The law as it stands on sex, Part 2

DL
What type of ward? He would, no doubt, insist he is a woman, and demand to go on a women's ward.

But, he's shown, by his behaviour, that he is not safe to be around women/girls.

That really would leave vulnerable women at risk, and most people needing in-house psychiatric care are very vulnerable.

This is so true.

The answer will be to have TW wards, where they can safely abuse each other.

TW should be allowed to choose between a ward which matches their birth sex or the TW ward.
Until those TW wards are created, he should be put in a ward which matches his sex.

That must have been terrifying, Nannee.

Before someone comes along to point out that this wasn't a 'trans' crime, the point is that the fewer opportunities there are for things like this to happen, the better.

We can't stop using lifts, and few would suggest that there should be sex-specific ones; but we can separate when people are going to be undressed or otherwise vulnerable. If we do that, there will be fewer chances for opportunists to pounce, and at least in lifts and so on people will (on the whole) be better able to deal with unpreventable situations such as you describe.

Thank you Doodledog, it was and I'm really surprised the memory has resurfaced.
And no, as you rightly point out, it wasn't a trans crime but a crime by a person with an active penis.
If trans people still have attached active penises there is always the possibility that they can use their penises malignantly...we don't know what their intentions are...and, again as you so clearly state, we should ensure that spaces designated as safe for vulnerable women absolutely remain so.

I am probably being naive under current law DiamondLily that he should be, without any question, placed in a male ward as he is, bottom line, a man and importantly, a clear threat to females! There shouldn’t be any blurred lines of this fact as in this case, the safety of females is at risk.

There would be no treatment available to a male with such perverted behaviour on a female only ward. Anyone who thinks differently clearly has no understanding of mental health care.

I think that there is a difference between patients in hospital wards and criminals. The criminally insane are maybe a separate category, but the nature of criminal insanity is that it pretty much always falls outwith usual parameters.

Hospital patients have full citizens' rights, and if they usually 'live as' the opposite sex, and if it would be traumatic for them to have to relinquish that, I think that every effort should be made to accommodate them and respect their choices. This should not be done in a way that compromises the well-being (mental or physical) of others on the ward, though, so in the current straightened circumstances of the NHS it is always going to be tricky.

Criminals, however, are a different matter. The purpose of jail is to deprive them of the freedoms they would have if they hadn't committed the crime for which they are imprisoned, and one of those freedoms is self-actualisation. People in jail can't necessarily 'be' a musician, or a husband, or a goth (or insert more up-to-date subculture of choice ) in jail, because they are being punished.

I'm not suggesting that trans people should attract extra penalties just for being trans (although I would argue that using trans status to commit a crime should attract an extra penalty, but that is different entirely). I do, however, think that just as most prisoners have to give up part of who they 'are', transpeople shouldn't expect to have special treatment either.

I think that governors of jails should be sensitive to their needs - as with all prisoners - so where possible, transpeople could share cells, for instance, or be housed on special wings if available. I don't think, however, that other prisoners should have to lose facilities because of the cost of building such wings, or should have to go to the back of the queue for premium cells - there needs to be fairness as well as compassion.

As it stands, it seems as though saying 'I am trans' is assumed to mean 'I am entitled to be treated as a special case whatever I do', and it shouldn't. Whatever 'living as' a member of the opposite sex is supposed to mean (and that is still very unclear to me) it doesn't mean that everyone around you should have to walk on eggshells and treat you differently from others? It smacks of self-indulgence to me.

I am a woman, and if I go into a woman's clothes shop and there is no space in the changing room, I am asked to wait, or to take the dress home to try on. Why should the same thing be seen as discriminatory when it happens to a non-binary person or a transwoman?

Chewbacca

Apparently he was having a^‘difficult time Thompson is having with her gender identity’,^ according to her defence lawyer. I wonder if his 22 victims are having a similarly "difficult time" coming to terms with what he did to them and the fact that the judge is considering a suspended sentence.

Can anyone help me out with knowing just how many male sexual predators there have been in the last couple of years who, when facing a prison sentence, suddenly realise that they're actually a woman? I've lost track a bit.

Chewbacca I think the article in my OP link tries to answer your question (though they found it difficult, as data on crime and imprisonment for trans people is not recorded as transparently as it could be)

A horrible and sickening experience Nannee49, I'm really very sorry that happened to you. It's the thought that he could have done that in front children too that makes me feel physically sick.

Thanks Elegran I'll go back for another read.

Thanks Chewbacca. Very luckily I was able to deal with it without too much trauma, though it's still there and seemingly triggered by this issue, but the thought of that happening to a child is vile as you say. And I think it was all about power, he just didn't realise mine (making light of it).

Nannee you dealt with it but even so that horrible encounter has left you with a memory that cannot be erased, and has been triggered by what's being discussed here.

How many women's memories of abuse will be resurrected if this matter isn't properly dealt with, and they are faced with an intact male in what they rightly believed was a safe space.

I'm sorry that you experienced this, sorry that these threads have triggered the memory and thank you for having the courage to share that here.

It really should be very simple. A person who has a penis should not be able to use spaces which are designated for use by women. A dress doesn’t make a person female, neither does long hair or stiletto shoes, nor a face full of make up, nor stating that he identifies as a woman. I could identify as a unicorn, but it doesn’t make me a unicorn. A female person has a vagina, ovaries, a cervix, and a uterus. It’s not as complicated as men like to make it.

How much more galling must it be, to see your attacker face the criminal justice system and then find out that, not only were you not his first victim, but since a attacking you, he's suddenly realised that he's a woman. And to pour salt on your wounds, when you face him across that court room, you'll be compelled to address him as "she", despite the fact that you saw his erect penis and know that the dress and wig he's wearing that day cannot make him a woman.

VioletSky

I think I explained before what direct and indirect discrimination is but this does a much better job than I could.

I fully understand what discrimination and indirect discrimination are, thanks. I was less clear about which part of the EA you were suggesting that we all adhered to in their entirety.

here is a section of the EA that is not intended for use in schools, so is more relevant to the issue in hand.

For those who don't like links, here are some exclusions that will apply in this case.
_______________________________________

Single-sex services
If you are providing a service to one sex only (and not to the other), you must be able to meet one of the following conditions:

Only people of that sex need the service.

Providing the service jointly to both sexes would not be sufficiently effective.
Example: if women of a particular religion or belief will not use the local swimming pool at the same time as men, women-only swimming sessions could be provided as well as mainly-mixed sessions.

The level of need for the services makes it not reasonably practicable to provide separate services for each sex.
Example: a women-only support unit for women who have experienced domestic or sexual violence can be set up, even if there is no parallel men-only unit because of insufficient demand.

The service is provided at a hospital or other place, where users need special care, supervision or attention.
Example: single-sex wards in hospitals and nursing homes.

The service is likely to be used by more than one person at the same time and a woman might reasonably object to the presence of a man (or vice versa). Example: separate male and female changing rooms.

A person might reasonably object to the service user being of the opposite sex because the service involves physical contact.
Example: sports sessions involving a high degree of physical contact or any service involving intimate personal health or hygiene.

You must also be able to show that providing the service on a single-sex basis is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Again, proportionality requires that you balance the impact on all service users of providing services only to one sex.
________________________________________

So - which bits would you like us to adhere to, please? Failing that, which bits should Monsoon adhere to, if they haven't already?

Are you still withdrawing your custom? Actually, the writing is probably on the wall for Monsoon, as many feminists are withdrawing their custom too - but this time for the apology and the suggestion that the assistant was in the wrong (they weren't). Apparently, Charlie was given a free prom dress, to add insult to injury! How many women are given free dresses for having to wait to try it on?

I hope Charlie is happy with the result of the stunt, and can live with the guilt if people lose jobs because of it.

I read the references to Charlie at the end of the previous thread and it reminded me of how this issue was handled twenty plus years ago. Waiting for my teenage daughter outside the changing rooms of TopShop (?) I noticed a young male dressed in women's clothes selecting dresses which he took to the till and paid for. The shop assistant explained to a new assistant that he was a regular customer, sought the help and advice of the shop staff as to what suited him but as he was not allowed to use the communal changing rooms he was allowed to take a large selection of clothes home to try on and return if not suitable. He left a cheque to cover the cost as surety but only paid for the items he kept. He was popular with the staff, and seemed a gentle soul; I used to see him occasionally about the dress shops my daughter patronised, one of which may have been Monsoon, and there was never any trouble or attempt at claiming his human rights, simply courtesy and respect on both sides.

No problem with any of that eazybee; clearly respect on both sides.

Thank you Smileless, you're so right in saying it's possibly triggered others' memories.

I did hesitate to post after remembering it but then realised it is important to share to illustrate how we cannot take things for granted.

I was/am so lucky in that I'm still here to tell the tale, in a relatively good frame of mind. So many others don't have that comfort.

So thank you and all the posters on here trying to find a compassionate way through this debate to put all we can in place to protect our rights of safety when vulnerable.

doodledog

I pulled that screenshot from the link Elegran posted.

I don't really want to subject myself to this at the moment, it's too uncomfortable to read so you will all have to carry on without me

Have a good day

That might be fine for some people eazybee perhaps someone who was comfortable and able to try on their clothes in their own home. But Charlie is 18 they are identifying as non-binary at present so it is entirely possible that their parents are not comfortable with them trying on women's clothes.
But it doesn't really matter. The changing rooms were not designated as a female space. Charlie undressed in a cubicle away from others and was subjected to the indignity of being misgendered, shouted at and ordered out of the changing rooms. They are 18 for goodness sake. They deserve a little consideration and respect. It is just so sad that grown women feel so threatened they would condemn an 18 year old struggling with their gender ID.

Perhaps you should stop posting or reading all these accounts of perversion and abuse. It's nothing to do with people like Charlie. It obviously isn't doing any of you any good. It's making you abuse people who have done absolutely nothing to harm anyone.

Trish. I'm not really sure about that. Prom night is a big night for kids and their families - his parents would see him in a frock, surely?

When my granddaughter had hers recently, it was photos, posing with mates, her boyfriend, and massive hoo-ha's.?

And, if they are this uncomfortable with it all (and I don't know what they think), surely him putting all this on Twitter and it ending up all over the place will distress them even more than him trying on a few dresses in his bedroom?

VioletSky

doodledog

I pulled that screenshot from the link Elegran posted.

I don't really want to subject myself to this at the moment, it's too uncomfortable to read so you will all have to carry on without me

Have a good day

I didn't mean to subject you to anything, VS. I wouldn't do that deliberately. Elegran's link was comprehensive, and covered a lot of areas. Your screenshot was relevant to schools, but not to the situation you were asking us to 'adhere to', which is why I gave clarification.

Like most people, I am concerned for anyone who is subjected to traumatic experiences, which is why I think it's important to be clear about the line between the law and speculation. It is important to prevent the sort of misunderstanding that might put someone into a difficult situation. If people are confused about the law, and/or think that what applies in one situation is also applicable in another, it is far more likely that people like Charlie can use this ignorance to their advantage.

Charlie undressed in a cubicle away from others and was subjected to the indignity of being misgendered, shouted at and ordered out of the changing rooms.

Where is this account posted, please?

Well hello trisher!
They deserve a little consideration and respect.
And you don’t think that this applies to AHF women and girls?

so it is entirely possible that their parents are not comfortable with them trying on women's clothes

This part needs addressing immediately!

Not only was Charlie asked to wait outside whilst females in a women’s clothing shop got changed, but it appears Charlie’s parents may be transphobic and won’t allow trying dresses on at home.

I hope Charlie and TRA friends are going on to Twitter (to be picked up by the media) about the injustice of this.

From Charlie's account

Charlie said: ‘We took the clothes to the changing room cubicles, which were open and not labelled by any gender.

‘I started to undress and then I heard this lady call for me outside “excuse me, we don’t allow men in here, you’re going to have to wait outside”.

‘Not wanting to draw too much attention to myself and embarrass myself more than that, I put my clothes on and sat outside the cubicles to wait for my partner who was also trying on some dresses.
‘Five minutes had passed and the same lady told me “you can’t wait here, you have to wait at the front”

So they were actually thrown out twice.

metro.co.uk/2022/04/12/birmingham-non-binary-teen-kicked-out-of-changing-room-at-monsoon-
16452430/amp/

Why shouldn't Charlie and their friends express their feelings about their treatment on Twitter? There are people posting on GN about things which they have absolutely nothing to do with. Surely someone should be allowed to post about personal experiences.

Honestly it is pathetic. I'd have a lot more respect if you acknowledged that Charlie might just possibly have been subjected to unwarranted discrimination and you just stopped trying to prove everyone who identifies as anything except the gender they were at birth is somehow a danger.

The parents by the way was just a counter to eazybee's suggestion. Any way it was Charlie's first frock so no possibility of him taking frocks home.