In no way a predatory male
A Scottish man who identifies as transgender has been found guilty of raping two women, and will be held in a women’s prison for up to a month while awaiting sentencing.
That’s nice. So sensitive, so compassionate, so generous – to the man who raped two women. It’s not so sensitive and compassionate and generous to the women in that prison, who aren’t there for raping women.
Adam Graham, 31, began identifying as a woman after he committed the sexual offenses and now goes by “Isla Bryson.” He has been referred to with feminine pronouns both in court and in UK media coverage, and court documents had charged Graham with raping the women with “her penis.”
Here he is showing off said penis:
Oddly enough women don’t wear their hair covering their faces, because they prefer to be able to see where they’re going.
During the trial, Graham was called “vulnerable,” and the defending counsel argued that the he was “in no way a predatory male.” Defending him at the High Court in Glasgow, lawyer Edward Targowski was heard comparing Graham to his victims, claiming that all three individuals involved in the case should be considered “vulnerable,” including the rapist.
It could be true that Graham is “vulnerable” in some sense or senses, but that doesn’t nullify his raping two women. Unmistakably the two women were vulnerable to him in a way that he was not vulnerable to them.
Targowski also leveraged Graham’s self-declared transgender status in his defense, as reported by The Daily Mail, and told the court: “She is transitioning from male to female gender. If you accept that evidence, that she is transitioning, that she is aiming to continue on that path to becoming female gender, that goes a long way to acquitting her of these charges.”
Excuse me??? No it doesn’t. Rape is rape even if it’s a guy called Betty who does it.
But he’s carrying a purse! How could you possibly think he’s a male? And he’s wearing lipstick! No male rapist would do that just to be put in women’s prison, or acquitted!
Got, these people make me sick. How is it possible people can’t see that a rapist, who raped two women, should not be in women’s prison?
There are plenty of “vulnerable” male prisoners – eg those convicted of paedophilia, or former policemen, or former gang members. They are in danger from the other prisoners. Sometimes they are kept in special wings or in solitary. They are not sent to women’s prisons.
The only thing I can think of is the defense attorney trying to say “my client didn’t commit the rape because c’mon, how likely is it that someone who’s planning to cut it off would do such a thing?”
Then what’s the point of transitioning? If transitioning doesn’t acquit you of the rapes that you committed, shouldn’t you get your money back from the doctors?
Liar.
If a rapist is not a predatory male, then who possibly could be?
The courts and society should not fall for the complete fallacy that men who say they are women should somehow be forgiven, or excused, for their male pattern aggression. Far from being pampered and accommodated, these men should be denied the right to even change their names, because the purpose is to fraudulently hide their criminal record.
Police, courts and the media shouldn’t be indulging them by using their preferred goddamn pronouns. These insitutions shouldn’t be allowing themselves to be used for hits of “validation” for these suspects/offenders/whatever. Once again, we see not equal treatment but special treatment for TiMs. How far would a defendent get demanding to be called “Doctor” or “Professor” or “Your Grace” during proceedings, even though they do not merit the titles outside the courtroom? Not far. Yet TiMs have none of the “qualifications” to be called “she.” They’re male. How is it that respecting pronouns becomes a matter of policy? “Pampered and accommodated” indeed. Why this elevated degree of courtesy? Except it’s not simply a matter of courtesy, because everyone else is compelled to join the charade, to mouth the lie that men can be women. Why is it that TiMs are being granted this extra consideration, an unearned deference and respect that is giving the accused a kind of control that is just a continuation of the original offence? Enforcement of pronoun usage in court amounts to judicially sanctioned revictimization of women forced to refer to their male assailants as “she” and “her”. The courts have no business doing this; they are in contempt. Court should not be turned into a tool employed to compel affirmation and validation for narcissists, especially from women there to seek justice. They should not be forced to participate in the delusions of their attackers.
Trans activists themselves should be resisting the urge to embrace these obviously opportunistic thugs as “trans siblings.” But of course they can’t do that because it’s impossible to tell the difference between opportunstic thugs and “genuine” TiMs. To admit such a distinction would be to acknowledge that women were right when they warned this would happen. Solidarity with predators is better than losing face and having to concede that women were right when they predicted that sex offenders would take advantage of self ID to do exactly this. A blanket ban on all men would increase women’s safety. But no. That is too much. Keeping all males out means keeping TiMs out too. For TiMs preventing the collateral damage suffered by women under self-ID is less important than retaining full access to women’s spaces. This is the inevitable destination of current trans activism that feminists saw coming. The “nose of the camel” of trans demands to just “go pee” has turned into a bloody huge fucking whale.
Maria Mclaughlin was denied compensation by the court from the man who violently assaulted her, because she refused to call the man “she” in court.
He was convicted, but compensation was denied on those ‘grounds’.
‘Oddly enough women don’t wear their hair covering their faces, because they prefer to be able to see where they’re going.’
And to spot any potential predators in the vicinity.