Independent Leyton Orient Forum

True. There is a possibility that a 5'9 and 6'3 pair of women just happened to pair up and sexually assault a 15 year old boy.

But, call it a hunch, I reckon there's a much greater probability that it's two blokes wearing women's clothing.

I agree about the probability (which should give you pause)
but what I mean is that until we find out for sure, the issue that is present whether the attackers actually are men or women is that official policy around gender identity in public facing organisations can mean that descriptions are less than useless.

It’s also a great example of what is meant by “the political erasure of sex” - on an occasion like this where unambiguous clarity is essential to distinguish between keeping eyes out for a big bloke with dyed hair or a woman who is at the tallest 0.003% of women, police are adhering to a policy of using gender identity rather than sex as a descriptor.

The clarifying statement says only “the description came from the victim”, but doesn’t actually even say (using the lingo) “for avoidance of doubt, we are looking for cisgender women”
(it’s also worth noting that particularly progressive teenagers who have been taught “transwomen are women” would not see assault by a transwoman as denoting maleness, and may still report it as a crime by a woman)

Relevant question:
You’re in Sussex today and you note a tall bloke who seems to want to be perceived as a woman.
If I alert the police on the basis that he fits the description as given, is that
A: revealing of my bias against trans women, due to me assuming that despite the description being of women, with no mention of trans, that it was likelier that the attacker is a trans woman than an actual woman?

B: completely understandable, as since “trans women are women”, including male women in my understanding of the term when seeing a description of a sex attacker is totes reasonable, and just shows I’m sharing understanding of terms with the police?

No evidence the attackers were men, lets not jump to conclusions.

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 9:06 am No evidence the attackers were men, lets not jump to conclusions.

Yes, that’s what my first post said.

But, again, police policy is to go with gender identity and not to disclose trans status, so the confusion arises from the fact that the working usage of “women” by police is inclusive of men who believe they’re women.

That, together with the height of one of the assailants, means that in the absence of clarity, it’s impossible to know what sex the attacker actually is

Its the victim who gave the description apparently.

Yes, as I said in my post above.

What isn’t clear is whether the victim was describing gender or sex, or whether the police have adapted the victims words into their “style guide”

Again, for avoidance of doubt - the issue here is not “man, them trannies be pervs” said before we know the sex of the attackers; the issue is “the use of language by public facing organisations doesn’t help victims, because the sex of the people being searched for is unclear. It also doesn’t help trans people, because without using language that clearly, unambiguously makes it clear that the suspects are female, it is legitimate to consider that a 6 foot 3 sex attacker might be male”

It's a shame OFF isn't here, as he could run the betting on the outcome.

I do think you’re correct in your assessment, I just think that going there could - if the assailants are actually female - undermine the point that remains legitimate either way.

Basically “the assailants are male” is the most likely fact behind the unclear language as a result of policy, but the flaw in the policy doesn’t require the assailants to be male for the policy to be a problem; the problem is a policy that means that descriptions of sex attackers don’t actually rule out 50% of the population at a stroke.

In other news, Mermaids just lost in court again…

The descriptions don't mention race/ethnicity either, which is pretty unusual isn't it?

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 9:38 am
Basically “the assailants are male” is the most likely fact behind the unclear language

How is the language unclear? It states unambiguously that the two assailants are women.

TRUMP Plumbing wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 10:40 am

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 9:38 am
Basically “the assailants are male” is the most likely fact behind the unclear language

How is the language unclear? It states unambiguously that the two assailants are women.

Because Sussex police unambiguously has a trans inclusive policy whereby they use claimed gender identity and not sex as the pertinent information as to whether or not somebody is a woman; their definition of “woman” is “person who identifies as a woman”; there is nowhere where they make clear whether there are circumstances where they use “woman” to exclusively refer to adult female people, and in fact the refusal to recognise “woman” as a term to exclusively describe female people is pretty much the crux of feminist opposition to trans activism/policies designed by trans orgs

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 10:44 am whether or not somebody is a woman; their definition of “woman” is “person who identifies as a woman”

Just the way you worded this has me imagining you as Richard Littlejohn in the Stewart Lee sketch about using the term 'prostitute', chiselling away at someone's grave and changing "a loving Mum" to "someone who identified as a loving Mum".

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 10:49 am

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 10:44 am whether or not somebody is a woman; their definition of “woman” is “person who identifies as a woman”

Just the way you worded this has me imagining you as Richard Littlejohn in the Stewart Lee sketch about using the term 'prostitute', chiselling away at someone's grave and changing "a loving Mum" to "someone who identified as a loving Mum".

Yes, trans activism has been successful in creating false equivalences like that, and popularising the idea that male people violating women’s spaces are the oppressed class.
But the thing is, maintaining clarity and consistency of meaning in a context where (as you admit yourself) the lexicon constantly changes and challenges people to keep up, does mean having to be as clear as possible, even when it may seem impolite

Tbf it was genuinely just the wording which brought it to mind rather than intending to make any other kind of point.

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 10:44 am

TRUMP Plumbing wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 10:40 am

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 9:38 am
Basically “the assailants are male” is the most likely fact behind the unclear language

How is the language unclear? It states unambiguously that the two assailants are women.

Because Sussex police unambiguously has a trans inclusive policy whereby they use claimed gender identity and not sex as the pertinent information as to whether or not somebody is a woman; their definition of “woman” is “person who identifies as a woman”; there is nowhere where they make clear whether there are circumstances where they use “woman” to exclusively refer to adult female people, and in fact the refusal to recognise “woman” as a term to exclusively describe female people is pretty much the crux of feminist opposition to trans activism/policies designed by trans orgs

We dont know how they identify as they havent been caught yet.

That’s not very becoming of a moderator, PJ


But yeah, I get where you’re coming from, and I’m not personally a big fan of how discussing these issues requires properly literal, sometimes insensitive language, but ultimately it’s all that’s available when not adopting terms that are contested in the debate

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 11:00 am

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 10:44 am

TRUMP Plumbing wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 10:40 am

How is the language unclear? It states unambiguously that the two assailants are women.

Because Sussex police unambiguously has a trans inclusive policy whereby they use claimed gender identity and not sex as the pertinent information as to whether or not somebody is a woman; their definition of “woman” is “person who identifies as a woman”; there is nowhere where they make clear whether there are circumstances where they use “woman” to exclusively refer to adult female people, and in fact the refusal to recognise “woman” as a term to exclusively describe female people is pretty much the crux of feminist opposition to trans activism/policies designed by trans orgs

We dont know how they identify as they havent been caught yet.

Quite. Which is why how they identify is irrelevant, and police policy should be based on sex and not perceived or reported identity.

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 10:44 am

TRUMP Plumbing wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 10:40 am

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 9:38 am
Basically “the assailants are male” is the most likely fact behind the unclear language

How is the language unclear? It states unambiguously that the two assailants are women.

Because Sussex police unambiguously has a trans inclusive policy whereby they use claimed gender identity and not sex as the pertinent information as to whether or not somebody is a woman; their definition of “woman” is “person who identifies as a woman”; there is nowhere where they make clear whether there are circumstances where they use “woman” to exclusively refer to adult female people, and in fact the refusal to recognise “woman” as a term to exclusively describe female people is pretty much the crux of feminist opposition to trans activism/policies designed by trans orgs

So every time Sussex Police issue a statement, it's ambiguous because of this policy? (A policy that I and most others know nothing about).

I still think not mentioning race is just as big a flaw in the identification process.

TRUMP Plumbing wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 11:29 am

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 10:44 am

TRUMP Plumbing wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 10:40 am

How is the language unclear? It states unambiguously that the two assailants are women.

Because Sussex police unambiguously has a trans inclusive policy whereby they use claimed gender identity and not sex as the pertinent information as to whether or not somebody is a woman; their definition of “woman” is “person who identifies as a woman”; there is nowhere where they make clear whether there are circumstances where they use “woman” to exclusively refer to adult female people, and in fact the refusal to recognise “woman” as a term to exclusively describe female people is pretty much the crux of feminist opposition to trans activism/policies designed by trans orgs

So every time Sussex Police issue a statement, it's ambiguous because of this policy? (A policy that I and most others know nothing about).

I still think not mentioning race is just as big a flaw in the identification process.

When related to sexual offences it’s a specific issue that matters more than in other contexts, because of how significantly different the offending rate is in male and female people. This particular story highlights it further because of the height, which is vanishingly rare in women but not anything like as rare in men, adding to the lack of clarity in this instance.

Agree that not mentioning race is also a problem.

If it turns out that these were a couple of fellas - which given it's a sexual offence and the height of one of the assailants, it seem likely - then yeah, the Police have seriously mucked up with this press release. (I also suspect the reason race hasn't been included is they've got themselves in such a fluster over other matters).

But based on what's out there so far, the release isn't currently ambiguous in my eyes.

It’s not ambiguous in your eyes because you’re using the long existing definition of “woman”, rather than the trans inclusive one used by police.

I agree with you that conclusions shouldn’t be jumped to, but the point remains that based on police policy and how these things are reported, the usage of “women” here includes male people who claim to be women - that’s true regardless of the sex of these suspects

For the record, my guess is that it is actual women in this case, as the attention it’s getting would mean a major shot storm otherwise, so I’d expect clarification

CEB wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 10:24 am In other news, Mermaids just lost in court again…

In other non propaganda news