The Trans Rights Debate

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?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper

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.

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

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.

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.

---

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

it's only bamboozling if you aren't willing to acknowledge trans women as women.

'cis' literally just means the opposite of 'trans'. it's used in conversation where a distinction is needed.

---

A clear distinction is already there: Women and trans-women (all trans-women being male).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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.

---

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 archie

By doing that you are accepting that trans women are women doesn't apply in all cases. Am I right?

---

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.

and no, you're not right - but that doesn't actually matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

A clear distinction is already there: Women and trans-women (all trans-women being male).

---

aaaaand there we go. you're a transphobe :aok:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper

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.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper

aaaaand there we go. you're a transphobe :aok:

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.

---

Why is that transphobic? Plenty of trans-women will comfortably acknowledge they are male.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper

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.

and no, you're not right - but that doesn't actually matter.

---

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 archie

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.

---

So you don't think that 'trans' and 'cis' are a clear distinction?

Do you disagree with case-by-case risk assessment as a basic way of dealing with the issue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper

So you don't think that 'trans' and 'cis' are a clear distinction?

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 archie

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.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LewysGot2

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.

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

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

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.

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

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LewysGot2

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.

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.

---

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.

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'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

I'm in full agreement with what you and archie have been discussing this afternoon, in particular your point about compelled speech.

My primary concern around the blocked SG legislation is the removal of the current more stringent 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

SG has put on hold the movement of all transgender prisoners and has announced a review of the rules, according to Sky.

---

sounds sensible :aok:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper

i also don't agree with compelled speech, but i equally think it's much less of an issue than transphobia.

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.

---

How would you ask the victims to address the accused in court? As "she"?

The crimes were committed when he was not trans but the trial was held when she was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

How would you ask the victims to address the accused in court? As "she"?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper

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 person

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper

i also don't agree with compelled speech, but i equally think it's much less of an issue than transphobia.

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

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.

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!

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.

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.

---

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.

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