Alex Massie spells it out in the Times.

Bloody hell. PP is right this should go on a new thread Charlie

Omg. And the SNP/Greens want to inflict even worse legislation upon us.

I still think a designated women's prison which only houses self-designated non-natal women would solve things. They could not argue that there are no women there, as they are adamant that they are women.

Yes indeedy!

Or not it!

It documentary, as someone else suggested!

Could this be worth its own thread Charley?

Thank you for the share Arabella

Charlie I hope you or others have been able to meet with a filmmaker about this. There has to be a decent documentary to be made, chronicling it all. And your information would be deeper background to The Trans Train (Sweden), which could just as easily have been made here. But wasn't.

And was the minister in question, Lammy?

@CharlieParley

So they knew exactly what they were doing, and who they were benefiting. Did you see this as a deception that everyone who mattered knew about, but no one cared, because they were perfectly happy to accommodate a fetish?

I know there were quite a few people who were fully cognisant with what they were doing, but did you see as most of them, who were in a position to push it through?

Because why bother? Unless they truly did want to accommodate transvestites, knowing the detriment to women.

I mean, how many people are we talking about here? It's mind blowing.

Bloody hell Charlie

Less than 20 years ago, Labour brought in the GRA which allows people to be legally recognised as the opposite sex. A bonkers and pointless exercise in my view, but here we are.

They did this one the basis that these people were

1. Homosexual

2. Unable to marry because same sex marriage was not permitted
3. All so convincing as the opposite sex no one else could tell (rofl)
4. Had a medical diagnosis of (at the time I think it was Gender Identity Disorder)

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but...

1. The government was advised that there was another group of transsexuals who wanted a GRC, namely non-homosexual (usually straight but some bisexual) late-onset transitioners.

But this, much larger group, could not be acknowledged in any way because the public would have protested the new law had this been widely known.

1. The government was particularly interested in ignoring that this above-mentioned group would be forced to divorce or annul their marriage if they wanted a GRC, as theirs would become same-sex marriages and that wasn't allowed.

There's a very long letter from one such individual to a Minister begging to meet, explaining in great detail what autogynephilia is and why it's unfair to write the law in a way that benefits homosexual transsexuals but disadvantages non-homosexual transsexuals.

The Minister in question was advised to ignore this particular transsexual as that was the wrong sort and as the government was determined to pretend only the homosexual transsexuals existed, there was no point in meeting.

1. The government was advised by various trans rights organisations that at least 40% of transsexuals had not transitioned in any way and had no intention to ever see a doctor. This was why they argued against any kind of gatekeeping. They lobbied hard for self-declaration of sex even back then.

However, the government knew that they could only get this law on the books if they lied to the public by only ever talking about the fully-transitioned homosexual transsexuals. They even ensured by a devious slight of hand that the fact this was a lie was concealed through a condition that anyone who said they had medically transitioned (even though that was never a condition to receive a GRC) had to prove they had transitioned by providing evidence, usually medical records of treatment.

This is why transsexuals who applied in 2004 often complained that the process was intrusive and humiliating - because for them it actually was.

1. They never publicly acknowledged that a medical diagnosis was the only requirement. Every line taken, every briefing to journalists emphasised that no one would undergo a harrowing medical transition lightly. The public was never made aware that the law would allow someone to get a GRC who had not had any treatment at all.

I know this, because I spent the time before lockdown in the National Archives of Scotland researching the original documents from the 2002-2004 lawmaking process, including emails between the main players, meeting minutes, briefings, constituency letters and so on. Which includes the explicit refusal to consider what impact this law might have on women.

This was never a benign, well-considered law.

What about self defence lessons for female prisoners, given in their own cells, with the doors shut, and not available to non-female prisoners.
I had such lessons at college and was not convinced by them as we were only allowed the throw about the tutor who was expecting it. We were not taught what my dad was taught in the Army, and which I have also never practiced. Works better with boots, I would think, though maybe stillettos. This method though is somewhere in my brain where I don't have to think about it, where none of the official self defence stuff has vanished into the past.

1. Raise knee with force into groin. (The good thing about this is that the person groined has no way to explain why their groin was close enough for the knee to contact his bits.)
2. Recover by scraping foot down the shin.
3. Complete leg movement by stamping hard on the instep.
4. If the attacker has bent over in agony (he should have), join fists together and punch down on his back.
5. Run, or in other way get to safe place.

I still think a designated women's prison which only houses self-designated non-natal women would solve things. They could not argue that there are no women there, as they are adamant that they are women.

Not used to unfortunately, still happening regularly 😡

And the women whose fear, distress, humiliation, trauma, possible injuries is all being gambled on making this male sufficiently happy to behave....?

It seems to be a continuation (on steroids) of what schools (used to?) do with with misbehaving boys. Never a thought for the poor girl whose education is hampered and the life lessons re her boundaries, consent and worth she takes from having him foist on her

Not to mention that every single solitary concern, recorded in Hansard as MPs discussed the possible bad outcomes from doing this? Has come true. Along with a lot more too insane for anyone to have envisaged at the time.

We have women blocked from women's refuges, women's spaces, women's toilets and changing rooms.

We have raped women stacking up in piles.

It's all been a fucking disaster, the experiment has massively failed and the GRA needs to be scrapped. Now. Male problems are going to have to get fixed another way.

I have no idea Arabella, the whole thing seems wicked to me.

If they could not keep other male prisoners safe from this individual how in the hell do they intend to protect female prisoners from him?

Where, anywhere, is it a human right for males to be provided with female bodies - and I say bodies, because no other part of the female appears remotely relevant. No one seems at all interested in how those females feel or what happens to them, or even that they have not consented to these Hunger Games experiments.

It is going to take a woman dead in this mess before apparently anyone in politics other than Baroness Nicholson gets off their bum and does anything. It is perfectly possible to meet the needs of any TQ+ male prisoner without throwing them female prisoners and everyone crossing their fingers and hoping the female prisoners survive the experience at least physically intact.

Mentally? Well I suppose MN will pick up the pieces of distraught and damaged female humans. Since apparently no one else can manage a fuck to give. When did we vote in this male supremacist bullshit?

Absolutely - the GRA was a fudge introduced because the Labour government didn't believe that same-sex marriage was politically achievable. If they had just had the guts to try, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today.

Note I'm not saying that changing your appearance makes a difference, just it's another way the original purpose of the legislation has been undermined

Less than 20 years ago, Labour brought in the GRA which allows people to be legally recognised as the opposite sex. A bonkers and pointless exercise in my view, but here we are.

They did this one the basis that these people were

1. Homosexual
2. Unable to marry because same sex marriage was not permitted
3. All so convincing as the opposite sex no one else could tell (rofl)
4. Had a medical diagnosis of (at the time I think it was Gender Identity Disorder)

Now, a mere 18 years later

1. Sexuality is irrelevant
2. Same sex marriage is (rightly) legal
3. You don't have to do anything to make your outward appearance look like that of a member of the opposite sex
4. No medical diagnosis

So what precisely is the GRA for? And should someone who meets none of the criterion originally laid out in the (appalling legislation) be entitled to the special status it bestows?!

Bad law, badly written, repeal NOW!

See also: cruel and unusual punishment.

And the imbalance that female prisoners are expected to put up with the threat of sexual assault and rape from violent males because the males' needs

however the main justification for removing TQ+ males from the male estate is that they might suffer sexual assault and rape from violent males.

So unilateral worse treatment and standards for biological females.

'But sex doesn't exist and TWAW'.

And mentioning biology, being female, gender critical, Karen White, or any other words that actually mean being able to describe the evil of this to women are all signs of a witch in need of burning. FGS Rishi sort this out.

I do love this theory that male sex offenders are only so vile in their sex offending to women because they have not yet been surrounded with non consenting female resources. (Not merely a TQ+ safe and private space. That won't do. It isn't about the space or safety from other males, it's all about the females in it.)

And that once those non consenting bodies are placed around them (and unable to run away) the offender will never feel the urge to harm women again.

And the women whose fear, distress, humiliation, trauma, possible injuries is all being gambled on making this male sufficiently happy to behave....?

well what does that matter if we're giving this male what they need?

It's FUBAR.

So if he beats up a man in prison he's allowed to go to a womens prison, if he beats up or rapes a woman where will he go next? Juvenile detention?