Printable View
Nobody's done more to undermine the trans community here than Bryson. He won't be the last to try it on with this bull**** (to coin your terminology) if the SG bill were ever to become law. Listening to Sturgeon tie herself in knots avoiding having to answer whether he is a man or a woman was toe curling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bee
I just outlined the process, Bryson went through that process and the outcome was what should be expected, it's nothing to do with that rapist. It's all to do with the furore of this toxic trans debate and the political point scoring associated with it. Bryson is being used as a political pawn in this bull**** (my terminology) to the detriment of the trans community, of that there is no doubt and Jack is a main player in that.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
I don't actually believe even the SNP's most devoted cultists think there wasn't a political intervention in this case.
It's a bizarre world that she even set foot in Cornton Vale. No one is answering why Katie Dolatowski is still in a female prison. Sexual assault against a girl and beat up a male prisoner, but it's not worldwide news like it has been this week so that's OK.
I was unaware of details too - you can sometimes find them on here after trawling through all the obsessive, repetitive *****.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Without any detail, I was struggling to understand a poster’s insistence on asking the same straightforward question without any context re them being in isolation.
Seemed a bit like how Hibs fans who come on here to read about Hibs won’t be affected by those draining posters who spend every day on hibs.net, as they are restricted to the HG and threads about the SNP or Nicola Sturgeon.
Well I’ve just explained the divergence between the right wing media and the public who ‘identify’ as right wingers so I’ve covered that. If you ‘keep reading’ that it’s ONLY right wingers that oppose the legislation and you feel that’s unfair on the downtrodden right wing underclass or whatever, just call the poster who made this claim out on it, that’s another issue entirely. There’s no reason to throw about the F word at people who are trying to balance two conflicting rights and sometimes get it wrong, as in the trans/safe spaces for women dichotomy, and actual real fascists who for the first time in history currently occupy positions of power in UK government.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sorry just woke up :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
And sorry to keep harping on.
From horses mouth it's exactly the process that happened.
And re Government involvement whilst nothing official was mandated.to the SPS I'd have even amazed.if they were unaware of the FMs thoughts.she expressed at FM questions.
Indeed. The tiptoeing around this is absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
All transwomen are male.
A woman is an adult human female.
That's the most straightforward fact-based approach to adopt, particularly when it comes to rape cases.
I'm not sure why you are thinking that I'm defending 'the downtrodden right wing underclass' whatever that is. I am,however, pushing back on the garbled analysis that appears to say anyone pushing back on a belief system is a fascist. I would go further and say your labeling of UK government as fascist is extremely sloppy. I don't think right wing views, no matter how much I disagree with them, is fascist. And I see nothing fascist about concern for womens rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
What do you mean 'from the horses mouth'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
Tbf he didn't say the UK government were fascist, but said there are members of the government who are. And if I look at 2 out of the last 3 Home Secretaries, for example, I think a case can be made to give them that tag.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
You've said the position seems to have changed on the hoof. What evidence do you have for that, or is it that SPS carried our their assessment in the time allocated and the decision was made.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Is your "on the hoof" comment fair?
What do you know about the systems in place?
You’re absolutely all over the place. Until you can show someone, far less me, saying or suggesting ‘anyone who pushes back on a belief system is a fascist’, you are just going to be another one of those posters who grabs on to straw men because they’ve got nothing else to offer in debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
On the other point, I am really comfortable with labeling key ministers in the current UK government as fascistic because it stands up to analysis when you look at the development of their messaging and their legislation since2017 and further back. The F word really does need to be aired more often and I’m happy to debate it elsewhere. You don’t need to wear a uniform or do a funny walk. These days the most successful ones wear nice suits.
But is it? I've been dipping my toe into some of the research around gender incongruence. There is an emerging body of work, eg. see link below, that brains as well as other parts of the body develop into masculine or feminine forms. And that there are biological mechanisms through which brain-sex may not match rest-of-body-sex. Simplistic anti-"woke" slogans are unlikely to be helpful.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0205084203.htm
This is not to say that the safety of female prisoners shouldn't be paramount, however, and my view is that in this situation it's quite right to isolate and assess anyone claiming to be trans. I would've thought any competent prison psychiatrist would be able to sort the actual transgender wheat from the at-it-for-nefarious-motives chaff pretty quickly?
I am against the GRRB for the same reasons as people like Joanna Cherry and Debbie Hayton, that is that as soon as you make it easier to Gender Self-ID and remove all the safe guards male sexual predators will use the loops in the law to enter woman only spaces with nefarious motives.
This doesn't only put women and children at risk, it also is not good for trans people because once this inevitably happens trans people will be tarred with the same brush when crimes are carried out by male sexual predators. Isn't it ironic that after what seems like a day after the GRRB was passed in Holyrood what we were told wouldn't happen did happen.
A male sexual predator Called Adam Graham raped two women as a man after being charged there was a name change to Iyla Bryson, the victims had to address the rapist in court using the pronouns she/her and the rapist was taken on remand to a woman only prison.
I know that supporters of the Scottish Government are going to come out and say but he/she is in a male prison now so there is nothing to see move along, but do you really think this would have happened if there was not international media coverage and a public uproar?
If you think Iyla Bryson would have been moved to a male prison anyway, then look at the case of Katie Dolatowski. Just like Iyla Bryson, Katie Dolatowski is not a real trans person. Katie Dolatowski is a male pedophile who used the identity of being of a women to enter women only spaces namely supermarket female toilets to target female children.
Katie Dolatowski is male but identifies as a women and was convicted of filming a 12 year old girl with the mobile phone over the partition wall of a female toilet cubicle of a Halbeath Asda Store, same person grabbed a 10 year old girl by the face in a Morrison Store in Kirkcaldy forced her into the female toilet cubicle and sexually assaulted her.
This person had stayed for 71 days at a domestic violence refuge for mothers and children in Leeds and a women only hostel in Fife.
Katie Dolatowski was jailed at Polmot young offenders institution for male offenders, but after physically assaulting a fellow inmate there, has since been transferred to the women only Cornton Vale Prison.
https://news.stv.tv/west-central/sco...o-cornton-vale
The responsible cabinet Secretary said on Wednesday: The simple fact is that, as I have said already, I trust the SPS to deal with this. On Thursday FM says: I will repeat some of what I have already said. Let me be clear: this prisoner is not going to be incarcerated in Cornton Vale, either short term or long term.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
What is not at all clear is whether SPS reached the decision following a full assessment or not. It is unclear if FM is relaying a decision made by SPS. I don't know what happened (and to be fair, neither do you). But there is clearly a significant shift in the SG position from Wednesday to Thursday. How can the FM announce that the prisoner will never be in Cornton Vale if is is soley a matter for the SPS?
"Ms Sturgeon’s official spokesman denied that the Scottish Government had any involvement in the initial decision but said she had intervened to make clear to prison chiefs her opposition to Bryson being housed with female inmates."Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
The Court Order said he should have been sent to Barlinnie.
statement from the Scottish Trans Alliance. Seems thoroughly sensible to me :aok:Quote:
The case of Isla Bryson has been in the news this week. As far as we can tell, the Scottish Prison Service’s policy has generated the result it should, and that we would have expected. As we understand it, Isla Bryson was held in segregation while a risk assessment was done. That risk assessment decided, not surprisingly, that she should not be held in the women’s estate. That is what we would expect for a person convicted of rape. It is our view that anyone who has committed sexually violent crimes, and who poses a risk to women, should not be housed with women on the female estate.
In September 2022, there were 15 trans people in custody in Scotland (0.2% of the prison population). Following risk assessments, 9 of them were held in the estate matching their gender assigned at birth, and 6 in the estate matching their transitioned gender. It is right that this should be decided on an individualised risk assessment basis. For example, a trans woman transitioned for 20 years, who is in prison for a non-violent offence like financial fraud, might pose no risk to other women in custody, but be at significant risk herself if accommodated on the male estate. A blanket rule about where trans people in custody are accommodated would be wrong.
The assessment of where a trans person in custody is held does not depend on whether or not they have a gender recognition certificate (GRC). The risk assessment policy applies to all trans people in custody, with or without GRCs. That means that the changes to the process for applying for a GRC, overwhelmingly agreed by the Scottish Parliament in December, would have no effect on the Scottish Prison Service’s policy on this, and no effect on where trans people in custody are housed.
In a community of any size, there will be some people who commit appalling crimes – that does not and should not reflect on the majority of that community.
interesting that the GRR bill isn't actually legally relevant to this case - it's almost as if a fuss is being kicked up to fuel a media narrative, rather than because of actual practical implications :hmmm:
to be clear, by the way - i am in no way one of these people who throws the label 'TERFs' around, and i do genuinely see why this issue is so difficult for a lot of cis women, especially those who have themselves been subjected to sexual violence. i also know, however, trans women who would be at incredible risk if for some reason they were to be thrown in a men's jail. it's an extremely complex situation, and those that seek to simplify it then write off people who disagree with them are probably the biggest hurdle to solving the issue. i find it particularly weird when cis men express very strong opinions on the matter, whether that be hurling the word 'TERF' around, or throwing grenades into the conversation as Graham Linehan likes to do.
it would appear to me, however, that the policy outlined in the statement above is pretty much spot on.
No place for sensible on here. We need to find a way to blame Sturgeon.[emoji35]Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Where did this come from?Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Ok, I think there are a number of things at play here. Firstly, it's possible that we may have different understanding of what fascism is. To my mind it is charactarised by:Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
- Authoritarianism and opposition to democratic processes
- Emphasis on managed capitalism
- Corporatism, as in the Italian model
- Political violence - particularly, but not exclusively, against opponents
- Populism, by which I mean the positioning of the leader as having the unique link to the people
- Strong role for the state in determining, and enforcing, political and social norms
- Suppression of opposing voices and control of the media.
FWIW I think that Donald Trump showed a number of these traits, but for me it was the refusal to accept the democratic process and the use of violence to secure that was fascistic behavior.
My concern is that simply labeling right wing policies as fascism, it diminishes the term and, paradoxically, makes us more inured to when it comes along. An example of what I think is hyperbolic use of the term was around the named person legislation. Some opponents labled it as fascistic as it gave the state an enhanced (and unclear) role in relation to children. This is was argued represented the state determining and enforcing political norms and imposing them on children. My view FWIW is that it was well meaning legislation that collapsed under the weight of its own contradicions. While a link could be drawn to some fascist tenets, I don't see an arguable case that it was.
Do I think the Tories are right wing. Yup. Do I agree with their policies on refugees - no. But do I think they will promote a violent insurrection to stop them being emptied from power? No. I also think that they are not attracted to the managed capitalism that is a charactaristic of fascism. They are much to free market for that.
Turning to your point about how fascism is marshaled an attack in the trans debate, here's some examples:
https://xtramagazine.com/power/far-r...fascist-220810
https://ginnymcqueen.com/terfs-are-nazi-****/
https://www.womenarehuman.com/upcomi...y-councillors/
https://www.transadvocate.com/fascis...ed_n_52458.htm
https://twitter.com/pickle_bee/statu...90171765530624
An article in the Telegraph:Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...ist-climbdown/
Some people find the term CIS offensive: https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/b...-cis-1.3843005Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
Also this is an interesting read: https://twitter.com/LucyHunterB/stat...49747760410626
Someone in the SPS indirectly involved in this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I see Andy Bee has also answered..
I'd advise a little care here. If someone in the SPS is talking about the process they could be in serious trouble. That's not a pop - they should be careful!Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
Glad you cleared that up. Too many people clutching on this tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
A reasonable list of fascist identifiers. Id add to that Stigmatisation of vulnerable groups. Or 'Othering', in modern parlance. Particularly as part of a prolonged campaign. The intolerance of dissent. The criminalisation of protest, and the undermining of the legal profession to act as an arbiter or a 'check' on the excesses of the Government, the police, the military or whoever the state gives the legal right to apply violence. The eradication of power in other non government structures like independent journalism, trade unions, local government and other bastions of what we used to call 'civil society' when i was an undergraduate. (Im not sure where this word has gone but thats another topic). All identifiers that those that wield power in the current manifestation of the Tory party seem to be very comfortable with. And all identifiers that remind me of the direction of travel of the British state. (Theres a few other identifiers like the glorification of the Male, Sporting Glory, the Armed Forces and The Church that we used to see historically in Greece Spain and Italy but that become less relevant and some of these things are less relevant in society generally).Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I agree that adopting a Rick from the Young Ones style hysterical finger pointing 'You Fascist!' position anytime you find something too dogmatic or authoritarian is wrong. However, its equally wrong to ignore flagrant undermining of civil liberties and other markers ive outlined above just because a fascist state hasn't yet been created. They rarely tell you theyre going to do it while theyre doing it, its an incremental process.
Back on the main topic. The links youve provided? A few barely read blogs and a tweet dont represent positions ive seen taken publicly very often, if ever, certainly not on here and certainly not by me. On the other side of the coin you have the vast majority of the mainstream media taking a hysterically anti trans position and blatantly equating trans people in the minds of millions, with sexual predation. Thats a massive power imbalance. You cant compare the two things. Apples and pears to coin a phrase.
Just to be clear, you may have missed what I said in my previous post. Lots of people (and i include the First Minister, and the legal profession in this) are trying to balance Two Conflicting Rights at the moment. (the rights of trans people, and the rights of women to retain women-only spaces, just to be clear) Its a very tricky balancing act and mistakes will and have been made. Accusing people that are genuinely trying to balance these Two Conflicting Rights, from whatever side, of being fascists when they arent, is misguided at best.
i know - here's an outline of why i use the term.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
firstly, i think that trans women = women, and trans men = men in terms of their identity.
if i want to talk about women whose identity matches the gender they were born, it's excluding trans people to refer to them as simply 'women' or 'men', as this suggests that trans people are 'women/men, but...'.
as such, a term is needed to differentiate between trans people and people who's gender identity matches that which they were assigned at birth...as that is a rather cumbersome 'term' (it's more of a sentence).
for want of a 'better' term, i use 'cis', because i don't really see what's offensive about it - it's simply a means of differentiating. if someone is offended by it then i'll gladly use some other term, or if necessary, roll off that massive dictionary definition.
i honestly have no clue whatsoever why a man would be 'offended' by being referred to as 'cis' though. i do get it with women, particularly those from older generations - they've spent their lives fighting for rights based on a sharp distinction between the genders, and are now concerned to see such a distinction being dissolved (as, i understand, they see it). but men...i don't get it :confused:
interesting article though, even though i pretty much disagree with his final point.
That's all very interesting and academic, grids and demarcations used to define what fascism is from a sort "Rule Book" type angle.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I don't define them that way. Fascists are gangsters who grab power in order to theive while playing people off each other as a distraction. Everything else, uniforms, stated political aims, manifestos - optional fripperies.
This lot, "the tory brexit crew" who took over their party in 2016, are cultural murderers, fiscal opportunists, cronyists, double-talkers, race-baiters, liars and have pulled off several economic heists in their short time and have barely had their fingers out of the public purse since taking over.
That's facsistic enough for me, although the dry academic angle is interesting.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
From your first link:Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
:greengrinQuote:
Many of these debates are being played out in the murky and discourteous world of Twitter, a place where adults go to scream at each other.
Is pointing out biological reality a simplistic anti-woke statement?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
That 'emerging body of work' you've linked to is interesting as far as it goes but doesn't as yet alter the fact that trans-women are all males. Until it does we're left with the more strident trans activists trying to persuade anyone who will listen that trans-women are women. Thanks to the bewildering Haldane ruling such a biological impossibility has been given credence and under the SG bill any man who states he's a woman would appear to become one in every sense once he picks up his/her GRC. We then enter a whole new mad world where women can literally be raped by other women. Little wonder Sturgeon was left lost for words when grilled on whether Bryson is a man or a woman.
It’s really not on point, and the debate is getting further and further away, but please remember the desire of the rapist to rape the woman would been there regardless of whether the rapist had transitioned or not. All it should serve to do is remind us that it’s a sexual violence against women issue, not a trans issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Did you read the article at the link?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
There is likely a biological reality that someone with male sex organs can have a female brain and vice versa. Why would you stridently choose one biological reality over the other?
You come across on here as a good match for the description of Graham Linehan in archie's link:
In your case, I would contend, it's not much of a mask.Quote:
while at worst he comes across as someone masking intolerance by promoting himself as a champion of women. And look, I may not be the world’s greatest authority on the latter, but one thing I know for sure is that women can look after themselves just fine and they don’t need a man to do the job for them.
Thanks for the response. I actually think we are not too far apart on the issue. A couple of things I would reference. On the use of fascism as a throwaway term, I don't think it's a few hardly read blogs. Judith Butler, who I am sure you are aware of, has made the link. As for mainstream media, I would say that until recently there was overwhelming and fairly uncritical support for the trans position (ok maybe not the Telegraph). The use of pronouns to describe trans people (especially in the recent court case) has been largely uncontested until now.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
I agree. I think that most on here have that view.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
What is a female brain?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
I assume you are as capable of using google as I am, but here's a summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuros...ex_differencesQuote:
Originally Posted by archie
I have come across Google, but I have never seen a reference to people having male sex organs and a female brain. I would think that would be highly contentious, given views about womens intellectual capacity that have been held until recently. There's a real tension with this approach. If society shapes gender then the idea that a 'lady brain' would determine gender becomes harder to defend. But anyway, having followed your advice to use Google this popped up https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210325115316.htm#:~:text=%22Sex%20differences%20ar e%20sexy%2C%20but,that%20differ%20between%20the%20 sexes.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
One of my lecturers at Ed Uni, historian, once said it's easier to say what a fascist isn't rather than what it is as there is no uniform definition and fascism varied from country to country (and within countries).Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Fixing your link: https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0325115316.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by archie
She discusses all this on the Newsagents podcast, which came out a couple hours ago and was recorded yesterdayQuote:
Originally Posted by archie
I'm confused about this 'female brain' stuff. Is this the "women's brains are smaller" argument rearing it's ugly head again?
:tsk tsk:
I personally find it amazing that people are so desperate to back up their arguments that they're now trying to invent something called a 'female brain' when the real difference between a man and a woman is much easier to see... and a bit lower down. :wink:
More reading:Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6677918/
https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfile...on.pdf#page=76
Anecdotally from me, it would seem there clearly are generalised differences between male and female brains in sexual function, eg. physical attraction. But not intellectual capacity. I don't think it has to be contentious?
Anyway, I'm not claiming expertise in any of this. I set out for a half-arsed attempt to answer the question: is there a scientific biological underpinning to transgender? Or is is just made up woke ideology, blokes in dresses etc as the more excitable elements of twitter would have it? It appears pretty much conclusive to me that gender dysphoria/incongruence or whatever you want to call it is a real thing and I think it more likely than not that we will be able to explain in time.
But, wtfdik? I'm just a punter on a football forum.
I'm not trying to invent anything and, ime, women's intellectual capacity is not in question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith_M
I personally find it amazing people are so small minded as to discount the possibility of different neurology when there are clearly sex-typical biological differences in many other areas of the body besides the "lower down", without attempting to look for what's being researched currently. But ho hum.
I will repeat the JK Rowling quote, seems apt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith_M
Men defining what a woman is, what women should and shouldn’t fear, what women should and shouldn’t say, what rights women should be fine with giving up and, of course, what constitutes ‘real’ misogyny: get a bloody mirror. That’s real misogyny, looking right back at you.
Many see male/female brain as junk science but I think we can put it down to we don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
What is clear is the majority of trans groups are against the science and also the hunt for difference in genetics or brain function. I saw one trans group a few month ago equate it to the hunt for the gay gene.
They feared if there was a neurological test that says you were trans, then the people that failed the test as it were, would be called faking it. They say if you feel your trans you are and science shouldn't come into it. Whilst I think scientific discovery should happen I agree with them, if you want to be in another gender then that's enough.
People aren't faking it, they wouldn't go through the abuse for the sake of it. I'd welcome all rights bar a few caveats the infringe on women's rights. I think all but a few dinosaurs would agree
Exactly the reason there was a U-turn in the Isly Bryson case was because it gained international news coverage and was an embarrassment to the SG.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
The reason nothing is done about the about Katie Dolatowski is because it never received anything like the same media coverage so its business as usual with the same stupid policy of housing prisoners according to how they identify rather than the reality of biological sex.
I don't think either Isly Bryson or Katie Dolatowski are genuine trans people they are playing the system, Katie Dolatowski is a male pedophile who identifies as a women in order to gain access to women only spaces, like supermarket female toilets to prey of female children.
Katie Dolatowski is male but identifies as a women, and was convicted of filming a 12 year old girl with the mobile phone over the partition wall of a female toilet cubicle of a Halbeath Asda Store, same person grabbed a 10 year old girl by the face in a Morrisons Store in Kirkcaldy forced her into the female toilet cubicle and sexually assaulted her.
This person had stayed for 71 days at a domestic violence refuge for mothers and children in Leeds and a women only hostel in Fife.
Katie Dolatowski was jailed at Polmot young offenders institution for male offenders, but after a physical assault on a fellow male inmate there has been transferred to the women only Cornton Vale Prison.
https://news.stv.tv/west-central/sco...o-cornton-vale
Interesting that at least one of the academics involved is female, which helps to remove any accusations of gender-based bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Good post. If we all keep an open mind there’s more chance of bringing people together.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Nothing strident about my choice. It's the biological reality we know. The 'female brain and vice versa' research is a long way from being that.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
As for your quote, if you don't think a man can empathise with women's rights, how do you feel about a woman saying the same thing?:
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/statu...7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Very apt quote John, I’ve often seen posters on this thread telling women how they should think/feel about these issues…Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
My guess is apples and oranges.Quote:
Originally Posted by CapitalGreen
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Haven't been on the HG board in a long time so forgive me if I'm late to this and I don't propose to read all 89 pages.
I do have a question though.
Does anyone taking part in this debate actually know any trans women? Serious question.
Wild how no one has commented on the Scottish Trans Alliance statement yet. Couldn't be more relevant and actually re-assuring to all sides.
They pretty much say Katie Dolatowski is in the wrong prison and should be movedQuote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
Thanks for responding. And does this knowledge make a difference to your views on the trans debate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Thanks. Sorry to repeat myself but does this knowledge make a difference to your views on the trans debate?Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Yes, and it definitely informs how i think about the issue. I think in their cases it would just feel totally wrong to me (not to mention them) to refer to them as men, and I think they would all be vulnerable in the extreme if they for some reason found themselves in a men's prison. From what i have gathered, gender dysphoria is an absolutely brutal condition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
Ta! Sorry;same question as aboveQuote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
as in they think she should be moved back to a men's prison?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sorry. You edited that. I agree entirely. It has been an education for me and I couldn't be more pro trans people now. A trans woman I know never seemed comfortable in their own skin before they came out. Now they are. They've been subject to some quite appalling abuse online which nearly broke them but thankfully not. They are now who they want to be and have my unqualified support. And to reply to your other post here too the STA statement absolutely and totally hits the mark!Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
Yes, a fewQuote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
And a trans man.
It's been said before, but most of us will encounter trans people without necessarily knowing.
My 10 years old grand nephew plays with dolls, no interest in cars or anything boys are supposed to be interested in.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I think he has a female brain.
Good point about meeting without knowing. I've never knowingly met a trans man actually. Must have though as I talk to everyone I meet! Have known a few trans women. They're definitely women!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
What makes them 'definitely women'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
ScottishTransQuote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
·
7h
It is our view that anyone who has committed sexually violent crimes, and who poses a risk to women, should not be housed with women on the female estate
Have you met them? They identify as women, they suffer from gender dysphoria and they have a GRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysGot2
You're going to tell me differently I take it. Have a go. I look forward to it
I know one trans female and two trans men, one I would call my pal
I don't now but at first occasionally called him his female name. I would shrivel and apologise and he would just laugh at me. He said his mum still forgets and he doesn't care. He cares if people say offensive things about his transition. He also said the NHS is a joke regarding transitioning. Waiting list is enormous so he paid a massive amount for top surgery. Will save up then get bottom surgery
I did that name thing once. Still cringe about it. They were cool about it. Said in the grand scheme of things it was nothing. You can bet I've never done it again :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
It was a question in good faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
Your use of the word "definitely" was what interested me.
The whole issue is so complex, I think most people are uncertain or unclear about many aspects of the topic . "Definitely" is interesting use of language.
I guess it's just your level of conviction. That's okay.
Fair play and apologies for being defensive on the subject. I think you have to honour someone's choice, feelings and core beliefs to support a trans friend. I guess anything short of definitely seems weak to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysGot2
Thanks for such a positive response
I’m not so sure it does. I find a lot of the debate confusing. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
It’s simple for me, I’ll respect and support the right of anybody to identify as they want. Why would any of us want another human being feel unable to live the life they feel they were meant to live? I think the majority of us feel the same, hence this well intended legislation which really does come from a good place. I think after the fuss has died down we will have this legislation or something very similar in force throughout the whole UK.
The extreme views on either side and the extremely rare situations we see highlighted to make a point ? That’s where I struggle.
There's a lot in that. Salazar in Portugal is an example. He was a fascist who despised Hitler, much of it to do with religion. He also didn't pose around in a uniform. But fascist he wasQuote:
Originally Posted by hibby rae
With reference to your last point, I think there is an inverse relationship between activity on the Holy Ground and activity with Hibs signings!Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Not directly, but a close family member supported a colleague through a physical transition. Clearly this was the right thing for them. I asked the family member how they felt their colleague would have responded to the current debate. They would have found it difficult, but they were also horrified by the aggressive pro trans stuff that passes for debate - the suck my lady **** stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
yeah, this is what every trans person I know feels as well - it's one of these horrible situations where the loudest, most obnoxious people seem to ended up defining the whole debate, and it's difficult for anyone not to react to one of these extremes to some extent.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
i definitely also think that some of the 'pro-trans' stuff has been absolutely misogynistic, and probably used as an excuse by male tossers to vent their spleen at women. this is partly why i find it difficult to nail my colours to any mast - ultimately, i'm a CIS male without any skin in the game. I wish folk like Graham Linehan would butt out an aw though. I really don't think J.K. Rowling has been helpful either tbh - both have them have just been lobbing grenades in every so often, with Rowling occasionally giving some context to her views, which is helpful...but doesn't negate that she's been otherwise rather destructive.
Hibsbollah made the point earlier that it's an issue of clashing rights. Personally I think much of the problem is the vagueness around the definition of what it is to be trans.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
I can see the point about Graham Linehan, but I think that's most unfair to JK RowlingQuote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
i mean, she wrote an entire book where the villain is a man in a dress. she was maybe trying to make a point about opportunistic male sexual predators, but it really wasn't a very constructive thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
i can understand why this seems to be a problem in terms of the debate, but it actually hasn't been in any consequential way. the key issue ought to be safeguarding, and measure seem to be in place, certainly in prisons. there's the whole 'well why was she put in a women's prison in the first place' thing, but without knowing the details, there's probably got to be some default while they carry out the risk assessments, which probably involve a lot of paperwork. i think a default being 'well they're presenting as a woman, so we'll treat them as a woman, but in such a way that doesn't put anyone in harms way, until we've carried out the necessary legal procedures' makes perfect sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I keep reading stuff the JKR is transphobic, but I've yet to see anything that actually is.Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
And you never will. Because she's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
i don't think she actually is, in terms of whether she is actively anti-trans...i'm absolutely sure that she doesn't see herself as that. same goes for linehan, actually. it's to do with how they've contributed to the conversation that's been going on, though. focusing too much on what the definition of 'woman' or 'man' etc. is, and not really on actual evidence of reasons for concern. this recent thing in the media has turned out to be a complete red herring, but they have helped to frame the debate in a way that makes finding common ground much harder. they haven't been as bad as jordan peterson and his ilk, nor have they been as bad as some of the pro-trans people on twitter...but JKR hasn't been constructive at all, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Too many folk in our mediascape with loud voices trying to call the shots, citing depraved extremes to make a point about a life experience they haven't got a clue about, helping to stoke a stigma that shouldn't exist.
Under the noise, people are dealing with an existential crisis. They deserve better than this.
she has, however, been pretty unconstructive to the debate at several turns. i'm absolutely not blamer her for the abuse she's got, but she's also contributed negatively to a lot of trans peoples' lives throughout this whole debacle, by writing books about murderous dress-wearing men and talking in a way that, at the very least, implied that trans women are not women. given her profile, she's not exactly been careful.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
all the twitter stuff is just ridiculous, i've never had an account myself, but she's liked/followed/retweeted a pretty explicitly, horrifically transphobic person lately - essentially giving a platform to someone who openly hates trans people. whether this is a mistake or not, i don't know, i don't believe that she herself, in her heart of hearts, feel ill thoughts towards people because they have changed their gender - i just think she's got some dodgy views, bad ways of communicating them, and been a bit drunk on her twitter influence.
in short, not a bad person, but probably a harmful person in this context.
Define transphobic. And if she isn’t, who is?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Is saying trans women aren't women transphobic. That's surely ridiculous. I'd say people who say hateful things to trans people as a group are transphobic. You might disagree withthem but surely people can say there is a biological difference that doesn't disappear with a bit of paperQuote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
Why are you arguing with me about something I haven’t said? Rowling uses her public profile to suggest that trans women are a threat to women. Demonising any minority to marginalise them and deny them rights? That’s a phobia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Superb post. Wish I’d written that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
She hasn't. She has said women deserve there own space from biological males in certain situations. She hasn't said trans are more likely to rape people than men, that would be transphobic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
Excellent and to the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
Have you read her series of public pronouncements on the subject? I have never ever suggested that she has said trans women are more likely to rape than men. An absurd suggestion. Again you appear to be arguing against something I, and no one else as far as I can make out, has said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Yeah agree. I suspect this is going to drag on for some time though now it has become a political battle. In the meantime while Politicans from all parties try to work on solutions to address the valid concerns raised, they should also be speaking directly and publicly to the marginalised trans community to reassure them they will not be forgotten and reinforce the message any predjucice shown from a very small % towards them will be dealt with firmly in the courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
You have said she's transphobic. From what I've read I've seen zero evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
Shall we start with a full novel where a psychopath dresses as a woman to kill women? That's a dog whistle with bells on franklyQuote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
The defenders say transvestitism hardly features in the book, he puts on a wig to trick a woman into a van but he isn't a trans person. I've not read it but neither has most of the people calling it trans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
Probably stupid given all the furore and hate she gets
On the contrary. Quite smart on her behalf. She can't make the villain a trans women. That's too clumsy. But the suggestion is there and speaks to certain hymn sheet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
She's pretty smart. You don't make billions from peddling third rate Tolkien without some nous
She has never 'demonised' trans people nor has she suggested bona fide trans people are a threat to women. If anything she's supportive of their right to live the life they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
Well it was about time the lead apologist showed up.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Need to get some stuff sorted here but as a starter for ten. Define bona fide. And do you know any trans people personally?