Ian Huntley ! This is wrong...

[HJWT]

I just don't have words

I'm saying I'm not dismissing all transwomen and that they're always male whatever they do so go away to them like some do.
Saying anything in more depth than that ends in... well, the other threads. No point clarifying and bending to what you want me to say.

All transwomen are always male, we are generally too polite to say it but it's factually correct. Changes to the GRC process will harm genuine transwomen and benefit paedophiles, rapists, misogynists and autogenophiles if it's a choice between sacrificing women and children and pretending transwomen can be women then pretence is going to be over.

This is all rather familiar. Proper deja-vu "debate" style.

I'm saying I'm not dismissing all transwomen and that they're always male whatever they do so go away to them like some do.

Men are always Male, you can’t change sex.

When would a man not be male? You can’t change sex.

No, as Huntley's only ever vermin.

So at the door of female safe spaces are we going to have someone checking like border control?
Do you have a penis?
Have you ever had a penis?
Have you ever murdered someone?
Have you ever raped someone?

And yes. No one can ever change sex, no matter how hard they wish to the blue fairy.

You won’t say that humans can’t change sex? But you expect everyone to act they can and for women in prisons to be put in danger because of it?

That’s not ok

*I wonder just what proportion of the 557 messages on this thread have been written by one poster, turning the whole thread into a personal conversation with them, mostly consisting of there's no point explaining or talking to you (while continuously continuing to post), I said, you said, no I didn't, you're all a bunch of meanies, and mythical offence being taken over normal grammar?

Massive investment of time, effort and energy into boring as many people off the thread as possible, making it look like just another tedious bunfight, and preventing anyone else managing a discussion of anything important. Score.*

Yip - Played a blinder as usual and as usual everyone plays along.

Even one Rose West in a women's prison is too many, yet there she is, and I know I'd rather be incarcerated with Paris Lees than with Rose West. The world is just a bit more complex than the one dimension you seem to be capable of thinking in.

Lord. You can't possibly segregate on the basis of the offence. Otherwise women, whatever their crime, will be outnumbered by men at a rate of at least 17 to 1, across-the-board. And something like 500 to one for sex offences.

Yep, and there are issues of competing risks here, it's not a binary where all XX people are more vulnerable than all XY people. I'm presuming you've heard of -
—deep breath— intersectionality?

You've been listening to too much transactivism. Intersectionality talks about the axis of oppression, on a class basis.

And was specifically about women who worked in a car factory. The white women were allowed to work in the office, but not the black women. And only men were allowed on the shopfloor. Therefore black women were excluded across the board, firstly by being women, and secondly by being black.

It doesn't mean that Michelle Obama disproves that black people, and women, are oppressed.

And it doesn't mean that you get disadvantaged or vulnerable men transferred to a female prison. You don't suddenly transfer all the gay men, men with learning difficulties, elderly men, disabled men, to the female estate.

But you know, well done for seeing the entire issue through the eyes of men. Who gives a flying fuck about the women, 60% of whom have already been abused, at the hands of men. (And before you say they may have been abused by women, 98% versus 2%. 14,000, versus 120).

Strewth.

100 to 1 - sorry typo.

Badmoonarising - seeing as you've started two trans threads in AIBU alone this week, not surprised that's what you're honing in on.
Seeing as you blatantly were on the other threads as was the OP of them, you'd know (well you'd think) that I do actually answer.
I have on here too, you have to agree fully with everyone though to be heard.
I agree, half of it IS pages of fucking waffle as I have to say the same bloody thing over and again! As keep getting asked a lot of the same questions, I answer, and people pretend they can't see them and ask me to say it again!

I have on here too, you have to agree fully with everyone though to be heard.

Or you can explain your rationale and be heard. If you had one.

But you aren’t andwering the question.

You say humans can’t change sex then You contradict yourself and say you don’t ‘dismiss’ transwomen as men in all circumstances

The two are contradictory. Which do you believe? Can humans change sex or not?

I believe humans can’t change sex, men are always men regardless and that men should never be allowed in female estate.

And to return to the point of the thread - allowing someone like Huntleyto identify as a woman and get into female estate would be wrong on every level.

So no men in women’s jails. Ever.

I have read this thread but mostly stayed out from commenting, as a transsexual, possibly the only one posting here.

But I want to remind of two things I stated as the discussion has gone round in circles over these matters and not really taken into account what one of the very few - 4910 (3000 or so being transsexual women) who is legally defined as having 'changed sex' has said on this issue.

I should add that 'changed sex' is accommodation within law and not reality and has exceptions built in that I support. As do most transsexuals. One of which involves prisons.

So, as I noted, transsexuals agree that nobody changes biological sex. So if we do not having had any surgery that takes us as far as science allows in that direction, the TWAW argument is dead in the water. It is not true.

The exemptions to the law are there to ensure protections can apply where necessary even to the 3000 + and so it is a non argument ith the 500,000 others who are self IDing into transgenderism. They do not even have that level of protection.

The exemptions allow for service providers to define their own rules. I am 100% behind that and do not know any transsexual who would, for instance, stand for an all women's shortlist, or demand access to a refuge or attempt to use open plan changing rooms.

Nor would I respect anyone who did because I think it puts their validation ahead of women and the reason that the exemptions are there.

My view also is that self ID must be stopped. The medical and psychiatric evaluation process strengthened, not eradicated, and it should remain as hard as possible to get a GRC, because if it is not then no GRC is worth anything. It totally trivialises what at present is a medically processed decision. No government should be commended for doing that.

I would also be totally in favour of GRCs being openly recorded and consultable by service providers. They are utterly pointless as a secret piece of paper to stuff in a drawer. Let them act as a guide to who has done what. I would also suggest that they specify what surgery any person has had so that service providers can get more information when making choices.

We need to do this now, because if self ID passes, this will never be supported by the majority who self identify into a GRC but I suspect with protections against public disclosure, such as currently exist for
access to original birth certificates, most TS would live with this idea.

Secondly, and specific to prisons, it is clear that some kind of self ID is already going on or prisoners being waved through far too easily. If there are only just over 3000 transsexuals legally women in the UK as on statistics alone how many of them would be committing a crime after having got one and so be in jail?

As I also stated in my first post no man who is ever convicted of a crime involving violence or sex or other categories that might well be thought relevant should be considered for a GRC and should be regarded permanently as a man in law and treated as such. I would not personally disagree if that was extended to all convicted criminals that result in jail sentences.

This is something that we could call for right now and I am sure a joint argument to that effect from women and transsexuals would have a lot of mutual support.

And a lot of negativity from trans activists, of course. But the general public would be on the side of this argument I suspect.

This is not the solution to everything. But it is a start. And something we may have common ground to press for.

I agree with lassupthebrew - self ID is a something we all seem to agree on - that it isn't a good thing at all.
Biology is real too, I've said that all along.
I just don't see all transwomen as a dangerous threat just because - trans. Or men chromosomes so - bad, stay away.

*I just don't see all transwomen as a dangerous threat just because - trans(

neither do I Verbeena

but I do understand that they're male, so I would expect them to be segregated from women in certain specific circumstances, in the same way we'd segregate any male

Or men chromosomes so - bad, stay away.

So you are against single sex spaces then?

I also think Verbeena that it is too distracting to get caught up in arguments around third spaces such as toilets. We should tackle the more important issues first - and the absurdity of this person being even allowed to consider identifying into any kind of status as a woman is something most rational people in the world would find hard to counter.

Also worth remembering that it is much more probable a government in 2018 would extend trans rights rather than roll them backwards. So calling for all out exclusions might at this stage be the wrong fight.

I accept the arguments for it and can see it from both sides, of course, possibly better than anyone in here. So I am not expecting it to go away or to even ask that the discussion on third spaces or other solutions disappear.

But I think whilst we still have a chance to do so we should focus on winnable arguments and both this prison situation and the risks of self ID it highlights are such. They are going to command widespread agreement beyond just Feminist forums.

Some women feel perfectly happy to share sex segregated spaces with people who are biologically male. Some women don't feel happy at all, they don't consent, and some of those women are not able to share sex segregated spaces with men and have no choice about it.

In consent, no always trumps yes.

If some women would welcome sharing gender neutral third spaces, lovely. Please crack on, that's great. But removing single sex spaces from women removes any provision from the women who most need them, and their only choice is to step out of public life and be excluded. I recently saw a post asking that if 75% of women welcomed a transwoman into a single sex space would that be enough? This disregards that the 25% who say no are likely to be the most distressed and the most vulnerable and the most already experiencing difficulty in accessing society. So no. This is not 'better'. This is not progress. This is not something women should be trying to shame other women into submitting to.

lasswith Also worth remembering that it is much more probable a government in 2018 would extend trans rights rather than roll them backwards. So calling for all out exclusions might at this stage be the wrong fight.

Good point, I don't think rolling them backwards is the way to go with an all out exclusion and ban.

lasswith But I think whilst we still have a chance to do so we should focus on winnable arguments and both this prison situation and the risks of self ID it highlights are such. They are going to command widespread agreement beyond just Feminist forums

Yes! The ridiculousness that self ID brings is what needs tackling, that's a problem that we can all agree with and it needs stopping or at least looking at.

Some women feel perfectly happy to share sex segregated spaces with people who are biologically male. Some women don't feel happy at all, they don't consent, and some of those women are not able to share sex segregated spaces with men and have no choice about it

Genuine question, curious - a completely transitioned transman, had penis bits added instead of taken away, very outwardly presenting as male but biologically female - where do you put them?
Do they go in the mens? If so, that means you see them as men, right? But you're saying they're biologically female?
Or do they keep going in the ladies? With added on man bits and face beards and what not?

Argh. Head mash. Hope that made sense lol

It's a no brainer I'd rather be in prison with Rose West and Paris Lee Paris Lee has grown up as male is socialised as male what is could possibly stillbe male bodied

lassupthebrew

Your criteria for ceding women's rights to transwomen appears to be quite narrow. Fortunately. And to be supportive of women, generally.

Do you have any criteria where women's rights or general protocols should be accessed by transwoman?

Lees has been imprisoned for assault on a man. Who subsequently, but apparently not consequently, died. But I don't know the details, because it's not googleable.

Women should not be imprisoned with violent males. However they identify.

datun Women should not be imprisoned with violent males. However they identify

Don't think anyone's disagreeing with you there - anyone just identifying as male is open to problems.
Think we've all said that? Not seen anyone say otherwise.