• 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.
d4m10n said:
The risks to fellow prisoners are mostly addressed in sections 2 & 6 of the risk assessment form.

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.
Click to expand...

It seems rather intolerant and fundamentalist, dare I say bigoted, to label somebody a bigot because they have a different philosophical position on how terms such as 'woman' should be defined. Essentially people are being labelled bigots for disagreeing with the tenets of queer theory / gender identity ideology or intersectional feminism. Of course, it's also an effective strategy in the short term if one wants to promote these ideas, but has no substantive argument in their favour.
 
d4m10n said:
The risks to fellow prisoners are mostly addressed in sections 2 & 6 of the risk assessment form.

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.
Click to expand...

I wonder how somebody is assessed as having shown 'negative behaviours against a particular gender' if you don't know the gender identity of people they have shown negative behaviours towards?
 
Rolfe said:
If your previous post was your penultimate, may we dare hope that this was the last?
Click to expand...

I think it was the explanation of why people are labelled bigots (for failing to uncritically adhere to the sacred tenets of gender identity theory) that was the penultimate one. The post you are responding to was not an explanation. Therefore the ultimate explanation is presumably still to be revealed to us. I predict it will be no different to the penultimate one and to all the preceding ones, however.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Unfortunately for the extremists it is an "all or nothing".
Click to expand...


There we go again with the inflammatory language.

The TRAs want everything, that is true. It's human nature. It's also human nature to say something like "can we meet in the middle here?" or "is there a compromise?" or something about "nuance". Unfortunately the time for that has now passed.

We had a compromise, for decades, and it mostly worked. Women were told (not asked) that they should #bekind to a very small number of genuinely distressed men who wanted nothing but to be allowed to live as if they were women, including using women's toilets. Nothing was actually said about changing rooms or Guide camps or rugby teams or prison cells and it didn't generally come up. We were led to believe (though I'm not sure it was always true) that all of these men had had their genitals removed, and that they had had psychological assessment and training as to their ability to behave considerately and unobtrusively in women's toilets.

So we went along with it. We wouldn't expect to encounter such a person very often at all, if we did we should remember the no-genitals part, and how very vulnerable they were, and distressed, and realise that all they wanted was to be left alone and to fit in.

That was the thin end of the wedge. The whole bloody wedge is in there now. Jonathan Yaniv and "Danielle" Muscato and Alex Drummond and Eddie Izzard and the rest of them. And instead of trying to be unobtrusive and considerate they are demanding and exhibitionist. And instead of us being able to complain and have an aggressive man removed from our space, we're told that we're transphobic bigots if we do that. (The teenage girl who complained that a fully intact man took off his underpants and exposed himself to her while she was already naked in a YMCA changing room has been called a voyeur for seeing his cock and balls!)

And it's not just toilets, it's changing rooms and Girl Guide camps and dormitories on school trips and lesbian dating apps and rape crisis centres and every sport you can possibly think of and jobs reserved for women such as intimate care for disabled women and even prison accommodation. And I could go on.

This has progressed to the Adam Graham and Andrew Burns demographic, where it's pretty certain that these men have no AGP tendencies in the first place (I'm not sure where "Katie" Dolatowski fits there) but who are merely adopting an appearance of "woman" to get an easier life in a woman's prison, with an all-you-can-eat buffet of frightened and damaged women on the side.

All this has flowed from the original compromise position where a few vulnerable people who were understood to be trying their best not to cause an issue were tolerated. It's actually explicit. Just listen to the trans activists declare "There have been transwomen in your spaces for decades and you didn't even notice - nothing is changing."

It reall does seem as if it's all or nothing. If we give the slightest concession, they take everything. So it has to be nothing.
 
Elaedith said:
I think it was the explanation of why people are labelled bigots (for failing to uncritically adhere to the sacred tenets of gender identity theory) that was the penultimate one. The post you are responding to was not an explanation. Therefore the ultimate explanation is presumably still to be revealed to us. I predict it will be no different to the penultimate one and to all the preceding ones, however.
Click to expand...


:D
 
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*.
Click to expand...


Pages and pages have been written in the thread about the specific issues surrounding prison accommodation, and the outrage of compelling incarcerated women who can't get away to share intimate accommodation with physically intimidating, violent criminal men. To say that you've addressed that when you simply gave a general nod to "the potential safety of women" (in general) is disingenuous in the extreme.

LondonJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...


Oh, come and join the real world. There are plenty photos of the meeting online (I'm even in one of them) for you to judge the reality.

The space outside the parliament building was expressly designed for people to congregate and have political meetings. You have to book. You get an hour. It's a bit of a tourist show, and the open-top city-tour buses go past on purpose. I was struck by how many cars and vans passing hooted their horns in support. Of course during the independence campaign we got a lot of that, but somehow I wasn't expecting so much for a gathering displaying suffragette colours and placards saying "no men in women's prisons".

We had a sound system and a platform and a roster of speakers. All the speakers were articulate, passionate and compelling. The compassion for the incarcerated women who are being terrorised by violent men in what should be a male-free space was palpable. As was the outrage about how this had been strategised and achieved by a fairly small number of committed trans activists. There was a good-sized crowd, mostly woman, mostly middle-aged or older, but a fair sprinkling of young women and men there too.

But hey, you go on criticising something you made up in your own head.

LondonJohn said:
* 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...


It's all in the implementation, isn't it. We know that, and we're watching them. If they start "risk assessing" anything more masculine than Jazz Jennings into the female estate, there will be trouble. ETA: and only in the event that such a person has not been convicted of a crime of violence.
 
Last edited:
Elaedith said:
It seems rather intolerant and fundamentalist, dare I say bigoted, to label somebody a bigot because they have a different philosophical position on how terms such as 'woman' should be defined.
Click to expand...
Shifting attention from the topic at hand to the nefarious mental states of one's interlocutor was called the subject/motive shift by Anthony Flew. It is a time honored way to avoid having to defend one's position by putting people on the back foot; once they are busy defending themselves against accusations of _____phobia or ____ism there is little room left in the conversation for the philosophical or policy questions which kicked off the discussion in the first place.

This gambit can be avoided by refocusing the discussion on highly specific policy questions, such as "Should this female-only gym in Adelaide be legally permitted to continue to operate as such?" :cool:
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Pages and pages have been written in the thread about the specific issues surrounding prison accommodation, and the outrage of compelling incarcerated women who can't get away to share intimate accommodation with physically intimidating, violent criminal men. To say that you've addressed that when you simply gave a general nod to "the potential safety of women" (in general) is disingenuous in the extreme.
Click to expand...


Then you ought to do a simple thread search to find all that I've previously written on the matter. Either that or get your memory tested?



Oh, come and join the real world. There are plenty photos of the meeting online (I'm even in one of them) for you to judge the reality.

The space outside the parliament building was expressly designed for people to congregate and have political meetings. You have to book. You get an hour. It's a bit of a tourist show, and the open-top city-tour buses go past on purpose. I was struck by how many cars and vans passing hooted their horns in support. Of course during the independence campaign we got a lot of that, but somehow I wasn't expecting so much for a gathering displaying suffragette colours and placards saying "no men in women's prisons".

We had a sound system and a platform and a roster of speakers. All the speakers were articulate, passionate and compelling. The compassion for the incarcerated women who are being terrorised by violent men in what should be a male-free space was palpable. As was the outrage about how this had been strategised and achieved by a fairly small number of committed trans activists. There was a good-sized crowd, mostly woman, mostly middle-aged or older, but a fair sprinkling of young women and men there too.

But hey, you go on criticising something you made up in your own head.
Click to expand...


Yes. There have been sundry nutters on Parliament Square in Westminster over the years screaming into the wind about Brexit and wars and so on. I'm familiar with the concept, thanks.



It's all in the implementation, isn't it. We know that, and we're watching them. If they start "risk assessing" anything more masculine than Jazz Jennings into the female estate, there will be trouble.
Click to expand...


1) "We" LMAO.

2) You'd better start preparing to holler into the driving rain again then, because I 100% guarantee you that before long, a transwoman will apply for transfer to the women's estate, will pass the risk assessment, and will be transferred (safely) into the women's estate. I recommend a purple, green and white cagoule.
 
And another one.

7-Eleven axe attacker Evie Amati has jail term increased by five years

Security camera vision captured Amati using a 2-kilogram axe to hit Ben Rimmer in the face and Sharon Hacker in the back of the head inside the store. Mr Rimmer was buying a meat pie and Ms Hacker was buying milk. Amati fractured Mr Rimmer's nose, eye socket and his cheekbone required reconstructive surgery, while the blow that hit Ms Hacker fractured her skull. Medical staff said if Mr Rimmer's massive facial laceration was a millimetre above where it was, it could have had life-threatening consequences.
Click to expand...


Of course, "Evie" Amati is a man. A man exhibiting an extreme degree of masculine rage. Nevertheless, apparently the discomfort of being imprisoned with women who don't appreciate his presence in their space is a mitigating factor against extending his prison term.

Amati's lawyer had asked the court to reject the appeal by citing the progress she has made in custody and the antagonism she has suffered from female inmates due to her gender status.
Click to expand...


Thankfully nobody seems to have bought that, any more than the Scottish court bought the submission that since "Isla Bryson" was a woman she couldn't be guilty of a crime of male violence and should be acquitted.

The photo on the news article seems to have come from Amati's Facebook page, so it could well be as good a likeness as the one we're constantly shown of the hulking great 6' 5" "Katie" Dolatowski, but supposing for the sake of argument he really does look like that, is that any reason at all to put a man who has attacked random strangers with a 2kg axe, nearly killing one of them, in a women's prison?
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
And another one.

7-Eleven axe attacker Evie Amati has jail term increased by five years




Of course, "Evie" Amati is a man. A man exhibiting an extreme degree of masculine rage. Nevertheless, apparently the discomfort of being imprisoned with women who don't appreciate his presence in their space is a mitigating factor against extending his prison term.




Thankfully nobody seems to have bought that, any more than the Scottish court bought the submission that since "Isla Bryson" was a woman she couldn't be guilty of a crime of male violence and should be acquitted.

The photo on the news article seems to have come from Amati's Facebook page, so it could well be as good a likeness as the one we're constantly shown of the hulking great 6' 5" "Katie" Dolatowski, but supposing for the sake of argument he really does look like that, is that any reason at all to put a man who has attacked random strangers with a 2kg axe, nearly killing one of them, in a women's prison?
Click to expand...



That thing which ****never happens**** has happened again!!

Woman slashes face of child with knife, attacks his sister. Viral CCTV video horrifies Internet

https://www.indiatoday.in/trending-...v-video-horrifies-internet-1593406-2019-08-30

Now, to be fair, we're not suggesting that every ciswoman goes around slashing children's faces with knives. Still, makes you wonder, doesn't it? I hope they don't put her in a woman's prison.
 
This is an excellent article on the current situation.

Sensible people and the law going bonkers

It is particularly useful for its overview of how we got here, and how the decision to allow men who have had genital surgery to be housed in the female estate led to any man at all who is prepared to say he is a woman being admitted.

Nevertheless, the principle of single-sex prisons has been quietly eroded since men who had had genital “reassignment” surgery started to be imprisoned with women by the 1980s (Biggs, 2020). In 2009, the prison authorities were still holding the line that surgery was a pre-requisite for transfer to a women’s prison.

That was already a significant departure from “people being sensible”. A man does not become a woman by having his testicles removed, nor by having his penis inverted into a surgically-created cavity as a “neo-vagina”; nor by having implants or taking hormones to create the appearance of female breasts. A violent man who has undergone some of those treatments may present less of a threat to women of certain particular kinds of crimes than an unmodified man, but he will retain his advantages of size and strength. Rape is only one of the ways that men terrorise women.

In any event, women’s wish for bodily privacy from men is not solely or even chiefly about demonstrable threat. It is about deep-seated taboo, and in some cases about trauma-induced fear. It is humiliating for a woman to be required to undress in the presence of a man, and for some women it will also be terrifying even if the particular man poses no risk. A woman traumatised by male violence may reasonably be hypervigilant in the presence of any man.

Genital surgery cannot reasonably be expected to make a difference to this. Why would it? Many women will object strongly to being expected to undress in the presence of men with whom they are not intimate. Few of those can be expected to feel any more comfortable undressing in the presence of a man who has had genital surgery. We do not wish to see male genitals in the women’s changing room; but we may well have a wish at least equally strong not to see the site of surgical removal or remodelling of male genitalia. Medical treatment is a private matter between patient and physician. It is not our business whether a man has had genital surgery or not, and we do not want it made our business.

These are considerations to which the sensible people who decided to start moving men into women’s prisons appear to have been oblivious.
Click to expand...


The article goes on to describe at length the case of Mark "Karen" Jones, a man imprisoned for the murder of his boyfriend and the attempted rape of a (female) stranger. He had a GRC and wanted surgery, but at the time the requirement was to live for two years "as a woman", and that was held to be impossible while living in a men's prison. He applied for a judicial review under his article 8 human rights. He won, in a hearing at which nobody was present to speak up for the women who would be forced to live with this man, and where the judge was quite cavalier about the feelings of these women. Any women who might object were dismissed as "the sort of women who enjoy conflict" and Jones's "human right" to interact with "other women" and form female friendships, and the positive effect this was expected to have on his violent and unpredictable behaviour in the men's prison, trumped everything.

The article goes on to discuss how this morphed into a decision to place any man in the female estate if he asserted a feminine identity, no need to be seeking surgery and no need even for a GRC. It then becomes quite technically legal, but this is an interesting discussion of how the GRA interacts with the EA, and how official bodies are over-reaching in their conclusion that having a GRA entitles a man to enter any and all female single-sex spaces - it doesn't.

Well, I am not a lawyer, but perhaps people who are might read the article in detail as it explains why all men should be excluded from the female prison estate under existing legislation, and how the existing law does in fact permit that.

Conclusion
The law in this area has already gone very bonkers indeed. Adam Graham’s initial placement in a women’s prison was not an anomaly, swiftly corrected when it came to light; it was a routine decision in conformity with a policy that had been in place for 9 years. A more forthright challenge to the presence of men in women’s prisons using clear language and centring the human rights of female prisoners cannot come too soon. Let’s hope that this time, the courts will be sensible.
Click to expand...
 
Rolfe said:
Probably simple argumentum ad hominem this time. Try harder.
Click to expand...


Pointing out that a trans-exclusionary radical feminist publication is a trans-exclusionary radical feminist publication....is....argumentum ad hominem, is it?

Try harder with your attempts to label others' positions as logical fallacies (it would also probably help to know what each of the logical fallacies is and what it is not)
 
LondonJohn said:
Not at all. As I so fairly pointed out, I'm sure not all ciswomen go around slashing the faces of children with knives.
Click to expand...


No, they don't. And when they do they are properly placed in the women's prison estate.

I'm sure not all transwomen are violent criminals either, but the frequency with which they are is somewhat startling given the small size of the population. It has been shown that transwomen are imprisoned for sexual offences at 1,645 times the rate (per head of population) that women are imprisoned for similar offences, so there is that. I would be surprised if the ratio for non-sexual violent offences is hugely different.

A transwoman is male, transwomen as a group demonstrate male patterns of offending, and they should properly be placed in the men's prison estate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom