Police without pride
Why?
Priti Patel says don’t record crimes by men who claim to be trans as crimes by women in the statistics (for blindingly obvious reasons), and a woman cop who is co chair of the LGBT+ network for cops says well in that case don’t record women as victims? Wtf???
Where does she get the “so” and the “then”? So and then imply logic, or a chain of causation, or something along those lines. But what could such a chain be? Men who claim to be trans are not women, so they should not be recorded as women in the statistics when they commit crimes. That’s obvious. The point of the statistics is to record the truth of who does what to whom. They need to be accurate to do that job. If you make them not accurate by recording the wrong sex on the basis of men’s fantasies, what possible use are they? So men who commit crimes should be recorded as men in the stats, no matter how they say they “identify.”
The same applies to recording women who are victims of crime (as women are all too often) in the stats. You don’t want to mess up the stats by recording fictions. You want to know how many women really are victims of crime…so why would you stop recording them as such because you’re also not recording that men are women in the stats?
Besides sheer idiotic spite, that is. But surely a woman cop wouldn’t stoop to that kind of spite? Surely?
Updating to add: she did explain her thinking. It’s as bad as it appeared.
But the issue is recording men as perpetrators. That’s what Patel is talking about. Obviously men shouldn’t be reported as female victims either, but the issue here is the perps.
And it’s not “erasing” people as people to record their sex accurately. They’re still people and they’re not erased. Police statistics are not about personal whimsical identities, they’re about the basic realities.
This fucking fool shouldn’t be a cop at all.
It’s still susceptible to the religious belief analogy; i.e., not recording Jewish crimes as being committed by God’s chosen people is erasing Jews as people. It’s obviously mad histrionics when we change the context even slightly.
She confused crimes “by” with crimes “against”? I wonder if she’s so caught up in the adoration of the trans ideology that she has trouble even conceiving of crimes “by” trans people.
Confused or not, her suggestion is nonsensical. It reads like “If you’re not going to record transwomen as women, then don’t record women at all”. Some police departments have unfortunately started doing exactly that, if I recall correctly; failing to record the sex of victims or perpetrators.
It’s bizarre when the fictional cops of “Unforgotten” command more respect than actual UK police.
I’ve been encountering this childish tit-for-tat game of “Well if you won’t recognize trans identities then we won’t recognize YOUR identity as a woman either Nyah nyah how does it feel when it happens to YOU huh huh huh?” They either don’t get it, or their thinking is really that shallow.
If transwomen are recorded as women when they’re VICTIMS then how are they going to be able to wave these statistics around? Surely the fact that in England it’s something like 2 transwomen murdered per year has nothing to do with this choice.
If Trans identities are valid at all, then both trans victims and trans perpetrators should be counted separately and distinctly from the dreaded Cis. After all, we do track crimes by distinct identity categories for the purposes of statistics with other groups. But trans activists are utterly opposed to any attempt to quantify their alleged oppression.