David Challenor committed all his offences as a man. He does not claim to be trans. He did not gain access to any of his victims by presenting as a woman.
Correct. Safeguarding is notoriously difficult. So we use some broad-brush methods to reduce risks, even though that imposes obligations and burdens on the innocent. Like DBS checks etc. One of those broad brushes is single sex spaces - and we know that this is not to protect men from women and children but the other way round, right? To protect women and children from men. Doesn't stop female abusers (one reason - eg - why male abusers often seek out female allies, or single parents) but stops male abusers and they are the clear biggest issue,
When you argue for self-id you are arguing for people like David Challenor to have access to women's showers, changing rooms, toilets, refuges. That's an obvious safeguarding risk - bloody obvious. And it's also one that it has been almost literally taboo to raise or talk about; it has been shut down with this bogus allegation of "transphobia". As I said on an earlier post, that in itself should raise eyebrows.
Is the Girl Guides policy really that alarming? Would many cis boys pretend to be a trans girl to improve his sexual opportunities? Do predatory teenage boys need to pretend they are teenage girls to get an opportunity to assault them? Are they more or less likely to commit assault when they are the only boy around? Should lesbians be excluded too, just in case?
Of course it's possible. Anything is possible. But is the hypothetical risk so credible that all trans girls need to be thrown under the bus? Should they attend scouts instead? As themselves or as someone they are not?
Would cis boys pretend to be a "transgirl" to improve his sexual opportunities? My guess is no, not in any planned meaningful way.
But would a teenage boy, confused about his sexuality and his sexual identity, full of raging lust hormones, not totally in mature control of himself or his urges, and repelled by the absurd shouty bullshit gender role that he is expected to play out take advantage of his situation spontaneously? Well there's only one answer; inevitably some will. Especially if they have had their new-found identity lionised and over-valorised and told they are wonderful and should just be whoever they are because nothing (least of all the competing needs of teenage girls) should get in the way of that.
This is at least partly why it's a safeguarding issue; when we do this, we are putting this teenage boys at risk too. How on earth can they make sensible decisions, at all times, in this situation? It's literally asking too much of them.
And what about the girls? You didn't mention them or their needs. Not interested in that?
It's part of the proposed changes to the gender recognition act.
