The law as it stands on sex, Part 2

Sorry, a bit worked up, the odds of having an attack against are great...not double negative not.

At this point I will share my story, long forgotten and dealt with, as I thought, or maybe surpressed, which has startlingly suddenly resurfaced as a result of this thread and probably goes a long way in explaining why the trans issue has so exercised me.

On holiday, early 30's, get into a lift, young guy quickly sneaks in before the doors closed, starts masturbating.
Thank God, because I'm a feisty cow I managed to escape.

I was innocently going about my business and this piece of shit decided that he could mess with the woman that was me, completely unprovoked, completely at his own whim in a public space never mind a designated 'safe' space for women only.

He had an attached fully operational penis. Who knows the motives of anyone with an attached fully operational penis?

Until attached penises are rendered completely unfunctional the odds against having an attack against you as a woman, as the figures above clearly show, are great.

I will be using my vote to ensure designated safe spaces for women remain free of fully operational penises whatever body they're attached to.

Kalu

Imprisoning Thompson is pointless as he is clearly mentally ill and should be placed in a Mental Health facility until it is deemed he is no longer a threat to society. Nothing to do with taking his sex into account as this should be the case for any male or female who presents abnormal, threatening behaviour.

Where in all of this are we safeguarding children, ie; the three who witnessed such a perverted act. Their rights are every bit as important as those of someone who is clearly a threat to them. What must be the effect on their mental health when someone like Thompson is still being allowed to mix in society and continue to display such disturbing behaviour?

Yes, but that would lead to the next saga.

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.

No one seems to be worrying about safeguarding children, or their rights, with all this.. ?

There is no way to protect single sex spaces if we cant describe accurately why male people cant use them. In this case as I have said I doubt the company would have a leg to stand on. But do I think non binary males should be allowed in womens prisons refuges or other places protected under the equality act, no of course not.

I dont believe you can change sex. I am not going to pretend otherwise. We dont share the same belief system. Charlie is male.

Imprisoning Thompson is pointless as he is clearly mentally ill and should be placed in a Mental Health facility until it is deemed he is no longer a threat to society. Nothing to do with taking his sex into account as this should be the case for any male or female who presents abnormal, threatening behaviour.

Where in all of this are we safeguarding children, ie; the three who witnessed such a perverted act. Their rights are every bit as important as those of someone who is clearly a threat to them. What must be the effect on their mental health when someone like Thompson is still being allowed to mix in society and continue to display such disturbing behaviour?

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.

I’m looking for the figures you would like however, in an earlier study, research found that
‘male-to-females . . . retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime.’
MtF transitioners were over 6 times more likely to be convicted of an offence than female comparators and 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violent offence
The group had no statistically significant differences from other natal males, for convictions in general or for violent offending. The group examined were those who committed to surgery, and so were more tightly defined than a population based solely on self-declaration.

Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa Freedman, Professor Kathleen Stock and Professor Alice Sullivan [GRA2021]
The study provides strong evidence that policy makers cannot safely assume (a) that transwomen’s offending patterns, including violent offending, will be significantly different than those of the general male population or (b) that they will be similar to those of the general female population

And that research is only those who had committed to surgery.
Since that research, more men have decided on a whim, that they are women, some of whom have already been convicted of violent crimes against women.
How will these TW who have not committed to surgery affect the figures?
Does that mean a larger number of men are
MtF transitioners will be over 6 times more likely to be convicted of an offence than female comparators and 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violent offence?

I believe I said that there was no sign on the door, and it was up to the company to provide seperate secure facilities for the use of all their customers... Is that not OK? Also I hope you all agree to abide by this in its entirety.
Not having a changing room for men in a woman’s clothes shop is not discrimination, any more than not having a gents’ loo in a convent.

Your quote has nothing to do with the situation in the shop. I assume that (if it’s from the EA) it is from an education subsection, not a general directive? A teacher would be aware that a child had changed their name, so persistently refusing to use the new one would be a deliberate act, and the discrimination would come in because other children were being called by the right name and this one wasn’t.

Discrimination has to involve different treatment based on a protected characteristic. In this case, if no men are allowed into the changing room then Charlie was being treated no differently from other male customers, so no discrimination took place.

AFAIK, gender neutrality is not a protected characteristic, although things change quickly and I may be behind the times with that. In any event, if Charlie, who said himself that he does not ‘present’ as female, looks like a man, he is not being ’misgendered’. He is being addressed by the pronoun appropriate to his sex and appearance. How was the assistant to know how he ‘identifies’?

There are two separate issues here. One is about a male customer wanting to try on a dress. No problem there - there is a facility to buy online and return unsuitable items, or to buy in the shop, try on at home and do likewise, which is what most people not performing a publicly stunt would do, as there are no suitable changing facilities available. Nobody refused to sell the dress (which would have been discrimination).

The other is about a male-presenting, male-bodied person wanting to use a facility designed for female customers, at a busy time when others were in the communal area. He was asked to wait. If other male-presenting, male-bodied customers would also be asked to wait in the same circumstances, there was no discrimination.

What are you asking us to abide by in its entirety? I’m not sure what that means in these circumstances- we are not Monsoon shop assistants.

Also, you said that you were going to withdraw your custom because of this? That is, of course, your right (although something of a knee-jerk reaction), but you are, presumably, aware that Monsoon is struggling? Would you be happy to see it go under, with associated (and predominantly female) job losses, because of a publicity stunt by a TRA? In a recession, when even those in work are struggling? Doesn’t that conflict with intersectional feminism? I thought the point of that was to look across different groups so that supporting one doesn’t negatively impact on another?

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.

Like most people, I've had "some pretty difficult times" over the years.

Never has it caused me to sexually assault anyone, flash my bits and bobs about to unsuspecting mrmbers of the public, or try to have some sort of sexual relationship with a wheelie bin or a fence...?

So, no, I wouldn't want him, or anyone like him, habits wise, to be sharing ANY sort of space with my daughter or granddaughter.?

Several girls have decided that they are boys. They have also decided that their pronouns should not just be confined to he and him but also to zee and zircle and others, each ‘boy’ deciding on their own and changing them at will. Classmates who misgender them or use the wrong pronouns as defined by the ‘boys’ are accused of transphobia and liable for punishment.
Since all the pupils wear the same uniform-skirts or trousers with nonspecific haircuts in line with the school policy it’s difficult to identify who is what.
These ‘boys’ wield a power over their classmates that under normal circumstances would be called bullying. I’m sure some posters will find this OK but I hope most will not find it acceptable.

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

I believe I said that there was no sign on the door, and it was up to the company to provide seperate secure facilities for the use of all their customers... Is that not OK?

Also I hope you all agree to abide by this in its entirety.

Given Charlie was misgendered in the store and I saw people misgendering Charlie on the first thread and have seen many trans people misgendered, the above screenshot stood out to me a great deal.

Is everyone still ok with it? I'll see if there is anything else that shouts at me tomorrow.

UK — Middlesbrough, England. A sexual assailant was allowed to walk free from court the week of May 16 2021 after pleading guilty to the eleventh breach of a ten-year notification requirement order. Chloe Thompson, who is male, has a substantial criminal history, for which he has repeatedly been given slaps on the wrist. In December 2010, while still known by his birth name of Andrew McNab, he served a year behind bars for threatening to shoot an
ex-girlfriend and her new partner. In March 2011, he was convicted of the 2009 sexual assault of a 13-year-old girl. He pleaded guilty, and told a judge that he molested the child during a “moment of madness” which stemmed from traumatic experiences in the Army. He was jailed for a year, sparking gasps from the court gallery. He was issued a notification order requiring him to notify police of any aliases he is using within three days. However, he changed his name by deed poll when he began identifying as a woman.
Mr Thompson was arrested on public nuisance charges for an August 13 incident in which he allegedly exposed his penis to the public from a window while masturbating and using a sex toy. Three children witnessed the incident. It is also alleged that he masturbated on the street in public view on that same date while dressed in “an ill-fitting black wig, a ra-ra skirt and a midriff-length top.” Witnesses said they shouted at him and he ran away.

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.

Exposed herself ?. It’s ridiculous that someone convicted of flashing a penis is referred to as ‘she’.

And no, of course he shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near vulnerable women.

Should this trans woman be allowed in women's changing rooms or toilets?

A trans sex offender lifted her skirt and exposed herself three times in one day.
Chloe Thompson, 42, was caught rubbing herself on a public wheelie bin before using a sex toy on herself in an alley in Middlesbrough, Teesside, on August 13 last year. On the same day, she exposed herself on the street where she lives and thrust her hips into a fence.
Once she was inside her house, she exposed her bum and thrust against her window – which three children saw as they were in a car driving past.

Thompson was already on the sex offenders’ register before she had come out as trans when she was legally named Andrew McNab.

She has 17 convictions for 22 offences, including sexually assaulting an underage girl in 2011.

It was at this point the authorities discovered she had changed her name by deed poll – a legal document expressing an intention. Thompson was handed a suspended sentence for breaching the order.

Thompson, who used to be a soldier, pleaded guilty to her three most recent crimes on February 15.

Thompson was convicted of committing a public nuisance by indecent exposure, exposing her penis to members of the public while performing a sex act upon herself and outraging public decency.
Thompson will be sentenced on April 26. She has been granted conditional bail until that time.

Would you feel comfortable in changing rooms with this man? Would you be happy for your daughter or grand daughter to be in a changing room with him? And if he is sentenced to a custodial sentence, should he be in a cell with vulnerable women?

That's what I thought, Chewbacca, but I (maybe wrongly) thought that maybe VS knew better, as she was so strident in her assertion that Charlie should be treated in accordance with the EA.

Fair Play For Women is an excellent site. This appeared on my Facebook feed earlier. It perfectly encapsulates the hypocrisy of many TRAs. Men decide who is a woman, and what being a woman should look like. This is exactly what the so-called 'gender critical' argue against, and one of the reasons why so many lesbians are opposed to the T being in LGBTetc.

Women can 'present' however we damn well like. It is our sex that makes us women, not our choice of clothing or how we wear our hair (or our sexuality for that matter).

First paragraph is crystal clear, unambiguous and not open to interpretation:

The Equality Act 2010 legally protects people in the UK from discrimination and is often used by trans-activists to claim that trans-identifying males must always be treated as, or allowed into spaces exclusively for, women. It is also often used as a reason by companies when women complain. They say their hands are tied and that it’s illegal to exclude transgender people. They are simply wrong. They are either shamefully ignorant of the law or deliberately deciding not to use the legal options available to them.

I’ll look at the link tomorrow. It’s nearly midnight here. Thanks Elegran.

Thanks for the link Elegran I've had a quick look and will read it through properly tomorrow.

I’ll have a look at the link tomorrow.

There is a mention of changing rooms down among the exemptions.

That website has a lot of other readable articles with figures and statistics, about biological sex, crime data recording and other subjects. At a quick glance they seem very fairly written.

Thanks for posting this, Elegran, and for continuing the thread.

I'll have a proper look at the linked article when I can concentrate (I'm multi-tasking just now), but at first glance it looks interesting. I scanned it to see where the case we were discussing earlier (about the non-binary male-bodied person in Monsoon) would fit, but nothing jumped out at me. I think it was VS who said that she wanted to see him get his rights under this legislation and I asked her which section she meant and which exemptions would apply, but the thread finished before she could reply. Maybe this will help her to clarify her thinking.

A very interesting read and very clear. Unfortunately, those who persist in conflating ‘sex’ and ‘gender reassignment’ won't read it or, if they do, will insist it's wrong