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?

You’re kidding? But er… how? I thought @Tandora was an expert on trans matters. Even I know “transwomen” are male. It’s the sole criteria for being one.

Whatever. You must accept the Supreme Court judgment.

She isn't using the same definition of female as the rest of us.

Ah, so not the same definition of sex and not the same definition of female. How about “no” @Tandora what definition of no are you using?

Here is Tandora saying s/he doesn't disagree with same sex spaces, but just has "a different understanding of sex" to other people, including the Supreme Court.

So s/he is using an alternative definition of sex.

It was, because the reason that Taztoy, who had discussed why it was important to her earlier in the thread, was objecting to your language coercion was that she wanted to ensure she didn’t get a Dr Upton type male doctor who didn’t respect women’s consent or boundaries. If you missed her laying out in detail why it was important, maybe you should have said that and people might have been more forgiving. But you didn’t, once you were aware, you doubled down as if you were in the right, which you clearly weren’t.

Yes, if I recall correctly Tandora thinks that when a female rape survivor, in an already distressing situation, requests a female doctor, she should think to use nine extra words to specify that her definition of a female doctor doesn't include a trans identifying male doctor.

Frankly if you are a medical professional and you do not understand that the definition of a female doctor does not include a male doctor, you are unfit to practice.

So im wondering what definition of “single sex spaces” @Tandora supports if they don’t use the same definition the rest of the world does.

Just a reminder that male Dr Upton, currently in court for harassment of Sandie Peggie, a female nurse, said that he was a) biologically female

and b) that he would attend a call to treat a woman who had specifically requested a female doctor, because he saw himself as female, despite obviously being a man

This.

I very much doubt that Tandora would approve of calling him a trans identified male doctor either. The term “trans woman” was insisted upon IIRC.

Hilarious. Bumping so we can all get an insight into gender identity ideology and how absurd it is.

This is why I try not to even call them trans women these days.

I've gone from "trans women aren't really women but it's polite to pretend they are" to "trans women are trans women" to "trans women are not women" to "trans women are men".

Um if Taztoy, discussed that earlier in the thread , I haven't seen it and wasn't aware of it until just now.

The conversation with me about language - and requesting a female doctor- was started by another user and had nothing whatsoever to do with rape- it was about language.
the conversation was with several different PPs, and I was not bearing in mind the personal circumstances behind each username, nor am I required to- that's not a reasonable expectation. My very mild sarcasm was at the complaints over having to use a few extra words to accommodate diversity. It was the only very mildly spicy /
sarcy thing I said all thread, despite all the usual crap thrown at me.

I have nothing to apologise for and no need for anyone to be "forgiving". A lot of people said a lot of outrageous things to me- I just let them roll off.

Yup. I had the same journey. I went from ally to nope in days flat

Your callousness to a survivor of male violence and her need to state her boundaries clearly to avoid being further traumatised was obvious to many many people, @Tandora whatever your bluster now. Several people were shocked by the realisation of just how empathy-free your activist movement is. And you know now, and you still don’t care, do you?

Yes, I used to use “trans identified male” but I only do that if I need to distinguish them from other men now. Which most of the time I don’t. Because they are just men.

You can lie about me , and what I said , all you want ; you can drag my character through the mud, shame , belittle, insult me. it won't change the fact that I said/ did nothing wrong. much more importantly, it won't change the fact that trans people exist, they are valid, they need to be accommodated in society, sex development isn't simple, and segregation isn't the answer. And being a survivor of sexual assault, as I am, is no reason or justification at all for transphobia.

👍🏻

It’s not “transphobia” to not want to be touched by men without your consent. HTH.

I certainly don't need you to tell me that.

And for the record I’m not lying about you, as anyone can read on the thread, it’s not me who is dragging your “character” through the mud, you’re making yourself look callous all on your own.

”Trans people” are going to have to be accommodated in society without shitting on women’s rights, so “segregation” will have to be the answer as most women need female only spaces when they are vulnerable and there is no squaring that circle, we don’t want any men there regardless of claimed identity, sadness or womanly feels.

Female people exist, female people are valid, female people (have much greater) need to be accommodated in society, sex development is simple in almost 100% of the population and if we want female only spaces we are bloody well entitled to them.

All the people clutching their pearls at the Supreme Court judgment should probably reflect upon the fact that if the judgment had gone the other way, the childbearing sex would exist in reality as a biological category, but would have no legal recognition in law whatsoever.

But because it went the way it did, female people are recognised in law and so are trans people.

Nobody is trying to erase trans people, it's the other fucking way round and we say NO.

There's nothing I've said that makes me look callous. You have attempted to make me look callous (with the aid of some fairly hefty emotional manipulation- look the evil "TRA" is mocking rape victims!) because you don't like my opinions about sex, gender and trans people.

Trans people are not "shitting on women's rights" for asking to be accepted for who they are and accommodated in society on that basis.
Sex development- including the neurobiology of sex development - is profoundly complex and also diverse, and segregation based on a fixed and binary conception of sex is neither remotely practical nor just.

Queue someone popping to accuse me of a "word salad":

We're not saying all men are predators we're saying all men who try to gain access to female only spaces are predators. It's not the group it's the actions of individuals.