Former Head of the Sexual Offences Section and Homicide Prevention Unit at New Scotland Yard here. Serial killer Peter Sutcliffe was enabled by the police due to their own misogyny and Levi Bellfield was just like these three teenage r@pists. Neither of them started with murder. Both serial killers were allowed to escalate because the system and those in it failed to stop them. In fact, it protected and enabled them just like these teenage r@pists. NOTHING has been learned in 50 years. Take action now:
✍️ SIGN the petition:
ACCOUNTABILITY matters:
https://t.co/dtkHwksNlM
✍️ WRITE to your MP, Justice Secretary David Lammy, PM Keir Starmer and AG Richard Hermer. Template letters in BIO. Use them:
https://t.co/rDcoYnEaIJ
💜 JOIN the Crime Analyst Squad to rally and for more knowledge, insight, support and advocacy: https://t.co/rMI8Pd4wDm
#CrimeAnalyst #expert #Accountability #Misogyny #MaleViolence @laurarichards99
Good morning,
I hope you’re all well.
Someone gave me an idea last night & a dramatic re-enactment of recent events revolving around the Fire Brigades Union appeared!
It’s authentic & has the (now spiced up) musical interlude!
I hope it brings some much needed laughs.
Enjoy!
@nyaraVT You're free to identify however you like, dress however you want and call yourself whatever you please. The verifiable reality of binary sex will remain unaffected.
Being biologically female means having a body that is observably organised to produce large gametes (eggs), as opposed to a body organised to produce small gametes (sperm). A woman is female whether her eggs have been fertilised or not. A man can never be female.
The female sex class has specific needs and issues, and the job of addressing these needs and issues at a political level is almost always given to a female. When such a female chooses not to defend women’s rights, because it would endanger their own personal status, that is worthy of comment.
Of course it’s true that many men are in thrall to gender ideology too, but by definition, being men, they’ve never needed the rights they now seek to dismantle. A woman, though - unless she’s been unusually sheltered from birth - knows from her own life experience how important those hard won rights are, because she’ll have benefited from them. If she then achieves the kind of power and/or economic security that mean she has no personal need for state-run single-sex spaces and services, but uses her platform to decree that women without her protections no longer need what she herself used and took for granted, she is guilty of a particularly egregious hypocrisy.
I see Nicola Sturgeon is once again complaining that I posted a picture of myself wearing a T-shirt with her name on it and the legend 'Destroyer of Women's Rights.' Apparently this didn't 'elevate the debate.'
Is there a clinical term for an individual who has extreme thinness of skin when it comes to their own perceived hurts, coupled with a rhino-hide when it comes to the fear and suffering of others?
I'm thinking in particular of the two women Isla Bryson raped, who had to watch their First Minister squirm and smirk on TV as she tried to avoid admitting he was a man; of the five survivors of male violence who were ready to give evidence to Sturgeon's committee on gender self-ID, but were told to put their concerns in writing while seventeen trans-identified people appeared in person; of the mother of a young girl with a learning disability who campaigned against self-ID because she wanted her daughter to be guaranteed same sex intimate care, should she need it (the mother was presumably one of those female opponents Sturgeon calls 'shrill' and 'hysterical' in her memoir); of the ten-year-old girl sexually assaulted in a public bathroom by a 6'5" paedophile who served his jail sentence in a women's prison because he called himself 'Katie'; of Sandie Peggie, forced to discuss her own menstrual history in public to justify not wanting to undress in view of a 6ft straight cross-dresser in the nurses' changing room; of Marion Millar, dragged into court because she tweeted a picture of suffragette ribbons; of the Scottish rape crisis centres reliant on government funding who were pressured to admit trans-identified males into their services if they wanted funding to continue.
When Sturgeon refers to an 'elevated debate', she means a discussion that takes place within a tiny, smug bubble from which regular women suffering real life consequences of her policies are firmly excluded. These faceless ants are loftily dismissed as bigots, or, to be more precise: 'transphobic, misogynistic, homophobic, maybe racist as well.'
Nicola, you hated the T-shirt picture because you couldn't ignore it, as you'd ignored so many other women trying to make you understand their concerns. Appeals to your empathy, your intelligence and your compassion all failed. Apparently the only way to get through to you is through your vanity.
Yes, the people who call themselves 'trans' exist and they deserve exactly the same rights as everyone else, which, fortunately, they already have in the UK. It would rightly be considered discrimination if a person was refused employment, housing or the vote because they identified as trans.
'Trans women are women' is a thought-terminating cliché. Men are not women. That doesn't mean they're not allowed to present themselves however they like, call themselves whatever they like and believe whatever they like about themselves. It means they haven't changed sex.
If we replace the objective, observable characteristic of sex with the unfalsifiable concept of gender identify, women and girls lose, among other things, their right to fair and safe sport and women-only spaces, including changing rooms, prison cells and rape crisis services.
Women and girls are provably more vulnerable to forms of abuse including sexual assault, harassment and voyeurism in mixed-sex spaces. There is no evidence that trans-identified men don't have exactly the same rates of criminal offending as all other men.
Trans people exist. I have no desire for them not to exist; indeed, I wish them safety, happiness and health. However, 'existence' does not, and should not, mean the violation of other people's right to privacy, dignity and freedom of speech, or the reconfiguration of society to indulge a fallacy.
Matchday competition
Win a Cherki Tshirt
Retweet to enter
If City beat Chelsea today and Cherki scores we'll give away a T-shirt to a follower who retweets
Good luck and cmon City
Can't wait? Grab your T-shirt here https://t.co/eqhqoWmgCY
Introducing: The Citizens Trust - Manchester City Supporters' Union
City are one of few clubs in the Football League without a supporters trust advocating for our fans. Today, we put that right 🩵
Become a member for an early-bird rate of just £5 at https://t.co/Ey0RCPPCZ9
Caster Semenya only appears to be an elite athlete because Caster Semenya is a male who has been misclassified as female.
Many thousands of males would appear to be elite athletes if they were classified into the female category.
This does not mean those thousands of males would or should be elite athletes if they were classified into the male category.
There is precisely no reason to believe that these males would or should be able to keep up with elite males.
Trying to argue or prove that individuals like Caster Semenya do not have male advantage because they do not put in elite male track times is bizarre.
I have no idea where this leap of non-logic comes from or why sensible people cannot see the glaring gaps in the premise.
And there is even less reason to argue that Semenya et al must be female because they don't run like elite males. This is clearly a batshit assertion.
(Reposted as a standalone)
On this “Trans Day Of Visibility” please remember that the only possible way for a man to be a woman is if he changes the definition of what a woman is.
Woman's Hour on BBC Radio 4 has discussed 'toxic masculinity' against the backdrop of Louis Theroux's Netflix documentary Manosphere with ... a cross-dressing man who talked about the 'misogyny' he experiences