to think that Ian Huntley is most definitely not a woman?

[ATeardropExplodes]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/15/call-lian-child-killer-ian-huntley-has-told-inmates-call-feminine/

If anyone has any evidence to convince me otherwise please do enlighten me, thanks in advance.

I will attempt to do some learnin', Curious, and see where I stand. :)

I'm all for people identifying as whatever the fuck they choose. But that murdering scumbag pervert cunt deserves nothing but torture for the rest of his days.
Anyone who thinks he should have some human rights wants to read the book written by Holly Wells' father.
I hope that bastard rots in hell. Actually I hope he starts rotting while he's still alive. And it's fucking painful

Anyone who thinks he should have some human rights

This is the thing. He does have human rights, no matter whether we agree or not. And under the GRA proposals, he would have the right to be transferred to a female prison if he wanted to. Which I think is outrageous but that is the potential future reality of the situation. Him and every other inmate.

Of course he has human rights. Societies are judged by how they treat their prisoners.

Maryz I'm certainly not telling anyone what to call themselves. I'm objecting to them insisting I can't call myself a woman (meaning adult human female)

Who is stopping you calling yourself either a woman or a female? Or an adult or a human?

CuriousaboutSamphire Your oh so clever point wasn't well enough thought through!

What was wrong with it? Somebody asked ME whether I would do something. I pointed out that THEY are more likely to do that thing than ME. Your comeback to this is to talk about the things you think OTHER PEOPLE would do as if that proves a point I made about MYSELF wrong? Anyway...

Tempted to point out that you are the one more likely to tell someone what they can or can't call themself. No, do point it out! As often as you like.

Then we can repeat why, sometimes, a man wanting to be called a woman seems to have the need to ensure that women, the biological kind, must then be re-labelled - cis or some such crap.

Yes plenty of OTHER PEOPLE will, should the context require it, use "cis" as a distinguisher. Still not quite the same thing though is it? Telling someone they are not a woman and can't use that term vs using one qualifier to distinguish non trans women from trans women, when some of the non trans women would prefer a different qualifier be used. Like "non trans" say.

In terms of telling other people what they can or can't call themselves, still think there is a clear winner here.

Picking up a point from pages ago because this is REALLY IMPORTANT :

Me: Once a prisoner has a GRC they must be housed in the estate of their declared gender. No room for discretion

wherethevioletsgrow - No, this is untrue. There IS discretion. I know that there are examples of where violent offenders have been put in female prisons but it is NOT true that prisoners have an automatic right to move to a female prison. It will still be dealt with on a case by case basis as it currently is. Currently prison services will only entertain a move if someone has a GRC and yes the new law will lead to it being easier to acquire one but it is not true that the new law will leave no discretion for the prison service if e.g. a serial rapist suddenly asks to move to a women's prison.

This is incorrect.

Here are the latest Prison Service instructions for the care and management of transgender offenders (link downloads a word doc available from this page.)

Here are a couple of extracts:

2.5 Whilst a GRC is proof of legal gender, the absence of it does not automatically prevent that prisoner being located in the part of the estate consistent with the gender they identify with.

4.1 Arrangements must be in place to determine the legal gender of all offenders at the first point of contact. This will inform assessments and decisions where binary (male/female) services for offenders are required1. Where legal gender cannot be determined, staff must use the best information available and consult with equality leads where necessary (sources of advice and support are listed in Annex F). Staff must not ask to see a GRC but can request sight of a birth certificate. Where an offender does offer a GRC as form of evidence and identity, they must be treated in the gender identified on the certificate.

So, GRC / amended birth certificate = MUST be treated according to legal gender.

No GRC = room for discretion.

Of course he has human rights. Societies are judged by how they treat their prisoners

Yes, this. The punishment of prison should be the loss of liberty and only that. Every prisoner should be housed safely, in such a way that does not harm their physical or mental health, even murdering scumbag pervert cunts like Huntley.

And even women.

Yes plenty of OTHER PEOPLE will, should the context require it, use "cis" as a distinguisher. Still not quite the same thing though is it? Telling someone they are not a woman and can't use that term vs using one qualifier to distinguish non trans women from trans women, when some of the non trans women would prefer a different qualifier be used. Like "non trans" say.

A non trans woman is a woman. Simple as that. No qualifier is required. You don't need to qualify the default. You might say a hairless cat for example, but you don’t refer to all other cats as haired cats.

JAPAB, according to transactivists I can only call myself a woman if I include transwomen in the definition of woman. I can't use woman to mean, erm, woman (adult human female) - that's transphobic. If I want to refer to myself as a woman, I'm told I have to use the term cis as a qualifier- and I'm not allowed to talk about things that make me a woman; periods, pregnancy, women's rights, because that is also transphobic.

You know this; the fact that you are arguing it is even more offensive than calling me cis in the first place

FabalaTheGreenGirl, I started where you are; I couldn't understand how negative everyone seemed to be towards trans people. But I've since realised it's not most transpeople that women are worried about. Most transwomen (and transmen for that matter) are just getting on with their lives. It's the new generation of transactivists, mostly men, mostly very in-your-face about their "rights" that peak-transed me.

I have realised that the trans movement as it now stands is anti-women - it is stamping all over women's rights, women's spaces, women's safety, women's sports. It is, interestingly, stamping over many transpeople's rights as well - the rights of the ones who want to be left alone to live their lives.

It's also a form of child abuse; encouraging children to medically and surgically alter their bodies so that many are going to end up neither man nor woman, probably infertile and with no ability to enjoy sex. Making such serious decisions for children can never be justified.

Hope this doesn't piss people off but I'm going to repeat my post from yesterday with relevant links added.

Wherever your views lie in this tedious ugly debate, and especially if you are not sure what you think, you need to know what's actually happening.

We can fill thread after thread debating what's transphobic or what huntley deserves. We could get so wrapped up in that stuff that we miss our chance to consider and say what we think about proposed new laws which will affect everyone, not only trans people, but which will have a massively disproportionate impact on women and girls.

--------

Since this story was published there has been a proposal that the gender recognition act be reformed.

At the moment, in order to legally change your gender you need a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and two years' worth of documents in your new name.

Under the new proposals you would just have to sign a form.

Prison service guidance states that anybody with a GRC must be housed in the estate corresponding to their new gender. The prison service only get to exercise discretion in cases where a prisoner does not have a GRC.

The UK consultation on changes to the GRA has been delayed but the Scottish consultation is open (to everybody, not only those in Scotland). There is nothing in the Scottish consultation documents about additional safeguards for prisons.

Under the GRA it is a criminal offence to disclose someone's trans history where that knowledge has been gained in an official capacity.

Misgendering someone would be classified and recorded as a hate incident if someone decided to make something of it. It could be classified as a hate crime if the police decided it constituted harrassment.

There isn't anything particularly remarkable about huntley except for his infamy. There are many, many other terrifyingly abusive and murderous men in prison. Around half the trans prison population are male sex offenders.

it's all fucking fucked up

This is perhaps the most unpleasant thread of all of these in my opinion. Bringing together the horror about how trans people define themselves with terms like, 'man in a dress' with burn the scum type responses about HUMANS who have committed (atrocious and devastating) crimes. Someone said upthread something about how 'there's always one' - about people who will try to understand what causes people like Hindley or Huntley to become so disturbed/ psychopathic. That will be me. I would have all of them treated in therapeutic communities rather than prisons. And gender identity could be explored as part of that in the unlikely even that it was relevant for swathes of violent males convicted of heinous acts- which I imagine would be unlikely.

That will be me. I would have all of them treated in therapeutic communities rather than prisons. And gender identity could be explored as part of that in the unlikely even that it was relevant for swathes of violent males convicted of heinous acts- which I imagine would be unlikely

Yes but totally irrelevant. As if the GRA proposal goes through, IH could identify as a woman and get put into a female prison. So, do you think he is a woman?

And totally missing the point yet again, it is not genuine trans people that are the problem here.

The thread is not unpleasant. A few comments are perhaps more extreme or unpleasant in your opinion, but that does not have anything to do with the main thrust of this thread and indeed the subject matter. Rehabilitation (which only ever works if the person wants it, and then only with some and to some extent) is another discussion altogether.

It should be clear to you, or at least to anyone with any capacity for complex thought and analysis, that comments on the dangers of extremeties of this ridiculous notion that the individual determines reality do not apply to individuals who go about their business in their own lives within their own circles but to those who violently demand that their version of reality subsume that to whom it rightly belongs. A man in a dress is not a woman. A man who dresses and lives like a woman and has gone through the required medical and legal process as set out by legislation has the right to be called whatever pronoun he/she asks, but that unequivocally and absolutely does not change his sex and will never do so. These things matter. They need clear and precise and exact attention, not woolly thinking that completely denies the facts of a situation.

I will not ever be dictated to about my womanhood, my sex and my entitlement to it and its rights and protections.

Well it is sort of the point when it attracts the usual daily mail type burn in hell type responses. I think Ive said (or something like it) on other posts that i think the question of whether someone born male calls themselves a woman or not- and whether or not it is true- depends on whether or not you think the chromosomal definition is the most important in relation to this specifically. It seems a pointless argument- I'm aware that people are born one sex or another. I am aware that they cannot change that biology. Anything else I say will be ripped to shreds but I understand the line of argument you are all making. I just find it unpleasant and I am not worried in the way you are.If some trans people are being abusive in what they say or do then call them out- I dont support that. I welcome trans women - happy to call them women- into the bathrooms that I use and into my spaces.

So you understand, you may or may not agree on the point, you have no concerns but you find it unpleasant that we are discussing it? Women just need to shut up about it basically?

Good for you. But you are not every woman. You have no right to demand that every other woman and girl bend over backwards to let men into every part of their life and identity. You do not get to dictate that everyone should be okay with that, and you do not get to tell me that my rights and protections and those of my daughters and theirs should be available to every man who chooses it.

A legal right to be addressed as a woman and to live in peace as a woman without threat of harm or prejudice should never mean that one is actually a woman, and womanhood should not ever be redefined in the image of a man who demands it be that way.

I have no beef with any man who quietly goes about his business in whatever way he chooses, and any trans woman who I come across is treated with the same respect and dignity I afford to any other human being. But I will never pander to anyone who demands I surrender my own rights and protections in order that their twisted ideology take precedence.

SimonBridges A non trans woman is a woman. Simple as that. No qualifier is required. You don't need to qualify the default. You might say a hairless cat for example, but you don’t refer to all other cats as haired cats.

You might if you have some reason to distinguish and make clear that you are referring only to cats with fur or non-hairless cats. Imagine a plauge that affects only cats with fur/non hairless cats. Of course it is unlikely you would ever need to make such a distinction with cats, but there are contexts in which it is necessary to make explicit when you are talking about trans people or non-trans people.

Maryz If I want to refer to myself as a woman, I'm told I have to use the term cis as a qualifier- and I'm not allowed to talk about things that make me a woman; periods, pregnancy, women's rights, because that is also transphobic.

I think you are over-egging here. You are not "allowed" to talk about pregnancy? You "have" to use the word cis? Anyway, people on both sides are trying to telll the other what words they are or are not "allowed" to use, the words they "have" to use.

I am not a cis woman. I am a woman. Men who want to be women can find another label that they want to use for themselves. They DO NOT get to reassign all of female biology to fit their own wishes.

The government has said around 50%of trans prisoners are in for sex offences. The6 would all have the right to be transferred to women’s prisons under the GRA proposals. Anyone who is ok with that is a misogynist with no regard for the right of women.

No.I find your (I dont know about you personally- not great at usernames- but the general mn) tone about people who feel they were born wrong, unpleasant. I have taken some of the ideas and discussed them elsewhere- to add a different perspective. But the man in dress type comments- of which in different forms there are many, show a lack of understanding of the distress and turmoil that can be experienced. And I dont believe you (again not a personal you) have reason for this or your level of worry about giving these people a break.

@FarFrom Would you ever believe that Ian Huntley was born in the wrong body?

The fucker murdered two ten year old girls in cold blood. Then went on national tv acting concerned - probably wanked over the footage afterwards thinking he had got away with it. He deserves nothing but pain and suffering for the rest of his miserable life

I dont see the point on debating this. I am certain that huntley had all kinds of wrong throughout his life. Whether he located that in his gendered body seems small fry.