Do you think the book was constructive? Can you see how it might contribute to negativity towards trans people?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Printable View
Do you think the book was constructive? Can you see how it might contribute to negativity towards trans people?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Have you read it. From what I can see he was a cis straight male. I've not read it so wouldn't defend that viewQuote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
It does make a difference in that I don't recognise the people I know within the way the debate is being weighted, especially the last few weeks on here. I say that as someone who doesn't see much the debate on my twitter feed and has never had a Facebook page, so this, narrow but informed, thread is the main place I see it being discussed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
There are some fantastic, educational and empathetic discussions within this thread but the last weeks gives the impression of a few posters attempting to build a distorted word cloud.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Can’t just let this one pass without a thank you for such an eloquent considered responseQuote:
Originally Posted by Kato
I hope I’m not one of those in that word cloud and apologies if I am
We would all be on a word cloud I guess, the frequency of words and assertions would, IMHO, look horrific.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
She talking about Joanna Cherry? There's ********s and opportunistic people on both sides, but that shouldn't be used deliberately to distract from the real debate on women's and trans rightsQuote:
Originally Posted by hibby rae
Which book?Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
No she's not. More likely some Tories and right wingers in the media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
The whole 40 min interview is a good listen
No she isn’t. Not remotelyQuote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Troubled Blood. Published in 2020Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Haven't read it so can't comment. I'm not actually a fan of her fiction, hugely successful as it is - and she's due a lot of credit for keeping kids reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
What's transphobic about this particular book?
I don’t think she is talking about Cherry?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
As I don’t think anyone can say Cherry isn’t a long term and vocal activist in the arena of women’s rights.
Suspect it’s others who are pro-life, anti-choice she’s alluding to?
You're right that there’s unhelpful activists at both extreme poles of the debate. Those where the debate is not shades of grey but monochromatic, unyielding and intolerant.
Anyhow, Hibs are at home and this will still be trundling on later….I’m away to torture myself at Easter Road again :greengrin
See recent posts. Or are you being deliberately obtuse?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
i have not read it, and i know this might sound stupid, but IMO this is genuinely a case where one doesn't need to have read the book to comment on it, because the details of the book are not the thing that will make a cultural impact - hardly anyone will read it outside of her devotees, and the discourse on this issue has long been stripped of any nuance. it's the fact that she has written a book in which a murderous man puts on a dress and kills women. as i've said in my previous posts, there's only one way that's going to be interpreted by a lot of people, particularly when she has been arguing repeatedly that trans women are not women.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
to reiterate, i don't think she is transphobic in her intentions, but i think she is at best naïve in terms of her actions and how she has contributed to the debate.
Women dressing as men and vice-versa is a device as old as it gets when it comes to books, films and television. Rowling is hardly breaking new ground here.Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
I don't think it's true to say you can pass judgement on any book or film without having read or watched it yourself.
This is likely to kick things off again:Quote:
Originally Posted by Glory Lurker
https://news.sky.com/story/fresh-tra...-jail-12797405
Good post.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
really can't see that happening, the government are bound to step in.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Why? If trans women are women why should they?Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
Indeed. If a bloke putting on a wig is enough to see him referred to as 'she' during his rape trial (and even more absurdly have his genitalia referred to as 'her p***s') then what's the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Because they are trans women with a sexually violent history towards cis women...not too complicated IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
But it really is complicated. There would be no question of putting a violent woman into a mens prison. Why would you put a trans woman into a mens prison?Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
UN Special Rapporteur on Torture says common sense should prevail in Scotland. Imagine the UN saying that a few months ago, people would wonder what on earth was going on.
https://twitter.com/DrAliceJEdwards/...gEGPCyznw&s=19
The UN did intervene re the SG bill a few months ago IIRC but Sturgeon dismissed their concerns. Or is that what you mean? I may be misreading your post.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
This 'cis' terminology is another thing that bamboozles me. Why foist it on those whose gender is already covered by existing terminology. All it does is over-complicate things unnecessarily.Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
They did but it was ignored, but I think there was another UN specialist who was supportive. I think the fact the UN Special Rapporteur for Torture is weighing in is quite something. I mean imagine if a few months ago someone said the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture is advising the SG to show some common sense people would be going WTF is that about.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
it's only bamboozling if you aren't willing to acknowledge trans women as women.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
'cis' literally just means the opposite of 'trans'. it's used in conversation where a distinction is needed.
you would put a trans woman into a men's prison if they had a history of sexually predatory or violent behaviour towards women, because a) not doing so would potentially re-traumatise a very significant number of the female prison population, and b) to prevent disingenuous/opportunistic transitions of gender...those are just two reasons off the top of my head.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
i thought it was really complicated too, but that's because it's not really possible to come up with a hard and fast rule to cover every scenario.
a pragmatic, case by case approach seems entirely the best way forward to me.
for the record, this Tiffany Scott person seems like she shouldn't be moved to a woman's prison IMO, though I don't know much of the details.
The case-by-case approach has been the way it's been for years. Despite the headlines, this isn't going to change under the proposed GRRA.Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
By doing that you are accepting that trans women are women doesn't apply in all cases. Am I right?Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
A clear distinction is already there: Women and trans-women (all trans-women being male).Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
I accept that this has happened under existing legislation (though applied differently down south). What GRA legislation does, however, is remove any external engagement in the process of getting a GRC. I think if a prisoner had a GRC and was refused access to a facility in line with their GRC, then they could have recourse to a judicial review. That's where the case by case basis might fall down, especially after the haldane judgement. But we will see. For what it's worth, I wonder if 'Isla Bryson' could also have recourse to a judicial review on the grounds of the apparent political interference in the decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
i think this is the problem - you are more interested in the question of semantics and whether or not you are right than you are in the discussion of safeguarding the rights of cis women and trans women alike.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
and no, you're not right - but that doesn't actually matter.
aaaaand there we go. you're a transphobe :aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
i don't know if you answered the previous question - do you know any trans people?
i know a few trans woman and a trans man, and calling them a man or woman respectively would just seem utterly wrong on every level to me, because i actually know them as people and not as some abstract entity to argue the toss about on the internet.
Where I'm at.Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Why is that transphobic? Plenty of trans-women will comfortably acknowledge they are male.Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
I worked with two trans-women at an arts festival a few summers back. One was a difficult person to be around and I didn't actually know he was a trans-woman until somebody else mentioned it. The other was a popular member of the team and never made any attempt claim he was anything other than a trans-woman. I don't recall ever having to use a particular pronoun as he was simply called by his name but in that case (ie that of a bona fide trans-woman, not male prisoners trying to game the system) I'd have gone with 'her' no problem.
It's not semantics. The general fuzzyness around definitions creates real problems for legislation and its implementation in the real world. That has serious implications for women and trans women. If you say that 'trans women are women' but then say not in that case, there has to be clear critera for making that decision. Otherwise it falls apart and becomes a real legal mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
So you don't think that 'trans' and 'cis' are a clear distinction?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Do you disagree with case-by-case risk assessment as a basic way of dealing with the issue?
Firstly, your use of CIS is offensive to many people. Secondly, the definition of trans is so vague that it makes its use extremely problematic. And that has led to the need for a case by case risk assessement. But using that logic, there will have to be a case by case risk assessment for prisons, hospitals, homelessness units, domestic violence centres, changing rooms and so on. That's clearly untenable. My view would be that if we had a clearer definition of trans and an honest discussion about the interaction with same sex services, then it would be more solid ground for going forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
I've heard a number of female acquaintances and friends say they don't "identify as women" they just "are" and would not wish to classify themselves as anything other than biologically female. The common themes from them include their lived experiences being hugely impacted by the biology of menstruation, child birth, miscarriage, sexual assault and menopause. I don't believe any of these thoughtful and reflective individuals to be anything phobic.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Many of them would describe the use of cis to describe themselves as compelled speech. I'm pretty certain that's also one of Joanna Cherrys concerns, too.
You also touch on the idea that the term trans is far reaching and, if we're going to start using chemistry terms to describe aspects of the discussion, they're not a homogeneous group - except in one core aspect of their lives.
Can I ask, in good faith, when you say "bona fide" trans are you meaning those individuals with acknowledged gender dysphoria? I have been interpreting your use of this to imply that - apologies if I have been mistaken. This would exclude AGP individuals from your definition- and bad faith actors such as the recent individuals trying to game the system for whatever reason.
Can you maybe clarify? Thank you
r.e. the bit in bold - many people find the phrase 'black lives matter' offensive. that is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the intention of the language, wilful or otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
The term 'cis' is a Latin term used to denote 'always having been on the same side', as opposed to 'trans'. the terms have no function other than to include a vulnerable group of people into a discussion on their terms. many women - most that i know - have absolutely zero issue with this. i obviously can't speak for women, but i thought the man in that article that you posted was being absolutely ridiculous about objecting to being called a 'cis male'.
given that there aren't actually that many trans people, i can't see that a case-by-case approach would be a particular burden to the services. there's also another issue - did you know that one of the first rape crisis centres in the UK was set up by, and is still run by, a trans woman? what do you do with her?
i agree that a crystal clear definition of 'trans' would be helpful, but i think that's what a lot of people are working towards. a lot of the difficulty arises from a determination to exclude trans people from being the gender that they identify as at a basic linguistic level. solutions, not semantics, are the way forward.
This is a really interesting post. I'm not sure that I have used the term 'bona fide', but I get what you mean. I think we need to look at this in two ways: what are we trying to achive and how does society confer legitimacy on who should be considered trans.Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysGot2
Where I think we are at the moment is that the policy objective appears to be to allow people to self identify as a sex and, with that, freely access all of the places and services that people of that sex would access. This has been the focus of much of the debate on here and more widely.
When I refer to the vagueness of the definition, I mean that it extends from people who have had a full biological transition right through to some very fuzzy sense of living as your gender. I do not think that trans, as represented on that spectrum, is a single homogeneous group. So I guess it can be seen as where does society draw the line? I'm not sure it's even as simple as that. You raise the issue of AGP individuals. On a personal level I think it's none of my business if someone is AGP. But it becomes society's business when that impacts on the rights of others.
I suspect that almost no one would have an issue treating someone who has biologically transitioned as being of there preferred sex. I suspect most people would not consider Isla Bryson as 'bona fide' (to use your phrase) trans. But there must be a line somewhere - the issue is where do we draw it and how do we do that in a way that doesn't unfairly stigmatise people?
The starting point for me is what are we trying to achieve? I do believe that should be that trans people should be able to access services and activities in line with their preferred sex. But I don't accept that can apply to anyone on the very broad spectrum that trans is currently expressed as. I would also suggest that to address your point about 'bad faith' actors, there needs to be a process. As the Scottish legislation largely strips out that process, I think that is problematic.
So there needs to be widespread engagement across civic society as to where the acceptable boundaries are. I do fear, however, that it has become so toxic and entrenched that it will be really difficult. And the recent cases just entrench that more.
Thoughts welcome.
this is an interesting post, and i can see that you are definitely coming at this issue in good faith, even if i disagree with you on some matters :aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sorry Archie, it may have been He's Here that used that term. Thanks for your response though. Would be interested in He's Here's views too.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Re AGP v fully transitioned (as far is as medically possible) it's clear from public feedback the general population see these scenarios as quite different.
I think it absolutely is someone's own business re AGP but I can see why many females might not be comfortable sharing single sex spaces with AGP individuals.
[QUOTE=AgentDaleCooper;7259259]r.e. the bit in bold - many people find the phrase 'black lives matter' offensive. that is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the intention of the language, wilful or otherwise. So what is the intention? And why the implication that it's akin to racism to contest it? Why can't people choose how they are described rather than having it imposed?
The term 'cis' is a Latin term used to denote 'always having been on the same side', as opposed to 'trans'. the terms have no function other than to include a vulnerable group of people into a discussion on their terms. many women - most that i know - have absolutely zero issue with this. i obviously can't speak for women, but i thought the man in that article that you posted was being absolutely ridiculous about objecting to being called a 'cis male'. That's fine, but again you are trying to determine how people define themselves. It's not a neutral term.
given that there aren't actually that many trans people, i can't see that a case-by-case approach would be a particular burden to the services. there's also another issue - did you know that one of the first rape crisis centres in the UK was set up by, and is still run by, a trans woman? what do you do with her?I don't know the detail of the rape crisis centre you refer to. Most initially came out of the womens movement in the 70s. So that is some stretch. The case by case issue is much wider than the assessment. there needs to be a comprehensive set of criteria and a legally robust process underpinning it to make it work. I think you are seriously underestimating the task here.
i agree that a crystal clear definition of 'trans' would be helpful, but i think that's what a lot of people are working towards. a lot of the difficulty arises from a determination to exclude trans people from being the gender that they identify as at a basic linguistic level. solutions, not semantics, are the way forward.I'm confused here. Semantics is about the meaning of language. Surely that is central to this? If you want solutions you must be clear on what you are wanting to solve.
SG has put on hold the movement of all transgender prisoners and has announced a review of the rules, according to Sky.
I'm in full agreement with a great deal of what you and archie have been discussing this afternoon, in particular your point about compelled speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysGot2
My primary concern around the blocked SG legislation is the danger inherent in the removal of the current checks and balances with a policy that equates to 'everyone is who they say they are, unless they turn out not to be'.
i also don't agree with compelled speech, but i equally think it's much less of an issue than transphobia.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
you honestly come across as making an actual point of saying 'he' whenever you can, when referring to a trans-woman. out of curiosity, what do you think of Jordan Peterson, and how he was contributed to things on this matter?
as nicola sturgeon has said recently, i hope that you'll be as exercised as this when it comes to other woman's rights issues.
sounds sensible :aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
How would you ask the victims to address the accused in court? As "she"?Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
The crimes were committed when he was not trans but the trial was held when she was.
you can always just say 'they' IMO. it almost always works grammatically. i don't think anyone should be legally forced to say anything though, and if it's in court and someone is recounting some utterly horrific incident that happened to them, then they should be able to describe it however they feel.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
F.A.O. archie:
So what is the intention? And why the implication that it's akin to racism to contest it? Why can't people choose how they are described rather than having it imposed?
the BLM example i gave was to do with people taking umbrage to something based on a misinterpretation. in this case, the misinterpretation is that 'cis' diminishes one's woman/manhood, when if you look at both the meaning and the way in which the term is used, it absolutely doesn't.
That's fine, but again you are trying to determine how people define themselves. It's not a neutral term.
right, here's the tricky bit...i don't think 'cis male' is as much a definition of identity as it is a differentiation. i can't identify as 'cis male', it's just who i am - it would be literally impossible for me to identify as a 'trans male', because i can never be one. the 'cis' part isn't about identity - it's about creating a distinction that allows trans people to be included into the gender with which they identify. the upshot of refusing this is actually what determines how people define themselves - because it excludes trans people from identifying with their desired gender. so objecting to the word 'cis' isn't actually about how one is defining ones self - it's about refusing to allow other people do define themselves as they wish.
the word 'cis' itself, as i have blabbed on about, is very neutral in terms of its denotation - it just means 'not trans'. i get that connotatively it has acquired other meanings to a lot of people, that it somehow qualifies or diminishes their own gender identity - but it really doesn't in any meaningful way.
I don't know the detail of the rape crisis centre you refer to. Most initially came out of the womens movement in the 70s. So that is some stretch. The case by case issue is much wider than the assessment. there needs to be a comprehensive set of criteria and a legally robust process underpinning it to make it work. I think you are seriously underestimating the task here.
I'm pretty sure it's the one in Edinburgh.
R.e. the case by case thing - I think the only thing that needs to be assessed is whether they are a risk to women. perhaps i'm being simplistic - but that is the outcome we're both aiming at, isn't it? are we just disagreeing on how best to reach that outcome?
I'm confused here. Semantics is about the meaning of language. Surely that is central to this? If you want solutions you must be clear on what you are wanting to solve.
without wanting to be utterly nebulous and unconstructive, these sorts of 'concepts' like gender really do break down to dust when you start applying thorough going philosophy of language style analysis. there's much smarter people than me who would disagree with that, i'm sure, but as far as i can see, any line that is drawn is bound to be somewhat arbitrary, unless it's a line that excludes people that should not be excluded. i think if someone has been living as a woman/man for 2 years/6 months, whatever, that's fine, so long as practical safeguards are put in place in areas housing people who could be at risk of predators looking to capitalise on ambiguity.
Thanks for the response. I'd read up a wee bit more on Edinburgh. It's controversial and certainly not set up by a trans personQuote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
I'm not making a point. Just recalling that when I worked with a couple of trans women (turns out this was longer ago than I realised, 2009, so things were a bit less nuanced) I wasn't too clued up on this issue and they were both so obviously male that I thought of them as such. Had I been asked to refer to them as she I doubt I'd have had a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
Is Peterson the guy who refused to go along with gender pronouns? I'm with him on that by and large, particularly the daft made-up ones.
I mentioned that things are more nuanced now but looking at the latest quotes from the SG on the prisoner row I see they are still, absurdly, tiptoeing around whether 'Isla' is a man or a woman. As JKR puts it he's 'a big burly rapist'. Makes things a lot simpler.
Surely all pronouns are made up 😂😂Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
the danger with that last bit is that it's basically normalising mis-gendering people, so long as you've got a good reason to do it...people will take that and run a mile with it, given time.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
as far as i see it, Isla is a trans-woman with a history of extreme sexual violence against women, and should not be held in a women's prison.
yeah, Peterson refused to go along with gender pronouns...I know of some people who, to my eyes, utterly rip the piss (e.g. someone who wants to be referred to as 'it'), but a) i don't think most people do so deliberately, and b) again, we're back to the problem that archie was talking about, of making judgements about other people's identities. Peterson recently went as far as mis-gendering someone, quite deliberately and provocatively, who had actually had surgery. he's a knob.
it wasn't just in relation to that post, you've been doing it throughout the entire thread.
Amanda Benson, is a mum of four who says she was so terrified her nerves were frazzled, when she was a prisoner at Gateside women only prison Greenock, because she was in there with two men who identified as women, one was a convicted murderer, the other who was over six foot and was there for domestic violence.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/e...aring-29075541
Yet...Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-64431383
She felt compelled to undergo an invasive procedure because she feared being raped while sharing prison facilities with two violent male offenders...but Keith Brown reckons it's OK because she didn't actually come to harm.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Is the fear and wanting a safe space like in the shower not enough or do we dismiss them. I don't think sexual assaults would rise but I do believe females should have a right to female only spacesQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Did he say that?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
I doubt you meant that "yet" in the way it came across.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I'm not sure how it came across.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
The point of my post was to say that we have 1 story from a former inmate, and a conflicting version from Keith Brown.
That is all. No opinion, not siding one way or the other.
Reminds me of the article on here earlier severely disabled lady who said as she had memory loss problems she wanted female only care. Someone on here dismissed her fears saying she's worried about hypotheticals and should take the care she is given.
Women's rights and wishes are legitimate. It's about balancing rights gained against loss to others. I don't believe there is many places or situations where there is issues. I don't understand why it has to be all or nothing
By all accounts it would be the men who were more at risk from Amanda Benson!Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
https://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/news/17280440.amanda-benson-told-must-unpaid-work----jailed/
Amanda Benson was out on bail regarding a separate allegation of serious assault when she pursued and attacked a man in the street before sinking her teeth into a male PC's hand at 2am.
Not to diminish any safety concerns in prison specifically re: sexual assaults committed by anyone idenifying as a transwoman, but for context woman prisoners have had safety concerns going back over a decade. This report on Cornton Vale's prisoner assualt rates and suicide figures is a shocking indication of the fear many non violent prisoners live with daily. Hopefully there are more recent and much improved stats since this was published.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/crime/...prison-1658748
What's conflicting?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
She says that she shared spaces with trans men, one of whom was there for violence against women, the other for murder.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Keith Brown says that "no trans prisoners with a history of violence against women were being held in female prisons."
Unless it's a question of timing (she is relating the past, he the present), the 2 accounts conflict.
Gateside in greenock is not a women's prison. There are 5 accommodation units, one for women, another for people under supervision for release. Unless they all use a single shower block then I find it hard to see how the situation she described is possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I read it as Keith Brown saying that as of today, they have obviously been busy over the weekend moving prisoners. I don't think the lady is making it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The Record piece suggests that they did share spaces.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
“We were told his name was Laura and that we would need to call him by that name, while the murderer was called Alex.
https://twitter.com/PeterAdamSmith/s...oGlcA-gxw&s=19
The use of the words "has just" suggests it's just happened.
"Does Scotland’s First Minister believe all trans women are women?
Scottish Gov has just implemented an effective ban on trans prisoners who’ve committed sexual & violent crimes against women being moved to a women-only prison."
Are violent women excluded from women only prisons? Do women not also need protection from violent women?
You can't exclude everyone who is a threat, but you can try your best to protect those most at risk.
That's fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Both telling their own truth.
And with an outcome which should be acceptable to most.
Protecting prisoners from harm is of no interest to 99% of the UK population and this thread is no different. This is about who might commit some harm rather than stopping harm. There are no long threads on here worrying about the shocking levels of violence and self harm in our prisons. Nobody actually cares about these prisoners at all. This is about attacking trans people and NS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yep, and Amanda Benson is someone who is a threat to other people. That's why she was in greenock prison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
If the % you quote was true re: public interest, stories of violence and suicide in prison would not make headline news imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Public interest there would be "violence". Keeping prisoners 'safe' doesn't sell papers, violence (doesn't matter where from) does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa Cruz
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Utter nonsense frankly. If people didn't speak up this week a rapist with male biology would be in a female prison, just like sexual criminal katie dolatowski is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
There isn't long threads about prison violence because no one would defend it, its obviously deplorable.
The other poster comparing female murderers being in female prisons is also ridiculous. In the last 5 years 99% of rapists prosecuted are males. If you can't see the difference your ditsy or have an agenda
There was a huge story recently of the poor Las that committed suicide in Cornton Vale due to be imprisoned for something minorQuote:
Originally Posted by Kato
The first paragraph you just made up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[QUOTE=CropleyWasGod;7260346]Yet...
Amanda Benson is in a female prison with 40 prisoners, two of who are biologically male, one is there for murder, the other who she describes as very scary, is over 6 foot and is there for domestic violence to say, "yet" Do you mean she has nothing to worry about in this situation, as you don't care about vulnerable women in prison or that as these are males who identify as female, so she has nothing to worry about? In either case this does come across as a tad misogynistic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h83OeA42xUo
[QUOTE=147lothian;7260575]My post was meant to highlight the apparent conflict in the 2 stories, which now seems to have been resolved. No opinion was offered .Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
That's what I took you to be implying by countering the woman's claims with the Brown story.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Gateside in greenock is not a women's prison. There are 5 accommodation units, one for women, another for people under supervision for release. Unless they all use a single shower block then I find it hard to see how the situation she described is possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
Oh Ozy. This is text book deflection. How do you know that nobody cares? Just because there isn't a thread here? I can only speak for myself, but my issues relate to poorly formed policy and badly drafted legislation. The fact that vulnerable women are just seen as collateral damage appalls me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
So she had it coming?Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
[QUOTE=CropleyWasGod;7260581]Ok thanks for clearing that upQuote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
What did she have coming. Nobody did anything to her. Tell that to all the men she assaulted.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
So living in fear is ok?Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Criminals lose their rights to opinions fears and wishes it seems.
This shows that Amanda Benson's fear is genuine from what she describes as a hulk of a man who was about 6'3 and there for domestic violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL_tDdSzJPE
The first sentence you just made up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
It was a wholly reasonable assertion. You should try making a reasonable assertion yourself sometime. I think describing anyone on this thread as inaccurate is a bit rich given the various inconsistencies of your apparent position. Don’t you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Im not so sure about that 99% figurę, Most people I know are fairly compassionate and would expect all of us to be protected from harm. Just because you don’t care doesn’t mean virtually nobody else does either. (Unless you are placing yourself in the 1% of the population that you think care. :greengrin )Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Your last statement just seems unfair. It would be just as easy to say that nobody actually cares about Trans people at all on here, it’s all about defending NS. Which would be ridiculous given that there have been people from both sides of this arguing their case respectfully. It’s really not all about cheap political point scoring.
I'm simply repeating his own assertion that another poster had made something up a few posts back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester B
Considering the story has been national news for the last week it's clearly commanding public interest (the key criteria for a news story) so I'd suggest more than 1% of the population are taking note. To try and brush it off as just an anti-SNP story doesn't wash. There would be a similar furore no matter which governing party was embroiled in this.
Transcript from Surgeon's toe-curling interview with ITV'S Peter Smith earlier:
PS: 'Are all trans women women?'
NS: ‘That is not the point that we are dealing with here…
PS: ‘That is the question I am asking.’
NS: ‘Trans women are women, but in the present context there is no automatic right for a trans woman…’
PS: ‘So there are contexts where a trans woman is not a woman?’
NS: ‘No, there [are] circumstances when a trans woman will be housed in the male prison estate…’
PS: ‘Is there any context in which a woman born as a woman will be housed in the male estate?’
NS: ‘Look, we’re talking here about trans women…’
PS: ‘And I’m now asking about women born as women.’
NS: ‘I don’t think there are circumstances there, but…’
PS: ‘So it’s different for trans women?’
NS: ‘Well, yes…’