Transgender hate crimes recorded by police go up 81%

[SpookyFrank]

Nope not true. The problem is that self-ID will open the gateway. I don't believe any transwoman would abuse a woman (call me stupid) but I do believe once self-ID is in place there will be, not so many years from now, no way to stop the real abusers. They become priests, they become gym coaches, they become scout leaders. And we are breaking down safe guarding for a few trans people who feel bad using the mens etc. Trans women need to get behind women and say yes this is a real problem. It's not today. It's what it allows.

Let me get this straight, the wrong uns are going to identify themselves as women so that they can become priests. And only at that point will priests become a risk to children.

So, a couple of questions on this. Starting with, how much crack did you have to smoke to come up with it?

 

[Treacle Toes]

Let me get this straight, the wrong uns are going to identify themselves as women so that they can become priests. And only at that point will priests become a risk to children.

So, a couple of questions on this. Starting with, how much crack did you have to smoke to come up with it?

I think you have misunderstood and potentially willfully. JudithB clearly meant they 'already' become priest and gym coaches. Given stories of abusive priests and gym coaches have been big news over the last few years it's silly to pretend you don't know that.

 

[19force8]

I think you have misunderstood and potentially willfully. JudithB clearly meant they 'already' become priest and gym coaches. Given stories of abusive priests and gym coaches have been big news over the last few years it's silly to pretend you don't know that.

 

[Treacle Toes]

snap?

 

[SpookyFrank]

I think you have misunderstood and potentially willfully. JudithB clearly meant they 'already' become priest and gym coaches. Given stories of abusive priests and gym coaches have been big news over the last few years it's silly to pretend you don't know that.

I do know that. I also know self-ID for trans folk has never been something child abusers have needed before. You can't just say, people abuse kids so trans people shouldn't be recognised as their acquired gender. That's not an argument. It's so obviously not an argument that I struggle to think of a non crack-based reason someone would come out with it in public.

 

[Yossarian]

Let me get this straight, the wrong uns are going to identify themselves as women so that they can become priests. And only at that point will priests become a risk to children.

It's not really how abusers tend to operate, is it? Some of the most dangerous serial abusers are the ones who pick a job that brings them into contact with children and invent a persona as a completely normal, pillar-of-the-community type person who would be the last one anybody would suspect of anything - hard to see that kind of person pretending to be transgender when it would draw attention to them and lead to them being treated with fear and suspicion.

 

[Treacle Toes]

I do know that. I also know self-ID for trans folk has never been something child abusers have needed before. You can't just say, people abuse kids so trans people shouldn't be recognised as their acquired gender. That's not an argument. It's so obviously not an argument that I struggle to think of a non crack-based reason someone would come out with it in public.

Well at least you have finally made that argument and stopped pretending you didn't know what she meant.

JudithB can speak for herself.

 

[Yossarian]

I remember when I was a kid, the issues of homosexuality and child abuse were completely entangled. Gay men were these freaks who had sex with other men, or with kids, who knew? They were people you had to watch out for. Even into the '90s, the prevailing attitude on the more liberal end of the spectrum of people I knew was "I don't care what they do, as long as they leave kids alone" - as if gay men were all potential abusers who should be treated with suspicion and definitely not allowed around children in case their urges got the better of them.

I think that attitude contributed to a lot of "gay-bashing" - and I think a lot of the way the conversation tends to go about trans people now - "What if they're just trying to get into bathrooms and changing rooms to abuse people?" - probably contributes to the rise in hate crimes against them.

 

[Athos]

I think there's a place for some shelters that exclude trans women, alongside others that include then. So as to ensure everyone had access to the support they need. Don't you?

Not for me to say I'm sure.

First, that's a complete cop out.

Secondly, who should say, then? Because you seem to object to some women expressing a view.

 

[Steel Icarus]

I can understand the position Thora states for example, cos it was thoughtful and honest, but some of my favourite posters have left Urban and given the way our most recent crusader has gone about her business lately since her initial go sisterhood stuff I can totally see why. Great effort. And it's not even the message, it's the delivery mode. Wrapped round a brick and hurled.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I think that attitude contributed to a lot of "gay-bashing" - and I think a lot of the way the conversation tends to go about trans people now - "What if they're just trying to get into bathrooms and changing rooms to abuse people?" - probably contributes to the rise in hate crimes against them.

This is exactly what I'm concerned about. I'd like to know if the people who are drawing these highly dubious connections between self-ID and child abuse are in any way concerned that they're contributing to a culture in which trans people are attacked and abused because of who they are.

To me this stuff is indistinguishable from Yaxley-Lennon using child abuse as an excuse to attack muslims. Only difference is, you get banned from here for saying nice things about Yaxley-Lennon. Not that I'd advocate banning people in this context, as that would only complete the self-fulfilling prophecy of persecution that seems more important to them than the actual crux of what they're saying.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Secondly, who should say, then? Because you seem to object to some women expressing a view.

There's a world of difference between objecting to a view and objecting to someone having a view. Conflating the one with the other is a handy way of getting out of actually defending your views, as we've seen a gajillion times with this issue already.

For what it's worth I can understand the arguments for certain spaces to be ringfenced for cis women only and I believe that many people make that case in good faith and without any antipathy towards trans women. But we're talking about anti trans hate crimes here, and yet somehow it's been bent around to a question about trans people invading safe spaces. That, rather than the content of any particular argument, is worrying to me.

 

[Athos]

There's a world of difference between objecting to a view and objecting to someone having a view. Conflating the one with the other is a handy way of getting out of actually defending your views, as we've seen a gajillion times with this issue already.

For what it's worth I can understand the arguments for certain spaces to be ringfenced for cis women only and I believe that many people make that case in good faith and without any antipathy towards trans women. But we're talking about anti trans hate crimes here, and yet somehow it's been bent around to a question about trans people invading safe spaces. That, rather than the content of any particular argument, is worrying to me.

There is a world of difference, yes. I accept that you might not be explicitly trying to silence dissent, but, knowingly or otherwise, by throwing around insults like 'transphobe' so lightly, you're playing your part in creating the atmosphere which has, for instance, seen many women leave this thread.

Your second paragraph is still fence-sitting. It's easy to say you understand the argument. But do you find it persuasive? Are there circumstances where it is legitimate to exclude trans women e.g. to ensure other women are able to access crucial support?

 

[SpookyFrank]

There is a world of difference, yes. I accept that you might not be explicitly trying to silence dissent, but, knowingly or otherwise, by throwing around insults like 'transphobe' so lightly, you're playing your part in creating the atmosphere which has, for instance, seen many women leave this thread.

Again, we're talking about hate crimes against trans people and you seem more concerned about the hurt feelings of, well, what is it we're allowed to call people who spend their time scaremongering about trans people molesting kids if not transphobes?

 

[elbows]

9 pages in & hardly any discussion of where this surge in hate crime has come from. strange that. other than splitting hairs over whether the stats are legit. making out like it’s a non issue.

Since forever is going to be a very long time, I may as well allow myself one final comment on this on my way out the door.

It would be very surprising if the constant framing of trans persons as potential threats had no impact.

And this point is valid regardless of whether each person believes and sympathises with any of the points raised in all those posts. Those details arent really the point, its the effect of the constant negative framing that matters in its own distinct way, separate from all the actual substance of the points.

Likewise the constant conversion of every discussion of giving trans people more rights into one about why their rights must legitimately be denied.

With no attempts to compensate for any of this. No care, just more negative framing. A disgusting situation which has many parallels with things people would never allow here.

The contexts in which trans people are mentioned in the media and very much here on these forums by the same people with their same narrow agendas, has an impact. People can deal with this without losing any of the important points that matter to them.

People could also do what they are usually quick to do when it comes to tackling racism etc. Fact check. When someone talks a load of shit about self-id, and someone else points out the legal reality which is quite different, very few other people seem to pick up on this, do their own fact checking and condemn those who love the dog whistle.

 

[Clair De Lune]

Ok let's talk about the current laws and how they relate to this discussion shall We? Correct me If I am wrong, but this law is still in place is it not?

"
Schedule 3, Part 7(28) of the 2010 Act (hereinafter ‘the Schedule 3 Exception’)
provides that there is no discrimination if an individual disfavours persons with a gender
reassignment characteristic in ‘the provision of separate services for persons of each sex,' 'the provision of separate services differently for persons of each sex' and the ‘the provision of a service only to persons of one sex.’ As a result of the Schedule 3 Exception, providers can remove trans individuals from gender segregated-services where exclusion furthers a legitimate aim. A similar result is achieved under Schedule 23(3) (hereinafter ‘the Schedule 23
Exception’) of the 2010 Act. There is no discrimination if a person disfavours trans individuals in accessing communal accommodation or ‘benefits facilities or services linked to the
accommodation.’ Schedule 23 defines ‘communal accommodation’ as ‘residential
accommodations which (include)dormitories or other shared sleeping accommodation which for reasons of privacy should be used only by persons of the same sex.’x Accommodation
providers must consider reasonable alterations to the facility, the provision of additional space and the extent to which the service is used by only one gender

 

[JudithB]

I think you have misunderstood and potentially willfully.

Of course they did

 

[JudithB]

I think you have misunderstood and potentially willfully. JudithB clearly meant they 'already' become priest and gym coaches. Given stories of abusive priests and gym coaches have been big news over the last few years it's silly to pretend you don't know that.

Of course they did

This is so incredibly disingenuous it cannot go without comment. The reason the absolute number of transgender hate crimes is low is that it is an extremely small group. The probability of experiencing a hate crime in that group is very large.

You obviously know this. Everyone reading this post can tell why you pretend you don't.

If you read further you will see I read the whole document and you will see smokedout pointed out what on the graph I had missed. That trans people are more likely to be victims of non violent harrassment (paraphrasing). And then I pointed out as I had previously that when tweets are seen as an attack, the stats might be skewed.

 

[JudithB]

Ok let's talk about the current laws and how they relate to this discussion shall We? Correct me If I am wrong, but this law is still in place is it not?

"
Schedule 3, Part 7(28) of the 2010 Act (hereinafter ‘the Schedule 3 Exception’)
provides that there is no discrimination if an individual disfavours persons with a gender
reassignment characteristic in ‘the provision of separate services for persons of each sex,' 'the provision of separate services differently for persons of each sex' and the ‘the provision of a service only to persons of one sex.’ As a result of the Schedule 3 Exception, providers can remove trans individuals from gender segregated-services where exclusion furthers a legitimate aim. A similar result is achieved under Schedule 23(3) (hereinafter ‘the Schedule 23
Exception’) of the 2010 Act. There is no discrimination if a person disfavours trans individuals in accessing communal accommodation or ‘benefits facilities or services linked to the
accommodation.’ Schedule 23 defines ‘communal accommodation’ as ‘residential
accommodations which (include)dormitories or other shared sleeping accommodation which for reasons of privacy should be used only by persons of the same sex.’x Accommodation
providers must consider reasonable alterations to the facility, the provision of additional space and the extent to which the service is used by only one gender

Stonewall are lobbying to have sex changed to gender. Did you know that? And the fact that a lot of places are already ignoring the exemption above. You know like in schools where girls are now not attending during their mensturation

 

[JudithB]

Lol'ing that I was actually called hysterical...

 

[elbows]

Dog whistles are cheap today, cheaper than yesterday.

I am so out of here, fuck your climate of fear.

 

[Clair De Lune]

Stonewall are lobbying to have sex changed to gender. Did you know that? And the fact that a lot of places are already ignoring the exemption above. You know like in schools where girls are now not attending during their mensturation

Nice one for completely ignoring the point yet again Judith. Is this the silencing of women you keep banging on about? Or does that only apply to You?

 

[ginger_syn]

Stonewall are lobbying to have sex changed to gender. Did you know that? And the fact that a lot of places are already ignoring the exemption above. You know like in schools where girls are now not attending during their mensturation

So do you think this is why there has been a rise in violence towards trans people because otherwise i dont see why you have put that on this thread.

 

[Red Cat]

Or if that's too simple, how about start a thread asking if the untested medicalisation of children might need a little bit of interrogation

Or if that's too controversial perhaps link to the whistle blowers from the leading GIRES clinic and pop it out there that it should perhaps be looked into because it's about children even though it's the Times reporting it, there do seem to be a lot of whistleblowers and most of the trustees of the main children's charity have quit

We've discussed the GIDS on here previously and what you say here is wrong. The Tavistock is not a children's charity but an NHS trust. The Tavistock clinic itself provides psychoanalytic psychotherapy to both adults and children and houses the GIDS. There has been one resignation from the board of Trustees. I think I said at the time, because I have experience of the Tavistock, that these issues include internal politics and theoretical/practice issues that are more complex than the whistleblowing as reported in the press.

 

[smokedout]

Of course they did

If you read further you will see I read the whole document and you will see smokedout pointed out what on the graph I had missed. That trans people are more likely to be victims of non violent harrassment (paraphrasing). And then I pointed out as I had previously that when tweets are seen as an attack, the stats might be skewed.

Wow, non violent harrassment. Is this the line now, well if punching someone in the face without injuring them is included in the figures of course hate crimes have gone up.

Is this your line on violence against women thenl, if it doesn't leave a mark it doesn't really count?

You also seem to be willfully ignoring the stats that show trans people are more likely to suffer violence with injury than the average across the protected strands. I wonder why.

 

[JudithB]

Wow, non violent harrassment. Is this the line now, well if punching someone in the face without injuring them is included in the figures of course hate crimes have gone up.

Is this your line on violence against women as well, if it doesn't leave a mark it doesn't really count?

You also seem to be willfully ignoring the stats that show trans people are more likely to suffer violence with injury than the average across the protected strands. I wonder why.

Let me look again. I have run out of printer ink and much prefer analysing data when I am holding it my hand. Believe me when I say I am acting in good faith. And please believe unless you are a psychopath nobody condones any type of violence. However, I believe bad words, tweets and misgendering are not attacks. Otherwise I would be dead by now just from this forum let alone twitter

 

[Steel Icarus]

The link you posted to that ex-copper crowdfunding said it wasn't treated as a crime, so presumably wasn't included in the stats and I imagine it would take more severe things to count as criminal.

 

[JudithB]

The link you posted to that ex-copper crowdfunding said it wasn't treated as a crime, so presumably wasn't included in the stats and I imagine it would take more severe things to count as criminal.

Who knows what is counted and where the information comes from. Again, let me eat some greasy food and I need to buy printer ink. Be assured I am acting in good faith. Again, nobody should be condoning any violence against anyone. See the Julie Burchill attack and apologists for such to know I understand how people can feel an attack is delegitmised

Right... I need food and to do parenting etc (my head hurts...)

 

[Clair De Lune]

For anyone interested, here is some interesting research from Bristol university exploring the relationship and resistance to trans equality and safety and women's rights to sex segregated spaces. It is long but well worth the effort imo. If we are going to come to any mutually beneficial agreement and have a thoughtful and respectful discourse then looking at our current and future laws is really important for us all. Click

 

[JudithB]

Argh, I really need printer ink!