Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

Nicola Murray, a prominent gender-critical activist and domestic abuse campaigner, has been found guilty of multiple charges of child abuse spanning nearly 20 years.

Murray, who was known for advocating the belief that transgender individuals pose a danger to children, has now been exposed as an abuser herself. Among her offences, she was reported to have verbally abused a child by calling them a slur related to gender identity.

She is currently remanded in custody ahead of her sentencing in May, which meant she was unable at that time to attend the Supreme Court on April 16th. Her name is also placed on the sex offender's register.

Her conviction raises serious questions about accountability within advocacy movements and the dangers of misplaced fearmongering. It also underscores the importance of protecting children from abuse, regardless of the victim's personal identity.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ile-sex-crimes-against-children-20-years.html

 

[AuroraSaab]

Nicola Murray, a prominent gender-critical activist and domestic abuse campaigner, has been found guilty of multiple charges of child abuse spanning nearly 20 years.

I've never heard of her and her X account is shut but so what? None of the newspaper articles mention her being a leader of any feminist group. She ran a niche charity and was a gender critical woman (there are millions of them). She now joins the 3% of convicted sex offenders who are female. The rest are male.
A search on X shows nothing but condemnation from women for her behaviour.

All your post proves is that sex offenders come from all walks of life and nobody gets a free pass re safeguarding, especially when they come from the demographic that comits almost all of the offences. Which is men; that includes all men regardless of their identity.

It also shows that people will pretend to be one thing when they are another. That's why we have safeguarding and don't take people at their word that they are harmless.

Her conviction raises serious questions about accountability within advocacy movements and the dangers of misplaced fearmongering. It also underscores the importance of protecting children from abuse, regardless of the victim's personal identity.

What questions? She ran her own little charity. She wasn't Emmeline Pankhurst, heading up some united feminist movement. Nobody was responsible for her other than herself. Yes, personal identity doesn't come into it - safeguarding is based on known risk and statistics, and we know which demographic is a risk to women.

I can find you a few far more prominent trans advocates who are also under investigation or jailed.

This week for example:

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/ne...cottish-greens-sexual-misconduct-allegations/

Stephen Ireland, founder of Surrey Pride, found guilty of child rape in March this year.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...tephen-Ireland-child-sex-offence-charges.html

Here's Swindon and Wiltshire Pride being run by a convicted paedophile:

https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk...ponds-reports-convicted-paedophile-helm-2018/

Welshpool Pride organiser, 2023:

https://www.countytimes.co.uk/news/...ys-pride-organiser-admits-child-sex-offences/

What's the common denominator seen here? It's being male. That's the biggest risk factor and it's one of the reasons why women need single sex spaces.

You finding one of the few women who do commit sex offences doesn't undermine that need.

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1918700513652101531?t=JqbMmYA_MNui7yosUsrkZw&s=19

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1918592114327240957?t=AjPLFqjKSt-nD-gJIGWk0w&s=19

 

[classic33]

I've never heard of her and her X account is shut but so what? None of the newspaper articles mention her being a leader of any feminist group. She ran a niche charity and was a gender critical woman (there are millions of them). She now joins the 3% of convicted sex offenders who are female. The rest are male.
A search on X shows nothing but condemnation from women for her behaviour.

All your post proves is that sex offenders come from all walks of life and nobody gets a free pass re safeguarding, especially when they come from the demographic that comits almost all of the offences. Which is men; that includes all men regardless of their identity.

It also shows that people will pretend to be one thing when they are another. That's why we have safeguarding and don't take people at their word that they are harmless.



What questions? She ran her own little charity. She wasn't Emmeline Pankhurst, heading up some united feminist movement. Nobody was responsible for her other than herself. Yes, personal identity doesn't come into it - safeguarding is based on known risk and statistics, and we know which demographic is a risk to women.

I can find you a few far more prominent trans advocates who are also under investigation or jailed.

This week for example:

View attachment 8164

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/ne...cottish-greens-sexual-misconduct-allegations/

Stephen Ireland, founder of Surrey Pride, found guilty of child rape in March this year.

View attachment 8165
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...tephen-Ireland-child-sex-offence-charges.html

Here's Swindon and Wiltshire Pride being run by a convicted paedophile:

https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk...ponds-reports-convicted-paedophile-helm-2018/

Welshpool Pride organiser, 2023:

https://www.countytimes.co.uk/news/...ys-pride-organiser-admits-child-sex-offences/

What's the common denominator seen here? It's being male. That's the biggest risk factor and it's one of the reasons why women need single sex spaces.

You finding one of the few women who do commit sex offences doesn't undermine that need.

The leader of a listed terrorist organisation, one which is credited with the invention of the letter bomb. An item used in indiscriminate bombings, where the people injured and killed by them were of no consequence. Man, woman or child, non were safe.
In the first quarter of the 20th century, she and her movement was responsible for more bombings than any other UK terrorist organisation.

Hardly a person to glorify. Given she fled the country, leaving other members of her movement to a punishment she wanted no part of. Happy to have others do her dirty work, and pay for it, but that wasn't for her.

 

[monkers]

I opened Aurora's post, because it would be a ''so what?'' answer.

Well Aurora.

''So what'' is the correct answer in one respect I agree with you - PRECISELY BECAUSE IT IS AN OUTLIER CASE. This is a demonstration of your hypocrisy, YOU, and others here like MAGANDY, and MADASAMICKLE love to scrape the internet looking for outlier cases. Each time you are told, ''there will always be outlier case''. However we see time and again, rinse and repeat of the same tactic.

Outlier cases, are just that, outlier cases. Karen White was an outlier case. Bell was an outlier case. And so it goes on.

So what did you do in your post - replied with examples of outlier cases. Outlier cases are not trends.

All your post proves is that sex offenders come from all walks of life and nobody gets a free pass re safeguarding.

Yes, exactly this. How do you tell when you are in the presence of a sex offender anywhere other than at home? You don't. And yet, violence and sexual assault chiefly occur in the home. The sexual assault of children is not carried out by men. There's a shocker! It is mostly carried out by other children, and that is why much of it is not seen in reports - they can't be named, and often can't be prosecuted.

And here's another shocker - most child abuse cases involve unlawful photography and distribution of photographs - and half of those involved in this crime are women! The men get the prison sentences, the women seldom do, because the courts really do try not to send women to prison.

Stephen Ireland is a red herring. He may have been a supporter of trans rights, he was also a paedophile. However your conflation of these separate facts, again is trying hard to portray trans women as paedophiles. Ireland is not a trans woman. It is shabby in the extreme, those facts are not related to each other.

The allegations against Browning are not yet proven. You are just scraping the internet, and yet the case of Nicola Murray wasn't found by you. This is because you weren't scraping for sex abuse cases, you were scraping for trans stories to weaponise.


So I'll press you again for what seems the thousandth time, where is the data that trans women with a GRC commit violent or sexual assaults on women or children?

Now let's have a proper answer from you. Where is the accurate unmolested data?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Outlier cases, are just that, outlier cases. Karen White was an outlier case. Bell was an outlier case. And so it goes on. So what did you do in your post - replied with examples of outlier cases. Outlier cases are not trends.

Examples of men commiting sex crimes aren't examples of outliers because most sex crimes are committed by men. How they identify doesn't change that fact.

Yes, exactly this. How do you tell when you are in the presence of a sex offender anywhere other than at home? You don't. And yet, violence and sexual assault chiefly occur in the home.

Because the opportunities are there in the home and there is no safeguarding. You seek to increase the opportunities for male offending and do away with the safeguarding. Who's doing this offending in the home? Mostly men.

The sexual assault of children is not carried out by men. There's a shocker! It is mostly carried out by other children, and that is why much of it is not seen in reports - they can't be named, and often can't be prosecuted.

I find this hard to believe, especially as most csa goes unreported .

If so, which sex of children is doing the sexual assaults? Girls or boys? Which sex are more likely to be assaulted by the other sex? Girls or boys?

And here's another shocker - most child abuse cases involve unlawful photography and distribution of photographs - and half of those involved in this crime are women! The men get the prison sentences, the women seldom do, because the courts really do try not to send women to prison.

I'd be interested in the stats on that. 8 out of 10 people convicted for csa imagery avoid jail so the men rarely get the prison sentences either.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...over-child-abuse-images-avoid-prison-nca-says

Blah blah blah

So I'll press you again for what seems the thousandth time, where is the data that trans women with a GRC commit violent or sexual assaults on women or children?

Now let's have a proper answer from you. Where is the accurate unmolested data?

.... and we're back to 'They're not really trans unless they have a GRC' ... which is the opposite of what you said on here for years, and the opposite of what every trans organisation, including Stonewall, Transactual, Translucent etc. say. They all say - and you said - 'You are who you say you are'.

You know the crime stats for those with GRC's are not recorded separately but think this get out somehow makes your point.

It doesn't because they are still men. It is men that are the primary risk. Nobody knows who has a GRC and who does not so basing access to women's spaces on a GRC is unworkable - and unnecessary because, guess what, they are still men anyway.

It's you that needs to prove why a special subset of men should be treated differently from other men when in reality there is no discernible difference.

 

[mickle]

You might disagree with my response but personal insults are not a hood way to discuss an important issue.

Ian
nb I didn't suggest anybody owes me anything. You were trying to make a point through totally unrepresentative selection of images.

It was a joke. But the truth is, your suggestion that those 'transwomen' don't qualify as women because they dont look womanly enough instantly qualifies you, in the eyes of Trans Rights Activists, as a transphobic bigot. "Trans women don't owe you femininity" is one of their mantras.

Those images are absolutely representative. I could show you a thousand more. Hairy, middle aged, balding blokes in bad wigs. Dressed up in slutty clothing and simping in a mirror. Tell me, how are we to differentiate between porn sick autogynephiles and whatever it is you imagine real transwomen to be? Where's the line?

 

[mickle]

I opened Aurora's post, because it would be a ''so what?'' answer.

Well Aurora.

''So what'' is the correct answer in one respect I agree with you - PRECISELY BECAUSE IT IS AN OUTLIER CASE. This is a demonstration of your hypocrisy, YOU, and others here like MAGANDY, and MADASAMICKLE love to scrape the internet looking for outlier cases. Each time you are told, ''there will always be outlier case''. However we see time and again, rinse and repeat of the same tactic.

Outlier cases, are just that, outlier cases. Karen White was an outlier case. Bell was an outlier case. And so it goes on.

So what did you do in your post - replied with examples of outlier cases. Outlier cases are not trends.



Yes, exactly this. How do you tell when you are in the presence of a sex offender anywhere other than at home? You don't. And yet, violence and sexual assault chiefly occur in the home. The sexual assault of children is not carried out by men. There's a shocker! It is mostly carried out by other children, and that is why much of it is not seen in reports - they can't be named, and often can't be prosecuted.

And here's another shocker - most child abuse cases involve unlawful photography and distribution of photographs - and half of those involved in this crime are women! The men get the prison sentences, the women seldom do, because the courts really do try not to send women to prison.

Stephen Ireland is a red herring. He may have been a supporter of trans rights, he was also a paedophile. However your conflation of these separate facts, again is trying hard to portray trans women as paedophiles. Ireland is not a trans woman. It is shabby in the extreme, those facts are not related to each other.

The allegations against Browning are not yet proven. You are just scraping the internet, and yet the case of Nicola Murray wasn't found by you. This is because you weren't scraping for sex abuse cases, you were scraping for trans stories to weaponise.


So I'll press you again for what seems the thousandth time, where is the data that trans women with a GRC commit violent or sexual assaults on women or children?

Now let's have a proper answer from you. Where is the accurate unmolested data?

Monkers, why did you protest when I asked you all those months ago if you were trans? I dont understand. If, as you believe, there's nothing wrong or shameful about being transgender, why did you get so butt hurt?

 

[classic33]

It was a joke. But the truth is, your suggestion that those 'transwomen' don't qualify as women because they dont look womanly enough instantly qualifies you, in the eyes of Trans Rights Activists, as a transphobic bigot. "Trans women don't owe you femininity" is one of their mantras.

Those images are absolutely representative. I could show you a thousand more. Hairy, middle aged, balding blokes in bad wigs. Dressed up in slutty clothing and simping in a mirror. Tell me, how are we to differentiate between porn sick autogynephiles and whatever it is you imagine real transwomen to be? Where's the line?

I've known only one trans person, before and after. I worked in the same place she did. She, along with most of the women there would turn the air blue quicker than any man there. We'd be told to watch it, or else.
The department she worked in was responsible for "birthday greetings"* on the men who worked there. These took the form of being stripped, covered in a mix swarf and swarfega, then wrapped in pallet wrapping before being left outside.
We met again some twenty years later. He came into the shop, and wanted help with a present for a child. He wasn't as heavy, or as well built as I remembered her. Combine that with the suit being worn for work purposes and it was impossible to tell that it was the same person.

The fact he knew me had me wondering then asking how he knew me. It was the things that were talked about, things that you'd have to have been there to know about, that made the penny drop. We caught up, a bit, on what we'd done since the place we both worked at shut, and he left with the childs present. I never asked why or when, although I've wondered to this day about both.
In a work environment where you were always on the watch for people who didn't quite look/behave right(shoplifters), he didn't stand out.

*These were strictly one sided, women on men, and would probably be classed as sexual assaults if the people assaulted dared to report them.

 

[monkers]

Monkers, why did you protest when I asked you all those months ago if you were trans? I dont understand. If, as you believe, there's nothing wrong or shameful about being transgender, why did you get so butt hurt?

There is nothing wrong or shameful in being a trans person. There is everything wrong with intending it as an insult.

It was also astonishingly illiterate. If you say to a woman that to be trans supportive that ''she must trans'', it surely follows Mickle to be cis woman supportive you must be a cis woman.

So it's not a case of being ''butt hurt'', but astonished by your illiteracy, just as I am astonished by your numerical illiteracy. But I shouldn't be astonished because the very purpose of propaganda is to recruit people like you to a political cause.

This is why there is a need to give you the shake that you need. So I'm going to have repeat to you again about the data that you posted re; the number of trans people with a GRC in prison. There are not 1916 trans women prisoners in the UK convicted of sexual offences.

That latest prison data says there are 10 people with a GRC in prison across the whole range of offences. The breakdown of those 10 as trans women or trans men is unknown. But apportioning the number of GRC issued between trans women and trans men, we might assume that 6 are trans women. That's 6 trans women with a GRC in prison across the whole range of offences. Therefore the number of trans women with a GRC for sexual offences can ONLY be in the range 0 to 6. Therefore it is as reasonable a supposition to say that none of them are in prison for sexual offences as it is to say that all six are.

Then there is the point that under the GRA, that trans people with a GRC who commit sexual offences prior to obtaining a GRC are treated as the sex they were at birth.

If you continue to refuse to accept that these memes are propaganda, and just carry on as MAGANDYMORON does, then you will continue to be called out for this illiteracy.

You are entitled to your own opinions of course, but not your own facts.

 

[Psamathe]

But the truth is, your suggestion that those 'transwomen' don't qualify as women because they dont look womanly enough instantly qualifies you, in the eyes of Trans Rights Activists, as a transphobic bigot. "Trans women don't owe you femininity" is one of their mantras.

Except I never suggested the people photographed "don't qualify as women", nothing of the sort.

Why do those presenting the exclusion argument keep claiming I'm saying things I haven't? Impossible to discuss anything.

What is there in

Transwomen dont owe you femininity, you bigot.

that suggests it's a joke, no smiley faces, no "Haha" no hint whatsoever). To me it's throw an insult and then when picked up "Oh, I was only joking".

Ian

 

[AuroraSaab]

It's an indication of how far behind you are in this debate that you didn't know 'Transwomen don't owe you femininity' is a mantra from the trans community. The demand behind it - that any man is a woman simply because he says so - means that your view that:

is actually counter to what trans activists want. They demand acceptance without changing anything.

It's such a common phrase you can even get t shirts with it on. Comes in 2 sizes only, even though sex isn't binary apparently (this is also a joke btw).

What do you think the basis for men being given access to women's spaces should be?
Appearing feminine? Having a GRC? Or just because they say 'I'm a woman'?

 

[Psamathe]

It's an indication of how far behind you are in this debate that you didn't know 'Transwomen don't owe you femininity' is a mantra from the trans community.

Mantra? bit no "you bigot" on the end (as was directed at me).

is actually counter to what trans activists want. They demand acceptance without changing anything.

Now you are switching to talking about "trans activists" where I was talking about Trans women in general. Again switching around misrepresenting what I said.

I'm giving up on this discussion as those arguing pro-exclusion are continually mis-representing what I actually said. I had hoped to get to appreciate the exclusion side of the debate but I find myself being ever more convinced the exclusion is wrong. And sensible discussion is quite impossible when people repeatedly "but you said <something I didn't say atall>"

Pity but bye. Can't discuss when I just get repeated personal insults, continually mis-quoted/min-represented.

Iamn

 

[AuroraSaab]

It's a shame you are choosing to duck out without answering the question as to what your criteria are for men being given access to women's spaces and services. This is the crux of the matter but you seem reluctant to state your opinion other than people should be accommodating of differences. Who should be accommodating? What accommodations should they make? At what cost?