• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Transwomen are not women - X (XY?)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rolfe said:
Because, as a retired former governor of Cornton Vale, she understands the issues.
Click to expand...

She understands that you seem to think female prison officers and OSGs only deal with female prisoners? Whereas the facts are that female officers and OSGs work in male prisons and deal with male prisoners as part of their everyday and night work.
 
No, there are nuances that your blind determination to defend the Sacred Trans at all costs tends to overlook.
 
Elaedith said:
People are cognitive misers who don't want to have to defend ideas by debate unless they are forced to. People want to say that their idea is correct because it is the one favoured by their 'tribe' and not by the outgroup. People want to denounce heretics and punish them for speaking the wrong narrative, rather than have to debate them. One way to achieve all of this is to just claim you are self-evidently correct because you claim to be supporting the interests of an oppressed minority, and that makes anyone who challenges your claim a bigot. You then don't have to examine their evidence, because the evidence is obviously biased since it supports the wrong conclusion.
Click to expand...
Thankfully, we hardly ever see this sort of thing in forums like this one, where people are sincerely dedicated to examining evidence with an open mind. :cool:
 
This is a very good article indeed.

When a Legal Fiction Becomes a Legal Lie

The Working Group estimated there were no more than 2,000 male to female “transsexuals” in the UK at the time of reporting and fewer than 400 female to males. Those who would “change sex” were seen as a very small cohort who could thus be accommodated fairly easily.

A commitment to lengthy and painful surgery, the Court noted, was a convincing rebuttal to any claim that decision to “transition” was made “arbitrarily” or “capriciously.” It would also deal with some of the immediate problems in recognising a change of legal sex. See paragraph 91: “As Lord Justice Thorpe observed in the Bellinger case, any “spectral difficulties”, particularly in the field of family law, are both manageable and acceptable if confined to the case of fully achieved and post-operative transsexuals.”

So the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was a product of the Goodwin judgment, where the UK was unanimously found in breach of the claimants’ fundamental human rights But it was drafted in an environment where the number of male to female “transsexuals” was small, and involved individuals who were keen to present as the opposite sex. The emphasis in various court judgments around the world, was very much on the anxieties and right to “personal freedom” of the “transsexual”; there appears to be no similar consideration of the impact on the safety and dignity of biological women who would be compelled to comply with the legal fiction that the male body next to theirs was really a woman.

[fast-forward snip]

The landscape has utterly changed from the 2000 report, where only about 2,000 sic “transwomen” and 400 sic “transmen” were estimated to exist. But the language used to promote the rights of such individuals to their own “personal freedom” remains unchanged, and the impact on women continues to be ignored by many. This is despite the pressures on women becoming ever more serious and potentially harmful by the increasing numbers of the cohort who reject “sex” in favour of “gender identity.”

The arguments to support the creation of a “legal fiction” that a man could become a woman in 2004 may have reflected the situation of those times. But this legal fiction has now become a harmful and unsustainable legal lie which is going to put women and girls at risk of serious harm. The balance required to protect and respect the personal freedoms of all is now seriously out of kilter and must be restored before even greater harm is done. Sex does not always matter—but when it does matter, it really matters. Societies will ignore this at their peril and at the cost of the dignity and safety of women and girls.
Click to expand...


Legislation allowing for a "kind" legal fiction to be adopted by a very small number of committed people with severe body dysmprphia has been comprehensively hijacked by a motely crew of narcissistic autogynaephilic men, teenage girls who don't want to be women and the sort of parents who would have been parading "indigo children" a couple of decades ago.

Lip service is still being paid to the distressed transsexual in that we are being required to believe that every one of these kooks, fruitcakes and disturbed children is of that demographic. Nobody asked whether women consented to giving up their protected spaces to that tiny number of distressed men in the first place. Our nervous acquiescence in that is now being weaponised. Whenever women object to what's being done, we're told "this is nothing new, transwomen have been able to access female-only spaces for decades, so your objection is invalid."

Is this a bait-and-switch? Or is it the boiled frog analogy? It's certainly gaslighting, to insist that the only brand of "transwoman" is the type of person the GRA was addressing and that the current crop of kooks, weirdos and porn-addled kiddie-fiddlers must be given all the privileges originally devised (without asking women, or considering any possible risk to women) for the former, tiny, group.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
She understands that you seem to think female prison officers and OSGs only deal with female prisoners? Whereas the facts are that female officers and OSGs work in male prisons and deal with male prisoners as part of their everyday and night work.
Click to expand...

In fairness to Darat, I don't think this is a winning issue. If you as a female prison officer don't want to work with male inmates, you have the option to quit.

But it's also a stupid argument for Darat to be making, because prison inmates have no choice in the matter, and they're put at far greater risk. It's frankly unconscionable that the system would ever even consider housing Bryson with other female prisoners. The risks are obvious and severe, and the justification is non-existent. Darat's objection to the prison guard issue is a pointless nitpick.
 
Female prison officers working in the male estate are there voluntarily, and will not be required to carry out intimate searches on male prisoners. That's an entirely different matter from female prison officers working in the female estate, whose job does not involve dealing with male prisoners, being required to deal with a double rapist and treat him as a woman to the point where they will be required to carry out intimate searches on him.

ETA: The point about the prison warders was made in relation to the claims that Graham/Bryson is being held in a segregated facility within Cornton Vale. Even if this were the case, prison warders whose job does not normally require them to deal with male prisoners (Katie Dolakowski excepted, cough, cough) are not only going to have to be in contact with him, they will have to deal with him as they would deal with a female prisoner up to and including intimate body searches. No male colleagues to call on if things get out of hand either.

However, there is only one segregation unit at Cornton Vale, and this is where all prisoners who are segregated are placed - transwomen, pregnant women, women with severe mental health issues etc. It's like putting Billy Bunter in a sweetie shop, except the sweeties are already-traumatised women.

Reacting to the pressure being put on her about this, Nicola Sturgeon said this afternoon that Graham/Bryson will be moved away from Cornton Vale within 72 hours. (I think that was always going to happen anyway.) She has not said where he will be moved to. Although Cornton Vale - which is due to close for refurbishment quite soon anyway - is the only women-only prison in Scotland, there are separate women's wings in other prisons too. Greenock for one. What we have been given no assurance at all about is whether Graham/Bryson is actually going to be moved to the male prison estate. Smart money is on two-faced Nicola simply moving him within the women's estate and hoping everybody just forgets all about it.

ETA again: Here's the actual clip of what Rhona Hotchkiss said. It's about the requirement for female prison warders to perform intimate body searches on male-bodied criminals. I thought Darat might have realised that.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Female prison officers working in the male estate are there voluntarily, and will not be required to carry out intimate searches on male prisoners. That's an entirely different matter from female prison officers working in the female estate, whose job does not involve dealing with male prisoners, being required to deal with a double rapist and treat him as a woman to the point where they will be required to carry out intimate searches on him.

...snip...
Click to expand...

No they won't.
 
Yes they will, that is the point.

Did you actually listen to what Rhona Hotchkiss said before you snipped the link out of the quote?
 
Darat said:
So why are you saying they will be conducting intimate searches of a trans woman? :confused:
Click to expand...

Because they will.

For better clarity, Rolfe should have written "Yes they will, that is the point." You seem to have confused the "yes" to be agreement with your prior post, when she was contradicting your "No they won't".
 
In the UK:

"Intimate searches

Prison officers are not allowed to conduct intimate searches.

An intimate search is defined as intrusion into a bodily orifice. For example, using hands to search your mouth or other private areas of your body.

Searching staff may look into your mouth during a rub down or full search."

Link which from the charity Prison Reform Trust
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Are you claiming someone other than prison officers do these searches, or that they aren't done at all?
Click to expand...

Prison officers aren't allowed to carry out intimate searches, in the UK intimate searches are highly controlled and can only be carried out in very limited circumstances, and even if a prisoner was willing to consent to an intimate search a prison officer couldn't carry it out. It's so much so that if for example as part of a different kind of search something was seen extruding from a intimate cavity a prison officer could not remove that.

https://www.insidetime.org/wp-content/uploads/resources/PSI/psi-67-2011-searching-person.pdf
....
"Intimate Searches 26. 27. An intimate search is defined as intrusion into a bodily orifice. The NSF does not permit prison officers to conduct intimate searches as they do not have the legal powers to do so. Prisoners who have secreted contraband internally may have clinical needs which require a healthcare professional to conduct an intimate examination on medical grounds. These must only be carried out with the prisoner‟s consent. Medical practitioners will not carry out intimate examinations for anything but clinical need. "​
....
Click to expand...

Also see: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/searching-policy-framework

ETA: Easier to digest version: https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/adviceguide/searching-of-the-person
 
Last edited:
Oh, I see, we're back to the usual Darat ploy of quibbling over semantics to win a point.

Just listen to Rhona Hotchkiss.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom