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?

And then you stopped reading when I said this wasn't a rights issue. Figures 🫠🫠🫠

Yes, that’s exactly what I have said multiple times on this thread. Save that the definition only applies within the EQA, not across the board

As you have a history of assigning different meanings to words than those commonly used, may I ask for your definition of “all” in this case?

Err…. It applies in all aspects wheee single sex provisions are made.

That’s a very short list.

You really are on a hiding to nothing with this argument. The transphobia slur has well and truly lost its power from over-use and irrational argument.

Men will always be men and women will always be women no matter what they do to themselves.

Many of the heterosexual men who decide they want to be women in middle age are motivated by a sexual fetish and we know that some of those men are dangerous to women. Even the ones who aren't a direct danger have no right to use non-consenting women as props to play out their sexual fantasies.

It is not hateful of women to fear or feel repulsed by such men.

A man can wear a dress and a wig if he wants to and I'll even call him Nancy, if he insists, but I will never refer to him as she/her or treat him as if he was a woman. And he can stay the fuck out of real women's spaces.

Yes it was their first statement in response to the ruling. Have a read of the third link I said which documents some of the impact.

This post of yours such clearly demonstrates profound ignorance, loathing, contempt, dismissal and fear of trans women. You declaring your words are not transphobic means nothing.

we can all read your words. They are powerful.

Many of the heterosexual men who decide they want to be women in middle age are motivated by a sexual fetish and we know that some of those men are dangerous to women. Even the ones who aren't a direct danger have no right to use non-consenting women as props to play out their sexual fantasies.
It is not hateful of women to fear or feel repulsed by such men.
A man can wear a dress and a wig if he wants to and I'll even call him Nancy, if he insists, but I will never refer to him as she/her or treat him as if he was a woman. And he can stay the fuck out of real women's spaces.

read it. It’s about as batshit as most of the transactual stuff. Are you saying women have the choice of men claiming to be women or men claiming to be trans identified females in our spaces? So either way men will break the law to access female spaces so women should just suck it up. What if we decide we’d prefer the men claiming to be trans identified females?

Sorry I don't l understand your post- a pp asked how the SC ruling was negatively affecting trans men, so I shared some information about that.

Yes, ie that is a setting covered by the EQA. It’s unclear to me how you don’t understand that the EQA does not prescribe a blanket “meaning” to the terms “man” and “woman”. The meaning ascribed to those terms in the EQA is limited in application to settings covered by the EQA. So it is incorrect for you, or anyone, to say that the Supreme Court has determined that “man” means “biological man” in every context.

Is this what you're referring to?

They fear losing their job
They are suffering panic attacks and, in many instances, are afraid now to leave their home
They are going back into stealth and, in some instances, giving up on transitioning
After years of living peaceably in their local community, they are contemplating self-harm, even suicide
They are planning to leave the UK

This is all very general and doesn't explain how and why "trans men" are suffering because of the ruling.

I care deeply about women's rights so if women "trans men" are suffering because of the ruling I would genuinely like to understand why? And how this is affecting them in practical terms.

So you’re saying a man is only a man in some circumstances? In what circumstances is a man not a man?

Well biological man means man in any context that's seeking logic and truth.

Yes exactly these are the impacts.

The reason why is that they have been told that in all aspects of public life/ use of public facilities etc- wherever people are treated differently according to "sex" - they are to be treated according to their birth sex (as women). this is intolerable for trans men; it is completely incompatible with their privacy, dignity, psychological health and wellbeing.

examples of practical effects are that trans men (who have preciously had no issue at work) have been called into meetings and told they are no longer able to use the toilets. Trans men have understandably found this profoundly humiliating, some are having to work permanently from home, and their jobs are now at risk. This is just one type of practical scenario.

No, they were told they had to use the toilets applicable to their sex. Or unisex if available. They had two options.

You yourself quoted the part of the grc that explicitly states that future acts may affect the ways in which a man witha grc can be a woman.
The equality act 2010 came after the GRA and supercedes the GRA 2004.
The equality act limits the way in which a man with a grc can be a woman in law to government documents and systems (i listed almost all the ways that the equality act says they are men in the post you quoted).
You may not like it but the GRA is a dead duck bill now, men can get a document that allows them to get fake documents legally that lie about their sex but can't use those documents to access any woman's facilities, spaces, awards or rights in any way shape or form. So no its not just for civil laws.
As for educating myself I have already with the actual laws themselves and expert legal opinions unlike you who is relying on transactuals biased twisting and outright lies.
You need to learn to accept that a man with a grc is still a man in law and reality for all practical and real life purposes except government documents and systems.
And before you start on about the courts and parliamentary sovereignty remember that parliament wrote, created and enacted the equality act including the single sex exemption with the full knowledge that it gutted the GRA, the supreme court just confirmed that the equality act guts the GRA.

So by that logic if a "trans man" commits a crime then that individual should be housed in the male prison estate? Is that correct?

First of all, "using the toilet applicable to their birth sex" is not tolerable for a transitioned trans person. It is a form of psychological torture, cruel and unusual punishment, public humiliation ,violates their privacy, forcibly "outs" them, and places them at risk of harassment and derision.

Second of all, you are in fact wrong- trans men have been told they are not eligible to use either the men or women's toilets and not all workplaces have other facilities. Some are now working permanently from home and their jobs are at risk,

Complete hyperbole, @Tandora

You yourself quoted the part of the grc that explicitly states that future acts may affect the ways in which a man witha grc can be a woman.

correct; which if you read the thread was exactly the point I was demonstrating.

The rest of your post is just ramblings with no relevance to the conversation that was being had.

Unfortunately it isn't.

Can you answer my question about prisons?

Then they should seek psychological help for that. And take it up with those who misrepresented the law to them. They never had the right to use facilities of the opposite sex. They were misled. If I was them, I’d sue. Starting with stonewall and transactual.