleagues if they have a GRC or new birth certificate. Accordingly, with regards to the issue of searching, Chief Officers are advised to recognise the status of Transgender colleages from the moment they transition, considered to be the point at which they present as the gender with which they identify'.

I could be all day unpacking that bollocks, but that's back door self ID in practice.

Lots scattered around about the absolute importance of being sensitive to the officer considered to be transgender and to discuss with them how they wish to participate in searches when their chosen gender label is complicated, top of page 26 being one example but happens a lot. Nothing whatsoever about sensitivity to anyone else, but lots about punishment for women. Lots.

"There is a huge elephant in the room you're ignoring, TW are overwhelmingly responsible for more sex crimes than any other group."

Yes, and also ignoring the issue that some TW actively seek out opportunities to strip search women. It's another way to transgress women's boundaries, and some TW find this very exciting and gratifying.

This. This is what some of the more naive posters on this thread fail to take account of.

There is a huge elephant in the room you're ignoring, TW are overwhelmingly responsible for more sex crimes than any other group.

Does anyone have a link to this?

Not sure whether the previous poster meant "proportionally more sex crimes", if yes then here's some evidence (there may be more).

In 2019, there was a much higher incidence of sex crimes amongst convicted criminal TW compared to other males.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

TW incidence of sex crimes in the convicted criminal population = 58.9%
Male incidence of sex crimes in convicted criminal population = 16.8%
(Women = 3.3%)

This is madness. Does anyone think about the women impacted?

Deja vu.
"It never happens, no trans officer would be so unprofessional."
<Gets policy implemented that says that is required>
"Nobody would so unreasonable as to not allow trans officers to do that. Transphobia! Hate crime!"