A leading women’s group is warning that ‘women are in danger of being over-represented in violent crime statistics because the police are allowing offenders to choose whether they are recorded as male or female rather than by their biological sex’.
This development, reported in yesterday’s Telegraph, emerged after ‘a vicious assault on London’s transport network in which a man was beaten and suffered a broken eye socket’.
Police described the ‘alleged perpetrators as a group of four women’, but film footage showed four people ‘dressed as women but with the physical appearance and strength of males’.
Far from an isolated incident, Freedom of Information requests from the group Fair Play for Women revealed that 11 police forces ‘allowed people taken into custody to decide the sex by which they were registered’. Furthermore, there are ‘implications for how officers must deal with transgender individuals in custody’, because body searches on biological males who identify as transgender women ‘should be conducted by a female officer even though the majority of transgender individuals are physically male’.
It comes as some relief that the Army, although now allowing some female soldiers to engage in close combat, are introducing a ‘gender-neutral’ fitness test, also reported in yesterday’s Telegraph, which should ensure that only those really fit enough will be able to do so instead of the Army ‘dumbing down’ the tests so they can include an equal number of women in a false demonstration of sexual equality.
This ‘trans madness’ is spreading throughout the public services. On the Fire Brigades Union’s decision to accept as male firefighters who self-identify as females, feminist Julie Bindel concludes in the Telegraph that ‘when the world finally wakes up from this Orwellian madness, and the cowards who have so far been silent on the issue finally dare to speak out, it will become as clear as day that . . . transgender ideology is nothing more than gross misogyny dressed up as progress’.
In this clash of ‘minority’ interests, it seems that women will lose out to men determined to claim their rights as females, sometimes forcefully. It is ironic that during the 1970s, when ‘radical feminists’ called for the rejection of all men, this stance was ‘enthusiastically’ embraced by leading figures in the Gay Liberation Front, who wore dresses and make-up in public as a symbolic rejection of masculinity. It failed to impress lesbian activists.
For reasons that should be obvious, they remain unimpressed. It beggars belief that the Government should even consider allowing individuals to self-identify as the sex of their choice – a ‘private’ decision that not only affects everyone else but puts others in danger. With all the impetus for this ‘madness’ coming from above, enshrined in the 2010 Equality Act and enforced by outlawing criticism as ‘hate crime’, it seems less and less likely that the silent will speak out. More likely is that those who dare to will be silenced.
