To think that if a man has had bottom surgery they should be put in a woman’s prison?

[Bex5490]

Genuinely interested in this and not trying to goad just want to understand.

When people talk of the threat of a man in women’s spaces, I assume the danger is because of their penis.

So if that’s gone then should they be categorised as a woman?

I’m kind of of the opinion that if you’re willing to put that much effort in (as in penis removal) regardless of your chromosomes, I’m happy for you to be called a woman…is this wrong?

This 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

And this is what it comes down to. You have no answer. You know we are right. Everyone does. Everyone knows who the women are. Everyone demonstrates it one way or another.

Yes. I presume the genderists on the thread would wheel out some better arguments if they could. But they can't. And I'm calling it here and will continue to do so, and I don't remotely care if anyone doesn't like my "tone".

Because everyone knows that a trans woman is a biological male that sees themselves as a woman. No one hears the term trans woman and gets confused thinking you mean biological woman.

Therefore it is passive aggressive to deliberately call a trans woman a man who wants to be validated as a woman because you are not using their preferred term simply to make a point, and it is to make a point that you don't agree with what they are, because no one was ever in any danger of not knowing what you meant if you did use their preferred term.

To say it is necessary to call them men who want to be validated as women to make sure people don't get confused is nonsense.

Nom nom nom!

completely agree with this, except I wouldn’t call it “passive” aggressive. It’s straight up aggressive, hostile and abusive.

No one hears the term trans woman and gets confused thinking you mean biological woman...no one was ever in any danger of not knowing what you meant if you did use their preferred term.

Plenty of people say that TWAW so that, while they know the truth, like everyone, they are can muddy the word "woman" so that it applies equally to women and TW. And therefore, they argue, TW do belong in women's prisons because TWAW and any difference is immaterial. Come on, you know this.

At any rate, you're not denying that what I said is true, since you've just admitted it. You know the truth, you just don't want people saying it. So you don't want TW in women's prisons, but you don't want anyone articulating why!

Because everyone knows that a trans woman is a biological male that sees themselves as a woman. No one hears the term trans woman and gets confused thinking you mean biological woman.

Yes, they do. There was a YouGov survey which found that a significant number of people (up to a third in some regions of the UK) don't know which sex a "trans woman" is. Many people think it means an actual woman who identifies as a man.

So you are badly informed and incorrect there.

Because everyone knows that a trans woman is a biological male that sees themselves as a woman. No one hears the term trans woman and gets confused thinking you mean biological woman.

This is so weird, but isn't this the kind of statement that in years past would have resulted in mass reporting by the TRAs, deletions and possibly even bans of GC posters? Yet here it is, being written by a GI supporter. Have the usual watchers retired or have the rules changed again?

Hi, Lostcat. If you're not dogmatic and there are multiple potential truths regarding sex, why don't you want to allow anyone to create a space that doesn't adhere to your truth?

I mean, "trans woman" makes more sense if it's applied to women who identify as men, given that you can't actually change sex.

It works best if you insert the word "identified" into the phrase, but we're not allowed to do that. Or at least, we weren't, at one point. Has that changed, too?

One of my trans friends is called Amanda. I knew her personally and professionally. It was common knowledge she was trans. Some of the blokes in work used to call her, behind her back,
A-MAN-da. Simply no need. I suspect they were envious of her achievements.

Unfortunately there is no middle ground. You either believe that transwomen are women in exactly the same way as a biological female or you don't, there is no other option it's a binary choice.
If you believe that women are a biological reality and deserve a full range of human rights including privacy and dignity then it's simple no matter what surgeries or delusional beliefs they have no male/ transwomen should ever be allowed in any female space, group, awards etc.
If you believe that twaw then they must be treated in exactly the same way as biological females in all circumstances with no exceptions regardless of any changes that they have or haven't had.
So the question you should be asking is whether you believe that biological females deserve words to describe ourselves and if we are entitled to human rights or not, not at what stage of surgical (insert baned term) makes it acceptable to remove women's human rights.

I was fully supportive of the GRA 2004. Like another poster here I could not see beyond the benefit it would bring one of my closest friends. A friend who I supported through their social, medical and surgical transition. I use to think it was OK for them to use some female spaces because they no longer had a penis.

And then having documentation adjusted to align with someone's gender ID wasn't enough and the proposal for self ID became defacto self ID and men without GRC's who were convicted of sex offences were being housed in the female prison estate and men were wandering around naked in female changing rooms and women's refuges and the women raising concerns were being threatened, sacked and assaulted. Women meeting to discuss changes to the law had to keep meeting locations a secret because of the threats they received. I could go on.

I'm pretty uncompromising now, any trust I had that the state would protects women's rights is gone. I would like to see the GRA repealed and no man, however he identifies, allowed in women's single sex spaces. What I thought was a reasonable and compassionate accomodation has been abused beyond toleration. I have never been anything less than kind and polite to trans people and I've no intention of changing.

The threat of rape is removed but they retain males propensity to violence and male strength as he is still a man- so male prison or a third space - but not a women's prison.

So to summarise rational people who understand biology and then people who are mentally unwell.

So the question you should be asking is whether you believe that biological females deserve words to describe ourselves and if we are entitled to human rights or not, not at what stage of surgical (insert baned term) makes it acceptable to remove women's human rights.

Exactly.

There's absolutely no difference - that was my point!

Isn’t the obvious solution to have a facility specifically for trans women (& possibly other categories of vulnerable prisoners who would ordinarily be housed in male prisons)? I genuinely don’t get why you can’t have a small facility either entirely separate or attached as an independent wing of an existing prison.

Actually people regularly get mixed up they think transwomen are women who identify as men and that transmen are men who identify as women so it is nesscary to be explicitly clear that we are talking about biological males when we speak about transwomen

This study is interesting.

Can you please explain why this image shows that the group labelled 'transgender women' only fall within the range of the group labelled 'cisgender men' if the study was so definitive? Because to me, it doesn't show a strong conclusion.

The study states:

"The brains of transgender women ranged between cisgender men and cisgender women (albeit still closer to cisgender men), and the differences to both cisgender men and to cisgender women were significant (p = 0.016 and p< 0.001, respectively). "

and

"The follow-up post hoc tests revealed that transgender women were significantly more female than cisgender men (Cohen’s d = 0.64, t(46) = 2.20, p = 0.016), but significantly less female than cisgender women (Cohen’s d = 1.87, t(46) = 6.48, p < 0.001)."

Plus there was this:

"The combination of male genes, androgens, and (to some degree) male upbringing should ordinarily be expected to result in a male-typical brain"

Yet we know from the London cabbie studies that behaviours that fit particular groups of people may create specific impacts on the brain. So, even if those male people didn't not take hormones, however interacted with the world doing stereotypical activities and interests that could be considered stereotypically female, the brain will show this. As did the London cabbie studies.

So, another study that shows there may be a difference in the brain but these studies do not show that they are 'like female' people and still tend to be 'male' in categorisation.

I couldn't see, just like the other other study, where they may have segregated sexual orientation and whether this would have any impact. Did you see anywhere where they controlled for that please? I have read that homosexual males do have some differences that may impact studies such as these.

I believe that 25% of the male people in this study who identify as being transgender were homosexual male people. "Six transgender women reported to be androphile (attracted to men)" That is 25% of 24 people in that category. And I did not see where they specified the same % of the other male population they measured.

If you find these studies support your opinion then that is good to know. Thank you for posting them. My opinion that "It is false to say they have different brains because this is not based on evidence at all, it is based on misinformation" remains essentially unchanged. Now I would say it is based on very weak evidence that doesn't seem as strong as you seem to feel it is.

Plenty of people are happy for a third space, and for vulnerable men's space in the prison. And for a trans category in sports, although they have declined to use this category they were offered it in swimming. The third spaces are regularly declined because they want women's spaces which forces the conflict. WE want our spaces free from men.

Your trans friends sound respectful and decent and like they are not the type to commit a crime. The ones that end up in jail are criminals and are not the same.

Out of interest how do your friends feel about the transactivists insisting on access to women's spaces and sports?

Penis or no penis at the end of the day they are still men and they have no business being in a women’s prison they should have their own trans wing. Surgery doesn’t make a man a woman it’s still a man they still have the strength of a man and the build of a man they can still seriously hurt a woman if they want to why should women be put at risk just to make a man happy.

I don't understand why you think I don't want anyone articulating why. I don't want trans women in female prisons because they are not biological women. There is nothing wrong with that statement. I just don't understand why you need to be so openly hostile as to deliberately useless a term you know trans women will be offended by when trans women does the job perfectly, it is a term they choose for themselves and are happy with and it sets them apart from biological women. It's just basic social skills to not go around deliberately offending people and you know that, come on!

Using the term trans women, separates them from biological women. To say that TWAW so any difference is immaterial and they must be treated the same is just not true. You can be respectful of people and their identities without having to treat them the exact same as biological women. You know that.