• 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.
GlennB said:
An intimate search is defined as intrusion into a bodily orifice.
Click to expand...

OK. But that's not what most people mean by the term. Most people would consider a strip search to be "intimate", I certainly did. And as things stand now, female guards will be required to do strip searches of male inmates. So the problem doesn't go away with the exclusion of this specific subset.

ETA: in the US, this sort of search isn't generally called an "intimate search", it's called a body cavity search.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
OK. But that's not what most people mean by the term. Most people would consider a strip search to be "intimate", I certainly did. And as things stand now, female guards will be required to do strip searches of male inmates. So the problem doesn't go away with the exclusion of this specific subset.

ETA: in the US, this sort of search isn't generally called an "intimate search", it's called a body cavity search.
Click to expand...

I was just pointing out the official/legal meaning of the word in this context. It seemed that there was an ongoing squabble where one poster was using the colloquial meaning and another the legal meaning. I mean, if I were in prison and a prisoner officer told me to take off my trousers and underpants as part of a search, I wouldn't be able to object on the grounds that it would constitute an 'intimate search'.
 
You know how, when you go through security at the airport and the thing bleeps, they have two people standing waiting on the other side. And if you're a man the man steps forward, and if you're a woman the woman steps forward. And they just pat you down. Well even that is intimate enough that they make provision for same-sex searches.

You think female prison officers should even be forced to "pat down" a man who has been convicted on two counts of rape?
 
Rolfe said:
You know how, when you go through security at the airport and the thing bleeps, they have two people standing waiting on the other side. And if you're a man the man steps forward, and if you're a woman the woman steps forward. And they just pat you down. Well even that is intimate enough that they make provision for same-sex searches.

You think female prison officers should even be forced to "pat down" a man who has been convicted on two counts of rape?
Click to expand...

No, I think that prisoner has no business being in a woman's prison or woman's section of a mixed prison. Just as I think transwomen have no business in the ladies' changing rooms down at the pool, etc.

I was commenting on the meaning of the word 'intimate' in the context of prison searches.
 
Yes, I realise that. It was more of a general "you" aimed in the approximate direction of people who were insisting that it is really quite OK for female prison officers to have to deal with a male rapist in a women's prison on exactly the same terms as they routinely deal with female prisoners.
 
Apparently Graham/Bryson is now in the men's wing at Saughton. Which is a pretty rough joint according to someone who was in there recently. Boo hoo.
 
GlennB said:
I was commenting on the meaning of the word 'intimate' in the context of prison searches.
Click to expand...
I think it shouldn't be too hard to distinguish the context of UKian law about prison searches from the context of lay discussion of intimate searches generally.

This thread has never been about accurate use of legal technical jargon, but about how human beings think and feel and behave.

Also, between this and "rape means only penile penetration", UKian law is bizarrely and gratuitously restrictive in its definitions of generally-agreed-upon concepts.

"A pat-down of my genital area is a pretty intimate thing."

"Not according to UKian law. Checkmate, prude!"

It takes a mind-boggling degree of cognitive dissonance to hold that the same act can be both sexual assault and also not particularly "intimate".
 
Last edited:
UKian law is bizarrely and gratuitously restrictive in its definitions of generally-agreed-upon concepts.
Click to expand...


I don't agree that this is either bizarre or generally-agreed-upon. It may be a cultural thing, but in Britain when anyone talks about rape they are generally talking about non-consensual penile penetration. It's not just the legal definition, it's what people mean by the word. Hence the startled reactions on Twitter to people piling in declaring that "women can rape too you know!" (Yes women can be convicted of rape, but as accessories or in terms of joint enterprise to a rape committed by a man - for example holding the victim down and egging the rapist on.)

I personally do not like this pressure to expand the definition of rape to cover other forms of sexual assault. These other forms of sexual assault are already criminal offences (e.g. "assault by penetration") and there is no need to fold them into the category of rape for the law to deal with them adequately. To my mind this is another ploy by those who want to play down the seriousness of actual rape, and its effect on the victim. Being penetrated non-consensually by an erect penis with a thrusting man on the other end of it is a horror all of its own, and robbing the word "rape" of that horror by applying it to other things is not in my opinion a positive development.
 
"Actual rape is when a man sexually assaults someone with his penis" just seems weirdly sexist to me. Do we really need a specialist term for this one specific form of sexual assault that only men with penises can do? I don't think so.
 
Rolfe said:
Oh, I see, we're back to the usual Darat ploy of quibbling over semantics to win a point.

Just listen to Rhona Hotchkiss.
Click to expand...

I’m using the established meaning of the term, the way the prison services, police, medical professionals, United Nations and so on all use. If you want to use your own unique redefinition feel free to do so but I suspect it will only confuse people.
 
Rolfe said:
…snip..

You think female prison officers should even be forced to "pat down" a man who has been convicted on two counts of rape?
Click to expand...

Who thinks they should?

ETA: For folks who don’t know prison officers and OSGs are not forced to to carry out searches on prisoners, whether intimate or not, it’s quite common to have some prison staff to not do searches at all and for some to opt out on a case by case basis.

And for those who go “what happens if no one wants to do a search on a prisoner”, that can happen especially on night shifts and the search will wait until more staff came on in the morning.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Who thinks they should?

ETA: For folks who don’t know prison officers and OSGs are not forced to to carry out searches, whether intimate or not, it’s quite common to have some prison staff to not do searches at all.
Click to expand...


Please Darat! Don't let actual facts and expert views get in the way of the "Reefer Madness" hyperbole and transgender denialism for which this bin fire of a thread has become justly infamous! :thumbsup:
 
Darat, I'm not even getting into the war of semantics with you.

What I really think about this is that gay men who are defending the Sacred Trans should probably step back and think about what they're doing. Way back when, sections of the gay movement were suckered into teaming with "minor attracted persons" on the grounds that they were also disapproved of by society. It took some time to disentangle that and to shake off the perception that gay men were paedophiles.

Now the forced teaming is with the trans, and specifically with trans-identifying men. This is not a rational teaming, because trans is not a sexual orientation. Most trans-identifying men are heterosexual, that is gynaephilic. (It's in the name. Autogynaephilia.) This is becoming a cover for all sorts of questionable practices from sterilising children to allowing men to compete in women's sports to calling rapists "she". Many of these men are porn-addled and with open kinks such as tampon fetishism. Stonewall is completely in thrall to them, having in 2015 chosen to take up the trans cause rather than wind itself down with dignity when the equal marriage laws were passed.

Many people are now spotting this. Decades of good work in making homosexuality and homosexual couples a normal part of society are being undone by the forced teaming with the T. Gays are again in some circles being associated with hypersexualised kink and fetish, and the premature sexualisation and hypersexualisation of children. Because this is all happening in the name of "LGBT rights", even though the whole thing is being driven by the T.

That's what I think. Just so you know.
 
It gets better.

First we had the early-evening news that while Graham/Bryson was on bail awaiting trial for rape he enrolled in and attended a three-month beauty course at a college in Ayrshire. He enrolled as "Isla Bryson" and the college had no idea he was facing rape charges - they wouldn't have been able to find out because he was charged as Adam Graham. This is a course where the students are almost all young women - considerably younger than Graham/Bryson. Part of the course work involves the students applying makeup to each other. I wonder whether he was wearing that wig? It would seem impossible that anyone could have applied makeup to him without seeing the hard-man tattoos on his face. I wonder how the other students liked interacting with him and having him put makeup on them. I also wonder whether there might be more revelations coming out of Kilwinning now that this has all become so public.

Trans rapist 'enrolled in beauty college course after sex attacks'

Following that we now have the revelation that the court recommended that Graham/Bryson be sent to Barlinnie to await sentencing. That is a high-security prison for men only. Which gives some indication of how the court viewed him and the risk he posed. However the Scottish Prison Service itself over-rode this and sent him to Cornton Vale women's prison instead.

How a double rapist bound for Scotland’s toughest prison ended up in a female jail

That article suggests that this must have been with the full knowledge and approval of government ministers.

The decision was taken by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), and the Scottish First Minister has insisted she played no role in it.

However, sources with intimate knowledge of how the prison service in Scotland operates said it was inconceivable that SPS bosses would have taken such a monumental decision if they thought it would be strongly opposed by ministers.

Jack McConnell, a former Labour first minister, said on Thursday night: “Let us be absolutely clear. There are no circumstances where this rapist would have been sent to Cornton Vale without ministers knowing.”

The SPS overhauled its policies in 2014 to state that a prisoner’s accommodation “should reflect the gender in which the person in custody is currently living”.

The shift was heavily influenced by the Scottish Trans Alliance, a vocal cheerleader of the SNP self-identification law and an offshoot of the Equality Network charity that is almost entirely reliant on Ms Sturgeon’s government for funding.

Of almost £600,000 in taxpayers’ cash handed to the Equality Network last year, £100,000 was ringfenced for the Scottish Trans Alliance.

James Morton, then the director of the trans group, admitted in an essay for Trans Britain, a 2018 book, that the group had deliberately targeted prisons as a means of persuading other public bodies to follow its agenda.

“We strategised that by working intensively with the Scottish Prison Service to support them to include trans women as women on a self-declaration basis within very challenging circumstances, we would be able to ensure that all other public services should be able to do likewise,” he wrote.
Click to expand...


That entire article is absolutely damning. It's clear that the Scottish government's policy was that any man who said he was a woman was to be held in a woman's prison, including this one, and that they have only now started to row back as the outcry got more intense. Mainstream media are now reporting what women's groups and blogs have been shouting about for years, it was the top item on tonight's STV News, and people who had no idea what the hell was happening (and who would have believed it if a friend had told them) are peak-transing in droves.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I've never heard of someone house sitting when there weren't pets involved. In which case, they're actually pet-sitting, in the pet's own home.

That said... I also don't know anyone wealthy enough to have a house that needs to be sat in the first place. A trusted friend gathering the mail or watering the plants is generally about all that's needed.
Click to expand...

I used to do gardening and window washing for a wealthy couple in Sydney (North Shore home).

They asked me to house sit for them while they were on holiday for four weeks.

No pets, but a lot of house-plants.

It was an interesting 'holiday' for me, and I particularly enjoyed catching the ferry across the harbour to go to work each morning.
 
novaphile said:
I used to do gardening and window washing for a wealthy couple in Sydney (North Shore home).

They asked me to house sit for them while they were on holiday for four weeks.

No pets, but a lot of house-plants.

It was an interesting 'holiday' for me, and I particularly enjoyed catching the ferry across the harbour to go to work each morning.
Click to expand...


Big house, probably sitting alone in large grounds, lots of plants, and the owners approached you.

Not the same as a small mid-terraced house (that is, attached to the houses on either side, with party walls), one kalanchoe, no valuables worth mentioning, and the owner didn't want anyone to stay over and didn't ask (and in fact declined the transwoman's offer).
 
Your midnight check-in on the petition reports 75,160 signatures, so 533 new signatures today. Still doing well and way above target.

The new magic number is 295.7.

However, the government has finally issued its belated response.

Under the Equality Act 2010, providers are already able to restrict the use of spaces/services on the basis of sex and/or gender reassignment where justified. Further clarification is not necessary.
Click to expand...


In other words, it's fine, leave it as it is. Which is more or less what they said to the counter-petition, currently stalled on 12,000ish signatures. "Don't worry your pretty little heads, we won't change anything."

I don't see how they can possibly maintain that there is no need or further clarity. We do need that debate. I think by then things might have got even more heated and there are definitely MPs who will stir this up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom