John Simmonds

Just as most men aren't rapists, voyeurs or domestic abusers, so there are plenty of trans women who pose no risk to women and girls. However, some trans-identified men provably are a risk. We know this because it's a matter of public record. Trans women have been convicted of all the crimes listed above, and of femicide. No study has ever proven that trans-identified men don't have the same pattern of criminality as every other kind of man. All available evidence points the other way: they are just as likely as any other man to be a rapist or a woman-killer. The evidence is plain to see in government statistics and court reports, however much you'd like to pretend none of those exist. Demanding that women and girls pretend there is no risk to themselves, which you do constantly, is itself abusive. Your insistence that you belong in women-only spaces, and your pretence that the likelihood of harm to females in those spaces doesn't increase with every man who's allowed inside, mark you out as precisely the kind of man who should be nowhere near women's and girls' locker rooms. Decent men, however they identify, respect women's boundaries. Even if they themselves would never dream of harming a girl or woman, they are under no illusions about what some of their fellow men will do if given access to spaces where women and girls are undressed or otherwise vulnerable. As for women who commit terrible crimes: I have literally never heard any woman deny that Myra Hindley, Karla Homolka or Joanna Dennehy are female. Nor have I ever seen a woman argue that being a woman entitles them to enter spaces reserved for vulnerable people, without having a professional or family-related reason for being there. Yet another difference between women and trans-identified men of your type is that the former aren't demanding, en masse, the right to go where they clearly don't belong - for instance, into a nursery where they have neither a child nor a job, or onto an intensive care ward when they know nobody and have no medical qualifications, purely because they consider themselves to be especially kind and nurturing. Even if such an interloper didn't hurt a child or a critically ill person, women as a class understand how inappropriate it would be to push themselves into those spaces and just how much justified disquiet they'd cause by doing so. The entitlement and disregard you show for the feelings and boundaries of women and girls are of those of an unfortunately all-too-common type of male. You believe you have the right to demand that women sacrifice their own personal safety to validate your feelings about yourself. You're either indifferent to the fact that you might make women and girls uneasy at best, and scared at worst, or you're well aware that you'll have that effect, and the thought gives you a thrill. Nothing about that makes you a woman. On the contrary, you just keep proving, over and over again, that you are a man.

Every glib, arrogant, virtue-signalling celebrity who’s broadcast the lie that kids will kill themselves if not allowed to transition deserves to have this read aloud to them non-stop through a megaphone for a year.

I see that Stella Creasy is accusing me of leading a pitchfork mob against her, because I opined that she is less likeable and more hypocritical than the wild parakeet she mistook for an escaped pet. For those who don’t know, Creasy is an elected politician and self-proclaimed ‘old-fashioned feminist’ who is ‘still fighting the patriarchy’. She’s more than once publicly defined herself against me (and my reaction was not to accuse her of leading a mob, even though I was probably averaging a dozen death threats a day at the point when the article below appeared.) I thought it might be instructive for those of us who don’t share Creasy’s brand of ‘feminism’ to examine her campaigning record, so we can learn to do better. Creasy wants women admitted to the male-only, exclusive, London-based private members Garrick Club, a change that would benefit rather privileged women like Creasy. Creasy is a mother who wants better accommodations for working mothers, a change that would benefit Creasy. Creasy takes selfies at a men-only Muslim march because that reminds everyone how non-racist she is, which benefits Creasy. Creasy asserts that ‘trans women are women’, which keeps her in good odour with her party’s most aggressive activists, and benefits Creasy. However, keeping cross-dressing heterosexual men out of nurses’ changing rooms doesn’t benefit Creasy, because Creasy has never had to mop up other people’s piss, blood and vomit at work. Challenging the notion that a male basketball player becomes a girl if he says he is doesn’t benefit Creasy, who has no sporting ambitions. Speaking up against the patriarchy as practised by non-white men doesn’t benefit Creasy, who wants those selfie-opportunities. Criticising an ideological movement that persecutes, harasses and openly threatens women who don’t believe some women have penises wouldn't benefit Creasy, because she's already fully-signed up to self-id, where any man who says he's a woman must be taken at his word. As the late Gloria Steinem said: ‘“Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere.’ Creasy the patriarchy-challenger is provably more than happy to cosy up to men and misogynist movements when it suits her public profile and career advancement, no matter the harms those men might be causing less privileged women. By Steinem’s definition, what Stella espouses is not feminism, but Creasyism, and I suggest the emblem for this brave new rights movement should be an indignant parakeet with severely ruffled feathers. telegraph.co.uk/women/life/s…