Here’s a tweet by Jonathan Powles, Vice-Principal and PVC Learning, Teaching and Students at@UniWestScotland (He/him) that provides horrifying insight into the casually reckless attitude of trans rights proponents. “Although it’s implausible.” The whole idea that a predator would use a trans identity to access women’s spaces is ludicrous, according to Jonathan, as he advocates for more rights for those with whom he shares his sex.
Is there anything more terrifying for a woman than to be sexually violated by a man impersonating as a woman? It’s the stuff of nightmares. And yet society is letting this happen to children. Children! All in the name of, hmmm, how does Jonathan Powles (he of the he/him pronoun brigade) put it? Oh yeah — why obsess over an “implausible” “possibility” to the “exclusion” of “compassionate” and “inclusive” LGBT "gender rights”. Whatever the hell those are. These are all his own publicly proclaimed blah blah blah words, may he choke on them. Soon, please. And all those well-platformed and complicit big names, who continue to socially uphold and approve this inhumane insanity? They need to be held accountable. Soon, please.
"Although it's implausible." Why is it that gender identity campaigners (of either sex, frankly) find it so easy to identify WITH female-identifying males, and, yet, are so disinterested in identifying WITH vulnerable girls and women whose formerly sex-segregated spaces, services, and arenas of accomplishment are so under threat from these same males.
It’s one thing to know about many of these cases, and another to see them collected like this. Truly horrifying. Utterly sickening that so many have washed their hands of defending the right of women and children to safety because to do so would be “transphobic”.
People like Stella Creasy, Colm O'Gorman et al are so utterly convinced that they're "the good people," that they can be aware of these horror stories - and they must, on some level be aware of them - yet their primary concern is 'How do we help those who are less enlightened than us to evolve to our exalted level of tolerance and inclusivity?'
They're so high on their own smug, self-regard that the idea of moral self-doubt is impossible. They only dispense moral instruction - they don't need to hear it.
I can't wait for the day all this shit blows up in public and their own twitter-trail is presented back to them as proof of how callous and dumb they were.
It's so dismissive, isn't it? Males attack females and we are socialised in a way to protect ourselves. Whenever something happens, it's always more advice to females about how to look after ourselves better.
The sports issue has gone on and on about MtF still having the strength and advantages of male puberty, if they even transition at all.
The prison issue has highlighted that the rate of offending is still the same.
The AGP issue has highlighted some serious reasons not to let MtF people in female places.
Put that all together and think why are you advocating for this? It's just the same as letting any other males in. It seriously is!
"What is a woman?" Has been a vital question in defending women's rights. I think "what is safeguarding?" is equally important in challenging those standing for "men's rights" because many completely fail to grasp that men who aren't a threat support safeguarding. Men who oppose it will always be suspect.
There is nothing implausible about a male sexual predator assuming a trans identity in order to gain access to female spaces. There is nothing remotely implausible or unusual about men like this making exceptional efforts to get close to the objects of their desire. Claiming to be trans is a comparatively simple strategy, it doesn't involve training in order to enter a specific profession, for example. Powles clearly has no understanding of this kind of behaviour or how strongly motivated sexual predators are.
He can't even consider let alone accept women's legitimate concerns, not only are they not legitimate, they are obsessive and discriminatory. Preventing women from creating and protecting their own spaces and boundaries means we have been forced into hypervigilence regarding who enters them. This is a situation that absolutely should not exist.
Marie Le Conte has aptly described herself as a vulgarian and with that attitude, it fits. It must feel great to throw women and children under the bus to further one's own cause. I would like to reply to Powles and Le Conte's callous and thoughtless remarks:
Women do not obsess about tran people per se, they are extremely worried that their very safety and that of their children is being given away to anyone who claims that they are a woman to gain access to those spaces for whatever means and that includes sexual predation. It is a known fact that men (not all) can be a threat to women and children but we cannot know which ones by just looking at them - this article has but a smaple of those that are out there. The boundaries cannot be blurred to allow some men in as it lets all men in. Those that are not sexual predators and value the safety of women will always stay out of womens spaces, but there are so many that will use it as an opportunity to fulfill their own fetish or to prey on women and children. It removes the right of women to challenge men in their spaces, it removes the right of women to dignity and safety and to belittle such legimate concerns as an "obsession" is beneath contempt.
Mr Powles can't imagine how women feel because he is not a woman. He has never walked home in the dark and been worried about someone walking behind them. He has never been on a tube and had a man rub his crotch against him. He has never had his body remarked on casually by other men as if you are not there. He has never had his arse, breasts or crotch grabbed by a stranger in a pub. He has never been sexually violated by someone he trusted. He should keep his mouth shut until he can show a little compassion for women and Marie Le Conte should know better.
The issue of men abusing self ID to gain access to women's spaces for nefarious purposes is utterly beside the point. The point is that you can't have women's spaces if any man, 'trans' or 'cis', can gain access without question just by saying they're a women.
I haven't seen all of the comments by Powles, as he had me blocked from very early on in his rampage against women's, safety, so I'm relying on screenshot. However, it seems that he is either too unobservant to be in the position he is, or too callous. This oddly romanticised version of men that says some will go to any lengths to get access to girls and women just doesn't hold up. Even without going to a list of the worst cases, he must have known the teenage boys in his classes that would climb ladders, drill holes in shower-room walls, set cameras in changing rooms, to see girls in a state of undress. He must have known the undergraduates that would not take "No" for an answer, get doubles instead of singles at the bar, let their hands "wander" at concerts to get what they thought the "deserved" from young women. He must know the post-graduate teaching assistants who use tutorials to identify young women, often away from home for the first time, who will appreciate some "extra tutoring". He must know the established lecturers and professors that take impressionable new PhD students "under their wing". He has, whether he acknowledges it or not, known men who gave done, and are still doing, this. Some males will do absolutely anything to get to the objects of their sexual desires. They'll spend years becoming priests, counsellors, social workers, doctors and nurses - or university lecturers.
The University of the West of Scotland urgently needs to investigate Powles' for his comments, because he is bringing the organisation into disrepute.
There are crimes, from the smallest infringements, like non payment of a fine, to 1st degree murder. Barring actual rape, by law in the UK, a penis is involved, and every abomination in between, are all committed by women.
Fact.
I know we are capable of committing the most appalling crimes, to other women, men, children and animals. I acknowledge this, everyone acknowledges this, but, being a TRA or a trans woman, or a trans man, reality just evaporates. They seem incapable of considering that rape and assaults ever, or rarely occur, and if, it might happen, it’s rare. Proof is ignored, excuses are made, and denial that the ‘most vulnerable’ among us, would ever do such a terrible thing.
This blinkered and naive attitude, is not only dangerous for women and girls, but eventually, dangerous for those perpetrators, regardless of their identity. The more people become aware, that selfID is being used, I fear any tolerance may soon disappear very quickly.
So an opinion on "plausibility", based on ignorance and lack of concern, is an acceptable substitute for disagreeable facts?
It sounds very much like the fantasy world of benign high society transsexuals with gender reassignment surgery, who have lived as women for 30 or 40 years, that motivated so many men in the House of Lords to vote down an amendment to the Police, Crime etc Bill for excluding men -- as trans-identified males -- from single-sex women's prisons.
Ignorance rules. And closing ranks to protect and privilege men seen as potential "victims" of other violent men trumps women's rights to protection as actual victims of domestic violence by men.
Is there anything more terrifying for a woman than to be sexually violated by a man impersonating as a woman? It’s the stuff of nightmares. And yet society is letting this happen to children. Children! All in the name of, hmmm, how does Jonathan Powles (he of the he/him pronoun brigade) put it? Oh yeah — why obsess over an “implausible” “possibility” to the “exclusion” of “compassionate” and “inclusive” LGBT "gender rights”. Whatever the hell those are. These are all his own publicly proclaimed blah blah blah words, may he choke on them. Soon, please. And all those well-platformed and complicit big names, who continue to socially uphold and approve this inhumane insanity? They need to be held accountable. Soon, please.
"Although it's implausible." Why is it that gender identity campaigners (of either sex, frankly) find it so easy to identify WITH female-identifying males, and, yet, are so disinterested in identifying WITH vulnerable girls and women whose formerly sex-segregated spaces, services, and arenas of accomplishment are so under threat from these same males.
It’s one thing to know about many of these cases, and another to see them collected like this. Truly horrifying. Utterly sickening that so many have washed their hands of defending the right of women and children to safety because to do so would be “transphobic”.
But be good girls and BE KIND, yeah? There’s a dear!
People like Stella Creasy, Colm O'Gorman et al are so utterly convinced that they're "the good people," that they can be aware of these horror stories - and they must, on some level be aware of them - yet their primary concern is 'How do we help those who are less enlightened than us to evolve to our exalted level of tolerance and inclusivity?'
They're so high on their own smug, self-regard that the idea of moral self-doubt is impossible. They only dispense moral instruction - they don't need to hear it.
I can't wait for the day all this shit blows up in public and their own twitter-trail is presented back to them as proof of how callous and dumb they were.
It's so dismissive, isn't it? Males attack females and we are socialised in a way to protect ourselves. Whenever something happens, it's always more advice to females about how to look after ourselves better.
The sports issue has gone on and on about MtF still having the strength and advantages of male puberty, if they even transition at all.
The prison issue has highlighted that the rate of offending is still the same.
The AGP issue has highlighted some serious reasons not to let MtF people in female places.
Put that all together and think why are you advocating for this? It's just the same as letting any other males in. It seriously is!
So annoyed!
"What is a woman?" Has been a vital question in defending women's rights. I think "what is safeguarding?" is equally important in challenging those standing for "men's rights" because many completely fail to grasp that men who aren't a threat support safeguarding. Men who oppose it will always be suspect.
There is nothing implausible about a male sexual predator assuming a trans identity in order to gain access to female spaces. There is nothing remotely implausible or unusual about men like this making exceptional efforts to get close to the objects of their desire. Claiming to be trans is a comparatively simple strategy, it doesn't involve training in order to enter a specific profession, for example. Powles clearly has no understanding of this kind of behaviour or how strongly motivated sexual predators are.
He can't even consider let alone accept women's legitimate concerns, not only are they not legitimate, they are obsessive and discriminatory. Preventing women from creating and protecting their own spaces and boundaries means we have been forced into hypervigilence regarding who enters them. This is a situation that absolutely should not exist.
It's a horrifying list
If it was a list of priests the Boston Globe would dedicate a team to exposing it.
Marie Le Conte has aptly described herself as a vulgarian and with that attitude, it fits. It must feel great to throw women and children under the bus to further one's own cause. I would like to reply to Powles and Le Conte's callous and thoughtless remarks:
Women do not obsess about tran people per se, they are extremely worried that their very safety and that of their children is being given away to anyone who claims that they are a woman to gain access to those spaces for whatever means and that includes sexual predation. It is a known fact that men (not all) can be a threat to women and children but we cannot know which ones by just looking at them - this article has but a smaple of those that are out there. The boundaries cannot be blurred to allow some men in as it lets all men in. Those that are not sexual predators and value the safety of women will always stay out of womens spaces, but there are so many that will use it as an opportunity to fulfill their own fetish or to prey on women and children. It removes the right of women to challenge men in their spaces, it removes the right of women to dignity and safety and to belittle such legimate concerns as an "obsession" is beneath contempt.
Mr Powles can't imagine how women feel because he is not a woman. He has never walked home in the dark and been worried about someone walking behind them. He has never been on a tube and had a man rub his crotch against him. He has never had his body remarked on casually by other men as if you are not there. He has never had his arse, breasts or crotch grabbed by a stranger in a pub. He has never been sexually violated by someone he trusted. He should keep his mouth shut until he can show a little compassion for women and Marie Le Conte should know better.
The issue of men abusing self ID to gain access to women's spaces for nefarious purposes is utterly beside the point. The point is that you can't have women's spaces if any man, 'trans' or 'cis', can gain access without question just by saying they're a women.
I haven't seen all of the comments by Powles, as he had me blocked from very early on in his rampage against women's, safety, so I'm relying on screenshot. However, it seems that he is either too unobservant to be in the position he is, or too callous. This oddly romanticised version of men that says some will go to any lengths to get access to girls and women just doesn't hold up. Even without going to a list of the worst cases, he must have known the teenage boys in his classes that would climb ladders, drill holes in shower-room walls, set cameras in changing rooms, to see girls in a state of undress. He must have known the undergraduates that would not take "No" for an answer, get doubles instead of singles at the bar, let their hands "wander" at concerts to get what they thought the "deserved" from young women. He must know the post-graduate teaching assistants who use tutorials to identify young women, often away from home for the first time, who will appreciate some "extra tutoring". He must know the established lecturers and professors that take impressionable new PhD students "under their wing". He has, whether he acknowledges it or not, known men who gave done, and are still doing, this. Some males will do absolutely anything to get to the objects of their sexual desires. They'll spend years becoming priests, counsellors, social workers, doctors and nurses - or university lecturers.
The University of the West of Scotland urgently needs to investigate Powles' for his comments, because he is bringing the organisation into disrepute.
How dare he.
There are crimes, from the smallest infringements, like non payment of a fine, to 1st degree murder. Barring actual rape, by law in the UK, a penis is involved, and every abomination in between, are all committed by women.
Fact.
I know we are capable of committing the most appalling crimes, to other women, men, children and animals. I acknowledge this, everyone acknowledges this, but, being a TRA or a trans woman, or a trans man, reality just evaporates. They seem incapable of considering that rape and assaults ever, or rarely occur, and if, it might happen, it’s rare. Proof is ignored, excuses are made, and denial that the ‘most vulnerable’ among us, would ever do such a terrible thing.
This blinkered and naive attitude, is not only dangerous for women and girls, but eventually, dangerous for those perpetrators, regardless of their identity. The more people become aware, that selfID is being used, I fear any tolerance may soon disappear very quickly.
So an opinion on "plausibility", based on ignorance and lack of concern, is an acceptable substitute for disagreeable facts?
It sounds very much like the fantasy world of benign high society transsexuals with gender reassignment surgery, who have lived as women for 30 or 40 years, that motivated so many men in the House of Lords to vote down an amendment to the Police, Crime etc Bill for excluding men -- as trans-identified males -- from single-sex women's prisons.
Ignorance rules. And closing ranks to protect and privilege men seen as potential "victims" of other violent men trumps women's rights to protection as actual victims of domestic violence by men.
Patriarchy rules.
I feel this needs plastering on a buildings somewhere Led By Donkeys stylee.