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?

To be fair, Tandora & Tandora's new chum are undoubtedly on a different plane of reality to most...

I think we're back to the Supreme Court having simultaneously done a literal violence whilst also yah boo sucks not actually doing anything so ner. It's pathetic.

Shall I use @Ereshkigalangcleg 's line?

I'm impervious to your insults @MissScarletInTheBallroom

yah boo sucks not actually doing anything so ner. It's pathetic.

is this kind of mocking going to be called out and raked over for days? No? Thought not.

It’s decidedly bonkers. I think the fact the SC made the definition of a woman and man very clear has broken them. They seem so desperate to get men allowed into female spaces that I do worry maybe they’re being coerced into making these arguments under pain of death.

but That seems to be your position. You’ve argued that the SC ruling means nothing but that also it’s causing extreme distress to trans people.

There’s no such thing as a “cis woman”, unless you mean women who identify as men are “trans women” which I don’t think you do.

I've never said the SC judgement means nothing- I think it's completely damaging, it just doesn't mean a lot of the things people have claimed it does on this and many other threads.
It doesn't mean, for example, that "the law says a transwoman is a man", it doesn't say that a trans woman who uses the female toilet is committing an offence, etc.

@Tandora you don’t seem to understand what the problem was with your mockery of a woman asking for a female doctor because she needed one as a rape survivor.

Why do you believe it is so damaging? Because it confirmed that female people exist in law and have sex based rights?

Whatever - women "at birth" then. I'm so bored of arguing about language, what is important is that we understand each other,

You're impervious to a lot of things, including reality.

A man using a women’s toilet isn’t committing a criminal offence, no. No man. But the ruling related to the concept of what a woman is in Equality law, governing women’s single sex exceptions, and unequivocally a “trans woman” male is a man.

I quite agree.

OH THE IRONY.

Yes, Tandora, it is important that we understand each other, which is why you can't have your own definition of "sex" which means something different to what everyone else means.

That’ll be it. Women aren’t allowed to have feelings or needs remember. We’re just here as support humans. It doesn’t matter how distressed we are, We’ll never be as distressed as the men now excluded from female spaces. Even rape survivors are not exempt apparently. They just need to suck it up and support the men. I think some posters follow the CEO of ERC mantra.

The conversation had nothing to do with being a rape survivor- it wasn't even started by that poster- it was a conversation about the availability of language to describe something. My sarcasm was about people being wound up about having to use a few more words to accommodate diversity.
It had nothing to do with rape trauma nor was it directed at that poster - it was a conversation about an Entirely different subject with several different PPs and I wasn't attuned to the personal backgrounds of each, nor am I required to be.

Annnnywau.

This is exactly it.

But it's not "my own" definition of sex. It's a definition of sex that is supported by actual empirical diversity and the only definition that can accommodate that diversity.

Nobody should be using an alternative meaning of the word. Sex isn't supposed to "accommodate diversity". It's supposed to be specific. It means the same thing in humans as it does in other animals.

No. No. No. no. No. No. Males are not women. And not allowed in female single sex spaces. This is sad for you but that’s a problem for you to work on. Women said no. The law said no. Reframe your trauma. I hear that’s a good way of coping with distress.

Is not an "alternative meaning".

You have an opinion about the meaning of "sex"- it's simplistic, false, reductive and fanatical. I do not share this perspective- nor does it reflect the empirical world.

It may be, but it’s the law. And males are not women. A woman is an adult human female. A man is an adult human male. No means no.

Of course a definition of sex that includes members of the opposite sex is an alternative definition.

Tandora thinks trans women are female.

Meaningless sound bite. Meaningless sound bite. Meaningless sound bite. Etc.