• 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.
Your midnight check-in on the petition reports 79,557 signatures, so 121 new signatures today. More than yesterday but only by three. Not good enough.

The new magic number is 292.

I was at the demo outside Holyrood this morning campaigning for men out of the female prison estate. Someone was handing out leaflets with details about the petition and asking people to sign. So they're doing something, but frankly this one was preaching to the converted.
 
LondonJohn said:
No. I consider many of the participants in this thread to be anti-transgender-identity bigots because they hold, and express, views which fundamentally deny, mock and invalidate the very notion of transgender identity. I think the descriptors to which I'm referring here are by now well-known: things such as "blokes in dresses" "males LARPing at being females", or the insidious "Trans-Identifying Male/Trans-Identifying Female", and sentiments such as "someone with a cock and balls will never be a woman", or "these people are ill, and what they really need is diagnosis and treatment/management".
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight... Your complaint isn't with any of the policy aspects that we have raised... it's because some of the females in this thread aren't being *nice* and clearly don't know their place. We're not being compliant enough, we're not being submissive enough. We're using language that you think we ought not to use, because you have decided it's not suitable.

At the same time, however, you feel justified in libeling, attacking, demeaning, and insulting us with abandon. You feel that you are within your rights to be mean, to be strident, to express you opinions however the hell you wish, with no concerns at all about whether or not those opinions come across as bigoted, hateful, or misogynistic?

We females in this thread are to be castigated by you - not because of the views we hold and the concerns we have... but rather because we have the audacity to decide that you have no right to demand that we kowtow to the feelings of people who are not even participating in this thread.

No. I have no obligation to "be nice". Not to you, and sure as hell not to people who aren't even in the room.

Females have just as much right to be angry, to be offended, to use hyperbole, as any male.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
 
Ziggurat said:
Your entire post was just poisoning the well. It was purely an attack on motives, not once did you engage in substantive debate.
Click to expand...

It didn't even rise to the level of well poisoning. It was nothing more than a rant about uppity females who aren't behaving the way that John has declared that females ought to behave.
 
IsThisTheLife said:
I posted a while back about wound-healing, how it is NOT what most take it to be.

God-***********-dammit.
Click to expand...


"A case report with lessons about unanticipated harm."

Unanticipated? You cut the breasts off a teenage or young adult woman, and you didn't anticipate that she might subsequently give birth to a baby she was unable to feed? What are you? Soya for brains?
 
Rolfe said:
"A case report with lessons about unanticipated harm."

Unanticipated? You cut the breasts off a teenage or young adult woman, and you didn't anticipate that she might subsequently give birth to a baby she was unable to feed? What are you? Soya for brains?
Click to expand...

I despair of this utter stupidity, and I would refer you to my sig.
 
In other, entirely unrelated news, Jack "Beth" Douglas has at last been kicked out of the Scottish Green Party on account of a string of tweets threatening violence. These tweets date back well before he was being lionised by MSPs from four different parties, given a standing ovation in Holyrood when the GRR bill was passed, and was praised by the leader of the Scottish LibDems who said it was Beth they'd done this for.

It just took them a week after the second Wings article highlighting this, and about ten days after the first. But they shouldn't have needed Wings to tell them, screenshots of these tweets have been circulating for a while, and people have been tweeting them are the politicians in question.

Wings has also openly flat-out accused him of being an abuser and a rapist, but that didn't get a mention.

Augean Stable Doors

There are so many of these disgusting, sleazy, violent types in the "trans community" you start to wonder where there is room in the demographic for the shy, considerate transwoman who just wants to get on with life as his "authentic self" and not bother anyone.
 
It's probably incorrigibly light-minded of me, but I see no reason not to cite the splendid Excel Pope:

https://excelpope.net/2022/12/21/at-the-edinbru-grc-office/

Officer: Good, good. And how about things like your driving licence and bank account? Have you informed them that you’re female?

Visitor: Not yet, because I’m not ‘out’ to my wife. She’s had a lot of problems accepting that I’m just trying to find lesbian love, and she says she’s taking the kids if she catches me at it again.
Click to expand...
 
Here's the thing, there are a lot of issues in this, from the fairly low stakes to the quite high consequences.

A trans person asking me to use He/She vs she/he? No harm no foul.

A "trans" person asking to be placed in a womens person, WTF? you'd better have bottom surgery, otherwise, I think you are at best looking to game the system and at worst, looking for victims.

Is it so much to ask for nuance?

And then there is whether to allow kids to use puperty blockers, hormones, or get surgery.
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
Here's the thing, there are a lot of issues in this, from the fairly low stakes to the quite high consequences.

A trans person asking me to use He/She vs she/he? No harm no foul.

A "trans" person asking to be placed in a womens person, WTF? you'd better have bottom surgery, otherwise, I think you are at best looking to game the system and at worst, looking for victims.

Is it so much to ask for nuance?
And then there is whether to allow kids to use puperty blockers, hormones, or get surgery.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for the extremists it is an "all or nothing".
 
Rolfe said:
I note John has not said one single word about the prisons issue.
Click to expand...


I note Rolfe has missed where I've explicitly talked about matters affecting the potential safety of ciswomen... one of which is (obviously) the issue of transwomen prisoners in women's prisons*.



I drove into town this morning, paid £5.50 to park my car, then stood outside the parliament for an hour in the cold wind to listen to women speaking about this issue - and yell a bit. The way it happened is becoming quite clear and it is shocking.
Click to expand...


I'll say. The thought of an extremist activist group gathering to yell into the cold morning wind, to the bemusement of a few tourists and to no other end whatsoever... is indeed rather shocking.



* And by the way, I'm expecting that everyone in this thread is - at least by now - correctly informed as to what the Scottish Prison Service statement says (and doesn't say)? I wonder whether it's ignorance or a deliberate attempt to misdirect which has resulted in several media organisations - including the BBC - to go with headlines such as "Trans prisoners in Scotland to be placed according to birth sex" (BBC), or the even more inaccurate "Scottish prisons abandon Nicola Sturgeon’s trans self-ID policy" (Daily Telegraph).

When in reality, all that is happening is that newly-incarcerated transgender prisoners will initially be placed in prisons matching their birth sex. The transgender prisoner can then apply to move to the estate matching their trans gender, and the authorities will carry out a risk assessment to decide whether or not to grant that move.

I did note that the *unwell* glinner seized on the statement with his customary calm rationale and cool objectivity. I wonder if he realises yet how wrong he is about it....?
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
Here's the thing, there are a lot of issues in this, from the fairly low stakes to the quite high consequences.

A trans person asking me to use He/She vs she/he? No harm no foul.

A "trans" person asking to be placed in a womens person, WTF? you'd better have bottom surgery, otherwise, I think you are at best looking to game the system and at worst, looking for victims.

Is it so much to ask for nuance?

And then there is whether to allow kids to use puperty blockers, hormones, or get surgery.
Click to expand...

We had nuance for a long while, but it no longer works. Even preferred pronouns have gone from being a nuanced, inclusive accommodation to being the thin end of the wedge.
 
LondonJohn said:
I note Rolfe has missed where I've explicitly talked about matters affecting the potential safety of ciswomen... one of which is (obviously) the issue of transwomen prisoners in women's prisons*.

I'll say. The thought of an extremist activist group gathering to yell into the cold morning wind, to the bemusement of a few tourists and to no other end whatsoever... is indeed rather shocking.

* And by the way, I'm expecting that everyone in this thread is - at least by now - correctly informed as to what the Scottish Prison Service statement says (and doesn't say)? I wonder whether it's ignorance or a deliberate attempt to misdirect which has resulted in several media organisations - including the BBC - to go with headlines such as "Trans prisoners in Scotland to be placed according to birth sex" (BBC), or the even more inaccurate "Scottish prisons abandon Nicola Sturgeon’s trans self-ID policy" (Daily Telegraph).

When in reality, all that is happening is that newly-incarcerated transgender prisoners will initially be placed in prisons matching their birth sex. The transgender prisoner can then apply to move to the estate matching their trans gender, and the authorities will carry out a risk assessment to decide whether or not to grant that move.

I did note that the *unwell* glinner seized on the statement with his customary calm rationale and cool objectivity. I wonder if he realises yet how wrong he is about it....?
Click to expand...


If your previous post was your penultimate, may we dare hope that this was the last?
 
LondonJohn said:
The transgender prisoner can then apply to move to the estate matching their trans gender, and the authorities will carry out a risk assessment to decide whether or not to grant that move.
Click to expand...

Would you care to address the actual risk assessment, given the template has been released under FoI?

Section 5. Safety
Safety means here only the safety of the transgender individuals, and their feelings in respect to placement are the only elements to be recorded.
Click to expand...

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2023/02/06/guest-blog-does-the-scottish-prison-service-risk-assessment-for-placing-transgender-prisoners-protect-women/
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
No. I consider many of the participants in this thread to be anti-transgender-identity bigots because they hold, and express, views which fundamentally deny, mock and invalidate the very notion of transgender identity. I think the descriptors to which I'm referring here are by now well-known: things such as "blokes in dresses" "males LARPing at being females", or the insidious "Trans-Identifying Male/Trans-Identifying Female", and sentiments such as "someone with a cock and balls will never be a woman", or "these people are ill, and what they really need is diagnosis and treatment/management".
Click to expand...

Someone with a cock and balls will never be a woman.
 
Aber said:
Would you care to address the actual risk assessment, given the template has been released under FoI?
Click to expand...
The risks to fellow prisoners are mostly addressed in sections 2 & 6 of the risk assessment form.

JihadJane said:
Someone with a cock and balls will never be a woman.
Click to expand...
Someone will be along to label you as a bigot shortly. Please be patient, and do not get your hopes up for a substantive discussion of what "woman" should be taken to mean.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
The risks to fellow prisoners are mostly addressed in sections 2 & 6 of the risk assessment form.
Click to expand...


Ths thing is, that's all very vague as regards what should follow from these assessments. Also, we know what was happening in practice.

The unsubstantiated story that Adam Graham was diverted from Barlinnie to Cornton Vale by direct instruction from the Justice department turns out to be false. We now know what happened.

The judge spent the entire trial referring to Graham as "she", probably to the distress of his victims. Nevertheless the judge was obviously very well aware of Graham's actual sex and the risk the pattern of offending posed to women, so he remanded him in custory to Barlinnie - the prison in Glasgow used for the most violent men, and which does not have a women's wing.

On the way to Glasgow, in the van, someone seems to have realised that Graham was "a woman", by his own self-declaration. I do not know if this decision was confined to the people actually in the van, or if there was telephone contact with SPS officials elsewhere. Whichever was the case, the mere fact of it being discovered that this newly-convicted double rapist self-identified as a woman was all it took for the van to be diverted to Cornton Vale instead. Because it was SPS policy to house prisoners in the prison of their declared gender, not their sex.

It appears that this part, at least, is going to stop.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom