TERFs crash London Pride

Rolfe said:
I'm a little surprised nobody has commented on this yet.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/68044...s-days-after-arriving-at-west-yorkshire-jail/




"Her erect penis" - we're not in Kansas any more, Toto. Would someone try to explain why the asserted feeling in this guy's head that he's a woman is sufficient reason to put often vulnerable women prisoners at risk of rape?
Click to expand...
Here's the original comment.

To make my question as clear as possible because I don't write very clearly.

1) adding a male = risk of rape and all other sexual violence
2) adding a female = risk of all other sexual violence but not the specific label rape
3) You get one of the 2 choices above: Which one is more likely to cause harm to the inmate, and is it so significantly worse that we need to prevent the possibility?

Some other thoughts (in prison that we're talking about):
A) Should sexual offenders be kept away from non-offenders? From everyone?
B) Same rules but for violent people?
C) Same rules but only for murders?
D) Same rules but only for rapists?
 
Why do you think there are women's prisons in the first place? Shouldn't all prisoners be housed together anyway?
 
Rolfe said:
It isn't rape. It's sexual assault.

I don't know what your problem is with this. I noted, correctly, that a woman in prison in England could not be raped if there wasn't a man in the prison. That's it. Of course she could be assaulted in some other way, including sexually, by another woman. But she couldn't be raped.
Click to expand...


The legal and standard definition of rape here, and from me, isn't the same as the definition you use or there. I was explaining what rape, that is what actions that are called rape normally and legally here, is called besides rape there (and by you from what I can tell).

I don't know what your problem is with that.
 
tyr_13 said:
The CDC calls both 'forced penetration' and 'made to penetrate' as 'sexual violence', and iirc call both 'rape'. I don't know that there are any states that don't do basically the same; both are 'rape'.
Click to expand...

Just some quick searching and I found this:

https://cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv-datasheet-a.pdf

They seem to place "made to penetrate" in a different category here.

- Approximately 1 in 20 women and men (5.6% and
5.3%, respectively) experienced sexual violence other than rape, such as being made to penetratesomeone else, sexual coercion, unwanted
sexual contact, or non-contact unwanted sexual
experiences, in the 12 months prior to the survey.
- 4.8% of men reported they were made to penetrate
someone else at some time in their lives.
Click to expand...

as well as other places on that page


edit: to be clear, this is just how the CDC categorizes things. Sometimes but not always this will match the legal definitions, if I understand correctly.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Why do you think there are women's prisons in the first place? Shouldn't all prisoners be housed together anyway?
Click to expand...

You're dodging the question. Your concern was the risk of harm (specifically rape) by adding a male. If that's your concern, I'm asking you to justify it.

If your real reason is just that you think males and females (sex not gender) should be separate then whatever, I don't have a strong opinion tbh
 
tyr_13 said:
The legal and standard definition of rape here, and from me, isn't the same as the definition you use or there. I was explaining what rape, that is what actions that are called rape normally and legally here, is called besides rape there (and by you from what I can tell).

I don't know what your problem is with that.
Click to expand...


I don't have a problem with it. You were the one who went off on one screaming that I was wrong, when I was simply describing the situation in the jurisdiction under discussion. "Your mileage may vary" as they say, and that's fine, but using that to attack me for being "spectacularly wrong" (or whichever derogatory term you reached for at that point, I'm losing count) is out of order.
 
Rolfe said:
I don't have a problem with it. You were the one who went off on one screaming that I was wrong, when I was simply describing the situation in the jurisdiction under discussion. "Your mileage may vary" as they say, and that's fine, but using that to attack me for being "spectacularly wrong" (or whichever derogatory term you reached for at that point, I'm losing count) is out of order.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough but surely you can see why your comment could be taken the way it was, since you never said legal/law/local until prodded? Most people aren't talking about the law exclusively.
 
pharphis said:
You're dodging the question. Your concern was the risk of harm (specifically rape) by adding a male. If that's your concern, I'm asking you to justify it.

If your real reason is just that you think males and females (sex not gender) should be separate then whatever, I don't have a strong opinion tbh
Click to expand...


It's already the case that males and females are housed in separate prisons. I don't really think it's up to me to justify that. And yes, I think that this is one of the areas where segregation should by default be by actual sex. That newspaper report is an example of what can happen when the gender agenda is pandered to to the extent of moving an intact male into a women's prison because he says he "feels" female.

This example wasn't about safeguarding the man, it was about validating his feelings. The women in prison were put at risk as part of a treatment plan to support the trans-identifying man in his feelings. This should not be happening.

There may be examples where a post-SRS trans-sexual can't be kept safe in a male prison, although I'd be asking why not, or where it would be a disproportionate punishment for example where someone had transitioned as a child (as in the US case linked to above), where an exceptional case might be made for a prisoner born male to be housed in a woman's prison. That's why I said, by default. Individual cases can then be discussed.

However the idea that any violent male prisoner should be moved to a woman's prison the minute he announces that he identifies as trans, as was certainly mooted for Ian Huntley of all people, is preposterous and poses a huge threat to the women in prison, many of whom are extremely vulnerable and have been abused by men on the outside.
 
pharphis said:
That's fair enough but surely you can see why your comment could be taken the way it was, since you never said legal/law/local until prodded? Most people aren't talking about the law exclusively.
Click to expand...


No, I don't. Where I live, which is in a closely-related jurisdiction to the one under discussion (and in fact I lived in the jurisdiction under discussion for 25 years), that is what the word rape means. It's what everyone understands by the term. Jumping down my throat telling me that I'm spectacularly wrong because it means something more vague where you live, without even checking, is preposterous. America isn't the whole world, nor is it the benchmark by which everything should be judged. This discussion from the get-go has been about events in England.
 
Last edited:
pharphis said:
Aren't women already at risk of rape in prison?
Click to expand...

As a punishment or via guard yes, in the sense of someone doing it for sexual gratification, no. Prison rape isn't what you think it is and the dynamics in a women's versus men's prison are drastically different.

But you know, there is a total shortage of prison related books,films, series, Web series, lectures ,magazines, etc. So I can understand why you wouldn't be able to do a half hour of research on the subject.
 
sadhatter said:
As a punishment or via guard yes, in the sense of someone doing it for sexual gratification, no. Prison rape isn't what you think it is and the dynamics in a women's versus men's prison are drastically different.

But you know, there is a total shortage of prison related books,films, series, Web series, lectures ,magazines, etc. So I can understand why you wouldn't be able to do a half hour of research on the subject.
Click to expand...

so yes?
 
You know, if your best argument is "it isn't legally defined as real rape when we do it", you need to find different arguments.
 
Rolfe said:
I certainly saw a couple of photos of it. It was similar weapons to the things that were exhibited in the San Fransisco library a month or two ago. Maybe the library exhibits inspired their creation, I don't know. It was an overt demonstration from the "punch a TERF" contingent and no attempt was made to prevent it.

I saw a twitter thread where someone was challenging one of the "lesbian with a penis" contingent about this apparent incitement to violence and he started backtracking and claiming it was only symbolic to show these uppity women who was boss, of course nobody would dream of actually using the things, so it was all fine. And besides, it was entirely justified because refusing to recognise a man as a lesbian and even referring to him as "he" is "literal violence" which more than deserves a violent response. It was all pretty unpleasant.
Click to expand...

Pride is a well photographed event so I'm surprised I couldn't find any photos of this (a surprising number of photos of Trump holding a baseball bat turned up though in some versions of the searches I tried :eek:)

I'm also surprised that no media outlet, that I could find, has commented on it. Or that the Met police where ok with people marching with weapons. It is also in violation of Pride's code of conduct:

"2. Pride in London will not tolerate any threatening, violent or offensive behavior against its volunteers, staff, other parade participants, police, security personnel or members of the public."

https://prideinlondon.org/code-of-conduct

So at the least I'd encourage anyone with evidence e.g. photos contacting Pride to inform them of violation of the code as any group doing so shouldn't, and I would think won't, be allowed to march next year.
 
sadhatter said:
As a punishment or via guard yes, in the sense of someone doing it for sexual gratification, no. Prison rape isn't what you think it is and the dynamics in a women's versus men's prison are drastically different.

But you know, there is a total shortage of prison related books,films, series, Web series, lectures ,magazines, etc. So I can understand why you wouldn't be able to do a half hour of research on the subject.
Click to expand...
Women are forced into sexual relationships in female prisons by females who want sex. Yes assault is also used to control and so on but like in male prisons some prisoners want sex and will resort to force to have sex.
 
Mid said:
Pride is a well photographed event so I'm surprised I couldn't find any photos of this (a surprising number of photos of Trump holding a baseball bat turned up though in some versions of the searches I tried :eek:)

I'm also surprised that no media outlet, that I could find, has commented on it. Or that the Met police where ok with people marching with weapons. It is also in violation of Pride's code of conduct:

"2. Pride in London will not tolerate any threatening, violent or offensive behavior against its volunteers, staff, other parade participants, police, security personnel or members of the public."

https://prideinlondon.org/code-of-conduct

So at the least I'd encourage anyone with evidence e.g. photos contacting Pride to inform them of violation of the code as any group doing so shouldn't, and I would think won't, be allowed to march next year.
Click to expand...
First of all let's see the evidence...
 
This video gives a good overview of transgender activist ideology. It helps if you're familiar with Postmodern thought and, I think, with the narcissistic personality structure, in which a fantasy reality is central and not believing the story a narcissist is telling themselves about themselves is experienced as narcissistic injury, i.e. "literal violence" ("misgendering")

Gender is seen as fixed, something unchangeable we are born with, directly equivalent to sexual orientation. Hence gender supersedes biology. A penis can be female, a man a woman, a man a lesbian etc. This crazy, narcissistic worldview is gaining traction in legislation and policy.



'Critically Examining the doctrine of gender identity'

 
Last edited:
Porpoise of Life said:
You know, if your best argument is "it isn't legally defined as real rape when we do it", you need to find different arguments.
Click to expand...

So you're argument is that because women "rape" women in women's prisons, therefore men should be let into women's prisons to rape them as well. Is that what you're saying?
 
You've caught us... Transwomen are the PatriarchyTM's secret plan to infiltrate the Female world with surgically altered spies. We got the idea from watching Avatar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom