Ian Huntley ! This is wrong...

[HJWT]

I just don't have words

Verbeena - why would a transman want to go into the women's (women's anything - prison, toilets, gym changing room, you name it) at all?

Verbeena - why would a transman want to go into the women's (women's anything - prison, toilets, gym changing room, you name it) at all?

Well I would say for the same reason that anyone who owns a vagina doesn't want to go into a secluded space with male bodied people.

I couldn't imagine the young transman that I know being sent to a man's prison. It just doesn't bear thinking about.

VisitorsEntrance

I do already know that's the reason... Verbeena, however, who is so opposed to answering questions because of the 'gotcha' potential, posed that one about transmen purely because she saw it was a gotcha question.

If self ID goes through, are there any mechanisms for preventing a specific prisoner transferring to female estate?

I was under the impression it eouldnot be possible after the previous threads we had.

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

When I asked what criteria that poster would use to cede any women's rights to transwomen they said none.

So unless I've misunderstood. That means none. Nada. Nil.

That particular poster thinks that a negotiation should be able to happen at some point, which is not something I currently agree with, but nonetheless at the moment no criteria under which women's rights should be ceded to men, penis or not.

Which, unless I am mistaken, is not your stance.

The problem is that if we believe that anyone who says they are a woman is a woman then there is very little to stop any male prisoner announcing they are woman and requesting a transfer.
And who is going to be the gate keeper? Who is going to be the person who decides? Who is going to be willing to put their neck on the line and say 'this person is fine, they can trot off to a female prison'?

Anyone who doesn't think that she men are capable to pulling the wool over the eyes of officials is naive in the extreme. There are some very very sick individuals out there.
Just because your DH, DF, DS is lovely, and all the transwomen you know are great doesn't mean that all men are.

I'm sorry that we have to treat men this way, but if men would just stop killing and raping women then we wouldn't have to.

Not all men are rapists - all rapists are men.
Not all men sexually assault women - I've yet to meet one woman who hasn't been sexually assaulted, from a bottom pinch up to rape.

Bowl I don't see how the 'case by case/risk assessment' approach is going to hold out long term unless sex and gender are very firmly separated in law and the EA specifically strengthened up. I'm not sure I can see it holding up now if Huntley took it all the way through the courts. How can this be extended to some trans prisoners but not others? The Rose West defence is often put forward, that there are high risk women and they are managed in the women's estate.

Although when you look at how the numbers compare with 10,000 plus category A male prisoners to around a dozen category A female prisoners, (and only two women's prisons who take those prisoners along with their much wider brief to multiple designated category A prisons for men) it becomes clear the women's estate wasn't designed for this and a major rethink is inevitable.

Who is going to be the person who decides? Who is going to be willing to put their neck on the line and say 'this person is fine, they can trot off to a female prison'?

Because there are 85000 male prisoners, any, or ALL of whom could transition. Today. And a case by case basis wold have to be used for transfer. For 85000.

Madness.

datun When I asked what criteria that poster would use to cede any women's rights to transwomen they said none. So unless I've misunderstood. That means none. Nada. Nil

That's where we're differing - not all of us are saying no to all transwomen as they'll always be a man whatever they do.
Self ID is a bad idea and shouldn't be allowed as too open to abuse, and that was what the other poster was saying as well which is why I was agreeing with them.

Verbeena, however, who is so opposed to answering questions because of the 'gotcha' potential, posed that one about transmen purely because she saw it was a gotcha question.

No, I was genuinely interested as people had said it's down to biological only - so I was wondering where that left any extremely outwardly presenting trans men with the offending male part added on as well.

And a case by case basis wold have to be used for transfer. For 85000.

As already seen with the White case, the case by case basis is already badly skimped and process already isn't properly followed.

That's where we're differing - not all of us are saying no to all transwomen as they'll always be a man whatever they do.
Self ID is a bad idea and shouldn't be allowed as too open to abuse, and that was what the other poster was saying as well which is why I was agreeing with them

So if Huntley were to 'genuinely transition' then he would be A-OK to be transferred to a female prison? Would we have to accept him as a woman? And if not, why not?

I was genuinely interested as people had said it's down to biological only - so I was wondering where that left any extremely outwardly presenting trans men with the offending male part added on as well.

In fact, we have repeatedly told you it's because we don't want men - whatever they've done to themselves - in women's spaces.

I was genuinely interested as people had said it's down to biological only - so I was wondering where that left any extremely outwardly presenting trans men with the offending male part added on as well

Men do not I repeat DO NOT want women in their toilets, no matter how they present.

Which is why women rarely use them and if they do it is usually because the ladies has queues a mile long.

No government is likely to put a trans man in a men's prison without extreme out of the ordinary reasons. They know damn well that a trans man in a male prison is likely to never get out alive.

Weird no TRAs seem to protest the lack of inheritance rights for trans men, or the right for trans men to...erm...do anything. Almost like they don't care [hint: because they are women].

In fact, we have repeatedly told you it's because we don't want men - whatever they've done to themselves - in women's spaces

I know you have repeatedly said it - no transwomen at all, because of biology. We're all concerned with self ID but not everyone's saying you'll never be one of us to all transwomen.

We're all concerned with self ID but not everyone's saying you'll never be one of us to all transwomen.

And you asked a goady question, got an answer and continue to repeat your vague statements without ever recognising that allowing men into women's spaces is a massive risk to women, because - and you don't ever answer the questions about this - it's impossible to know which men are "harmless" (your word) and which are not.

And that's leaving aside the issues of privacy.

For goodness sake it's a factual biological categorisation, not a case of making the semis of Britain's Got Talent. There's no 'yay you've made it!' point.

You're focusing on emotion as if it's a mean spirited refusal to let people into some kind of special party. It's not. It's not about individual people or feelings at all, it's about the world wide rights of a biological class, half the human race, who already have a lot of problems, have vulnerable people in their population and can't afford stupid damaging law to happen based on sentimentality. There are many, many other ways to meet the needs of all groups in society.

What Knicknack said.

not all of us are saying no to all transwomen as they'll always be a man whatever they do.

So when do you believe they stop being a man? What has to happen?
Is it when they have surgery?
If so if a woman has a full hysterectomy is she still a woman?

Don’t be fucking stupid. Only a woman can have a bloody hysterectomy.

I think you’ve misunderstood there.

I’m saying that if a man changes into a woman by the removal of his penis then does that make a woman who has had a hysterectomy a man. Of course it doesn’t.
So it all comes down to feelings.

Only a woman can have a bloody hysterectomy.

Exactly. And when she does, it doesn't make her a man.

So when do you believe they stop being a man? What has to happen?

When they've died and been reborn, if you believe such stuff, in a body with XX chromosomes.

When do you believe that rapists are dangerous to women? How many women have to be murdered or raped before you accept that men are dangerous?

I was genuinely interested as people had said it's down to biological only - so I was wondering where that left any extremely outwardly presenting trans men with the offending male part added on as well.

There is no offending male part on a transman. It's a roll of skin, grafted from some other part of their body - arm usually. It cannot get erect its own, because there is no physical mechanism for that. There has to be a pump, secreted in one of the fake testicles. Which is squeezed to make an erection using a saline solution. Or they have to have a metal rod in it so it's erect permanently or semi permanently, depending on the type.

The surgery is crude and has a high failure rate. Which is why the number of transmen who have it is vanishingly rare.

This is a feminist issue because young women are mutilating themselves in order to identify out of womanhood.

Any female space is where they belong.