Ian Huntley ! This is wrong...

[HJWT]

I just don't have words

Think we've all said that? Not seen anyone say otherwise.

The pp who said they would choose Paris Lees over Rose West.

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

Don't think anyone's disagreeing with you there

So you agree that the prison service made a mistake when people like Karen White and Paris Green were put in women's prisons? What steps do you think they should take to avoid such mistakes in future?

Bowlofbabelfish Mon 10-Dec-18 02:37:59

verbena

Please could you answer my question up thread?

Never gonna happen

If you cut out all the smoke and mirrors Verbeena thinks transwomen are women if and only if they have

a) removed their penis

b) have some as yet unspecified way of proving this to the general public when using female only facilities

c) have never committed a violent crime

d) have some as yet unspecified way of proving this to the general public when using female only facilities

e) are not the person either previously or currently called Ian Huntley

f) have some as yet unspecified way of proving this to the general public when using female only facilities.

If they meet this criteria there is no reason why (according to Verbeena) they should not be allowed to use female only facilities.

So you can see why there actually is no answer to all these rational, logical questions.

datun The pp who said they would choose Paris Lees over Rose West

Ah right, well if what you said about Paris is right (I honestly don't know) then surely that shows all people can be violent, it's the person, not the fact they're trans?
Seeing as one of the people there you mention is a biologically female one and not exactly all lovely seeing as she's in prison for crimes.
It's the person. Not the fact they might be trans.

verbena Please could you answer my question up thread? Never gonna happen

Which one? Genuine question?
I see mine about transmen a couple of pages ago hasn't been answered yet if we're talking about questions not being answered.

Ah right, well if what you said about Paris is right (I honestly don't know) then surely that shows all people can be violent, it's the person, not the fact they're trans?

It's not because they are trans it's because they are male. If a sexual crime has been committed, 98% of the time it will be by a man.

If a violent crime has been committed, 90% of the time, it will be by a man.

All crimes are more likely to be committed by men.

There are 85,000 men in prison in this country and 5000 women. 14,000 men in prison for sex offences and 120 women.

Being trans does not change the fact that you are a man or a woman.

The fact that loads of people, including me, have said this to you countless times is what makes you come across as either goady or lacking in comprehension.

The transman question was directed at me?

Well, my opinion is this: men as a class are a danger to women as a class. So men and women are locked up separately. You’ll note that transmen are not pressing to get into men’s jails - because they know they remain vulnerable to Male violence. As far as I know the numbers of transmen locked up are either zero or in the low 1-2 figures (please correct me if I’m wrong.)

The question I’d like answered is why you feel my position is extreme and I’m an extremist.

You said: The extreme posters say no transwomen with penises in our spaces.

My question was : please can you explain why you think this is an extremist position? It’s the current status quo and allowed for in law under the exemptions and exceptions to the equality act 2010.*

Thank you.

I see mine about transmen a couple of pages ago hasn't been answered yet if we're talking about questions not being answered.

That'll be because women who identify as men aren't seen as a potential threat to us physically or to our privacy, because they're women.

We're bothered about men. As I've mentioned, it's all men, including my dad, who I don't want in women's spaces. Nowt whatever to do with whether or not they are trans.

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

None. I would not say anything should be off the table. That's the only way to start afresh here.

I just think that we should act before there is a risk of tens of thousands of emboldened trans activists with GRCs care of any change towards self ID.

As it will be far easier to reach any meaningful and amicable solution with the few TS who hold a GRC today and who have by definition have been willing to do the things that the ones waiting for self ID to come in will only bother doing if it is made easy enough to pass.

Calling for action over prisons is a thing we can do now as it will carry wide support and show that women and TS can work together to fight for protective rights.

It might also set a legal precedent over how spaces are determined.

Otherwise, before any chance of the GRA getting changed to vastly increase numbers and lower criteria for access, we should convince the government that we need a gathering or consultation or whatever format of ministers, women's groups, law makers and GRC holders (but NOT represented by Stonewall).

Nothing off the table, just an open agenda to decide on how boundaries are best respected and enforced and the ground rules over the way the GRA and EA are applied in ways that can be best supported by all.

We can find a way forward that respects what everyone needs here.

This has a chance of working provided it happens before any self ID amendment is introduced. Which we doubtless will continue to argue against, of course.

I should add that is just my thoughts on the ideal way forward. I have no idea how widely it would be considered appropriate by any side. I am not an activist or group spokesperson so it is my view only.

But there seems only a narrow window of opportunity here before any realistic chance of that happening might disappear.

You said: The extreme posters say no transwomen with penises in our spaces. My question was : please can you explain why you think this is an extremist position? It’s the current status quo and allowed for in law under the exemptions and exceptions to the equality act 2010.

I have clarified what I meant, I have answered that. At least once. I'm not doing it again.
The transmen bit was directed to anyone, really, not just you.
Although that kind of only half answers what I asked - where do the transmen go? Even the ones with added on male bits and fully male presenting and butch?
Seeing as they're biologically female but in every other sense of look body wise, do they still keep going in the ladies? Which is what you say transwomen should do if they've had everything taken away and "look like" a woman?
Or should they get in the mens?

They gonin the women’s because they are women.

Why am I an extremist?

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

None. I would not say anything should be off the table. That's the only way to start afresh here.

Good.

My stance at the moment is segregation by sex only. Everywhere where necessary. Although I am willing to concede that I didn't always think that way. But, I can't see any real possibility of me revisiting my old opinion, I'll be honest.

It's very frustrating that a good number of transwomen think the same way you do, but then you have women, with no knowledge of any of it, disagreeing with you!

cross posted with vicky - OK, it's no to all men as they're violent.
No problem with fully transitioned butch transmen in the ladies though, even though biologically female. Cos women - non violent presumably.

It’s not about what people look like. It’s about the danger men, as a class pose to women, as a class.

So men, regardless of what they look like, don’t get locked up with women and women, regardless of what they look like, don’t get locked up with men.

This shouldn’t be a shock to anyone and it’s certainly not extreme. Will you answer why you find my viewpoint extreme?

Women are less violent yes. That’s one reason why we segregate by sex in prison

Butch? Are you saying butch women are a threat to women? I’ve never felt or been threatened by a butch woman - they’re a woman.

It’s not about external looks. It’s about threat potential

They gonin the women’s because they are women. Why am I an extremist?

How would you know that they're biologically women though if in every way shape and form they had all the bits added on and presented as a butch man?
They'd look like a man with a beard and have a masculine stance/and build

babel Butch? Are you saying butch women are a threat to women

Nope, never said that at all. I said how would you know that a very masculine built and looking transman was in fact trans and not a biological male?
It's not always easy to tell someone's sex, so if you saw a fully transitioned transman in the loos or wherever you're not forced to automatically know

are we talking about toilets? I thought you asked about prisons. In single sex provision you wouldn’t need to guess, because you’d know

They go in the women’s. Now if you would be so kind as to answer why I’m an extremist?

Ah are we back to ‘you cannot possibly tell what sex someone is?’

If you say so. I’d really appreciate an explanation on why my position is extreme when it’s the status quo and legally ok.

bowlofbabel are we talking about toilets? I thought you asked about prisons. In single sex provision you wouldn’t need to guess, because you’d know

there's been talk about both on the threads, people have a problem with all transwomen being anywhere in female spaces, not just prisons. Everywhere. Somebody else mentioned prisons not me.

The thread is about prisons.
Men and women need to be incarcerated separately for safety reasons.
Please explain why this is an extreme viewpoint?

datun It's very frustrating that a good number of transwomen think the same way you do, but then you have women, with no knowledge of any of it, disagreeing with you

Not sure if that was aimed at me, apologies if not, but I've been agreeing with all that poster said?

Being trans does not change the fact that you are a man or a woman. The fact that loads of people, including me, have said this to you countless times is what makes you come across as either goady or lacking in comprehension.

I have REPEATEDLY said that of course biology is always real.

If we cut the trunk off an elephant, shortened its legs and gave it lots of plastic surgery, and put it in with the hippos, is it now a hippo?

Several elements here that are getting conflated:

1. Of course this is bloody complicated, that's why it's become such a terrible mess in law

2. why is it always women's work to figure out everyone else's solutions? Surely this would be down to transmen to discuss what would work for them as an alternative? Except in prisons, where no transman will be placed in the male estate regardless of appearance because they retain female risk in the male estate.

3. While transmen don't present the sex offending risk and as biological females need female provision to be made for them and that's women's job to stand up for and ensure, some women will find wholly transitioned male presenting women uncomfortable. The most obvious solution would appear to be third spaces to be available in all situations, and the most constructive idea so far in regards to meeting all needs for safety, privacy and dignity is that those third spaces are whole room cubicles instead of a shared space.

4. to head off the immediate line about 'can't afford it', yes, a third gender neutral space can certainly be afforded and managed. It took less than ten years to get disabled toilets and disabled access established once the provision was set in law, the same strategies would work just as well for this, and disabled people didn't have a powerfully vocal, influential and very well funded lobby behind them, nor the government funding and charity funding being poured at them.

None of this has anything to do with Huntley. Next derailment?