To think that if you commit a male crime, you should do male time, even if you identify as a woman?

[TheAvidAmberPeer]

I know this is a sensitive topic but I’ve been thinking about how justice systems handle trans women who commit serious crimes, especially violent or sexual offences, and whether it’s fair to house them in women’s prisons. To me, if you were born male and commit a crime typically associated with male offenders, particularly one involving violence against women, it seems like common sense that you should serve time in a male facility. Identity doesn’t erase biology or risk in those cases.

AIBU to think fairness and safety, especially for vulnerable female prisoners, should come before ideology?

A man can play at being a woman as much as he wants. He can dress up and take hormones and style his hair… but he’s still biologically a man. Therefore he belongs in a male prison if he commits a crime.

I could pretend I’m a cat and live like a cat, but I can’t check myself in to the local cattery.

People who can’t see this must be lacking something, intelligence wise. It’s not rocket science.
And yes, we can tell when we pass someone trans in the street. It’s like a radar. Something just isn’t ‘right’ about the way they move and look.
Thousands of years of evolution have given woman an incredible ability to be aware of potential danger. Our radar for something ‘off’ is far sharper than most realise.

Exactly this

@Elektra1 why don't you think women matter here?

Your position is far more genuinely 'hateful' than the opposite. All the rest of us think is that everyone should incarcerated with their sex

The point is that the “what about the women?” question has been disposed of by the Supreme Coirt judgment which determined that for the purposes of the EQA, single sex spaces are only for biological men or women. So why do you care so much about continuing to hound trans people with “you’re not a real man/woman”? It is bullying and bigotry. They can’t be in “your” space. You have “won”.

See my previous answer.

No man can bea woman. They can try to be what they think a woman is, but no matter what they do, they’ll never be a woman. Why are you so upset about the SC judgement, it was a great win for transmen. Or don’t you count them? They can still get access to female services, abortions and access to female refuges and rape crisis centres. And it’s a great win for LGB people. Homosexuality is now defined in law as a same sex orientation. The only people losing are those males who had the audacity to believe they could access female spaces just because they wanted to. And all they need to do is…. As one rape crisis CEO famously said….” Reframe their trauma”

We'll have won once everyone accepts and complies with the Supreme Court judgment. We're not there yet.

The City of London Corporation, which operates the swimming ponds in north London, currently has a consultation out on whether they should respect the law or continue to ignore it and allow men who identify as women to continue to use the ladies' pond. (This despite the fact that there is also a mixed sex pond which anyone can use.)

The last time they had a consultation about this, Edward Lord (they/them) admitted to binning any "transphobic" responses which were less than enthusiastic about biological males having access to all three ponds whilst women who need a single sex option have access to none.

I didn’t say it was a “good idea”. The reasoning of the Supreme Court in distinguishing the rights protected under the EQA and GRA is unimpeachable as per the letter of those statutes. It is one of the most carefully reasoned judgments I’ve ever read.

My question is why there are so many people (including almost everyone on this thread) who continue to feel the need to rant about an issue which needs no debate because the law has been clarified.

Because it shows that we were right along, and that it is not transphobic for women to want some male free spaces.

And also because if we now shut up and trans activists keep ranting and raving about how it's against the human rights of trans identifying men not to be able to get their willies out in female only spaces, some of our more misogynistic and dimwitted MPs might start making noises about changing the law.

Because there are still men saying the law does not apply to them, who keep using female spaces. Women are still getting abuse on line and in person and large organisations are trying their best to wheedle their way out of having to say no to these men.

This is a very ill-considered view. If parliament wanted to change the law, it could. It will never do so because the proportion of the voting demographic who want such a change is a tiny proportion so it is not a vote winner, whereas the proportion who do not want such a change is a majority.

Your zeal would be more productively focused on bringing about political change in a different social issue, such as ending child poverty.

There are still people saying that this country should be only for white people. And the proportion of the population who are affected by that is far greater than the proportion who are trans. Don’t see you ranting about racism on here though do we?

It's not ill considered at all. Our rights are very fragile and even when we have them they are frequently infringed. We can't afford to be complacent.

Many people are likening the Supreme Court judgment to Trump-esque anti trans laws.

It's really entitled to think you can tell people where they should be focusing their political activism, by the way.

I don't understand what point you think you are making here.

Criticism of the judgment on both sides of the debate is largely wrong and indicates that people have not actually read it, or understood it. Your “rights” are not fragile, for the political reason I articulated before.

I read and understood the Supreme Court judgment on the day it was handed down, thanks.

Our rights have been infringed for the last 15 years and now we have Labour MPs suggesting that it can't possibly be right that the Equality Act means what the Supreme Court says it means and now it needs to be updated to protect trans rights.

There's also the danger that everyone just ignores the Supreme Court judgment. It's a bit like defaming JK Rowling - so many people are doing it, she can't sue them all, so they generally get away with it.

It's dangerous to take anything for granted.

I don't understand @Elektra1 point either.

First they seemed to be saying we were misinterpreting the law and it was wrong to say prisons should be single sex.

Now they seem to be backtracking on that, that the GC side 'won' but we're big bigoted meanies for actually talking about that and wanting the law to be upheld.

So which is it?

I didn’t say it was “wrong” for prisons to be single sex.

I did say that asserting that the Supreme Court judgment determined that a man can only be a man, for all purposes, was a misinterpretation of what the judgment actually determined. The SC was very careful to confine its determination of the meaning of “man” and “woman” to the confines of the meaning of those terms in the EQA.

It is actually pitiful that you lot don’t grasp that.

Oh so we're back to the same man can be a woman in some circumstances and not a woman in others.

I've got to keep saying this, because the ludicrously of this situation speaks for itself. Wonderful 😂

So you agree men should stay out of sex segregated spaces, like prisons, as per the SC judgement? Great.

But we're vile, hateful, bigot meanies for stating that on this thread and wanting legal rights to be upheld, yes?

Me pointing out what the judgment does and does not determine, does not equate to my personal opinion being one way or another. Your mindset, which is that anyone pointing out the flaws in your argument must hold an opposing view, is the reason why this debate is so polarised.

I cannot get excited about the concept of a man who wants to live as a woman, living as a woman. I don’t feel the need to shout that “he’s not a real woman!” Public spaces are “protected”, so I am not going to be affected by finding a “pretend woman” in the ladies’ loo. If I see a trans woman going about their daily life dressed as a woman, it doesn’t affect me, so I wouldn’t see a reason to vilify their lifestyle. Similarly; if someone (of either gender) wants to have cosmetic surgery to inflate their lips, change their face, have a boob job or whatever, it might not be to my taste but I couldn’t get excited about it. It’s their life. It doesn’t affect me.

People who feel the need to put groups of other people in a box labelled “wrong” are generally unhappy in their own lives. Live and let live.

But you're making massive assumptions about all of our positions here, which are totally unfounded.

I don't think you'll find many on this thread caring how a man presents himself or what cosmetic procedures he wants to have. Who on this thread has suggested they have a problem with any of that?

Where we have an issue - (and you've been calling us vile, hateful, bigots for this, remember) - are people suggesting that clothing or cosmetic procedures makes a man a woman / or should give him access to women's spaces. Women deserve their rights to be upheld.

Its always toilets that are brought up when people want to minimise the impact of men thinking they should have access to women's spaces. I agree there are plenty of women for whom toilets are not particularly consequential.

Hpwever women's single sex toilets are covered by the law and the law should be respected. You may not have an issue, but for others this is very problematic if men are in this space.

I have a friend who was brutally raped and for whom coming into contact with men in an intimate space would be immensely triggering. Does she not matter? Is she vile, hateful, bigoted for wanting her rights upheld here?

But these “rights” (in fact not the rights of individuals but just: the law) are upheld. The law is the law. So why shout about it?

No one is shouting. Why are you even positioning it like this?

We are discussing it. For lots of reasons. Why wouldn't we do this?

And no, there are plenty of men who are not respecting these rights. There are organisations refusing to abide by the law. But you just want us to stop talking?

Of course they do. If everyone just forgot about it, think how convenient that would be.

Not sure what rock you've been living under lately tbh.