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?

I guess if I took your posts more seriously I’d want to convince you, but I don’t, and I’m not bothered to try.

how does recognising someone is of the male sex “exclude” or “stereotype “ them? 🙄

Am really hoping @Tandora doesn't come back with:

• silence
• gosh I am so busy with all these questions - what was the question again?
• I am trying so so hard on this horrible forum, sigh
• word salad

Sincerely hoping for an actual answer we can discuss, but that really is the definition of hope over experience.

his really helpfully clarifies where our thinking diverges, thank you.
I think this would be more accurately written as:

• identified male at birth = born male

"Identified male at birth" is more descriptive and accurate as it refers to an actual event / what actually happened. When Dr U was born, her body was observed and observed to have a penis.

"Born male" on the other hand contains an in-built assumption about DU's maleness . It implies "innateness" - that DU's maleness is intrinsic and inevitable. It implies certainty, and yet we know that people can be observed to be something at birth, and later, evidence emerges to the contrary. (See the vicious debate about the Algerian boxer).

"observed male at birth" is more scientific and cautious. It contains no assumptions about the certainty of DU's maleness, it simply objectively describes what was actually documented or perceived at the time. It acknowledges the limits of knowledge - we can only report what was noticed.

Ok now on to point two.

I think so too.

Thank you.

So I am confident that someone with all of the boys bits, none of the girls bits and no medical condition is male.

Anything else is crazy mental gymnastics.

So we have to agree to disagree on that (pretty fundamental) point.

• who has some observable male physical characteristics = all of them. Penis, testes. No uterus, vulva, vagina, ovaries, breasts etc

"All of them", contains numerous - not only unsupported, but also demonstrably false - assumptions. It implies that all the characteristics of what makes a body "male" can be directly observed at birth - this is completely false. Secondly even the one's you have listed - not all of these will have been observed are observed at birth. It is highly unlikely that anyone observed whether DU had a uterus or overies at birth. They couldn't observed whether DU has breasts as these are not present at birth.

"some observable male physical characteristics" is objective and accurate. We don't know whether DU's chromosomes were known at birth, but we can be confident at least that DU was observed to have a penis and a scrotum holding testes, which are some of the characteristics of male bodies, directly observable at birth, and almost always the basis on which male sex is assigned - although some observed males may have undescended testes etc.

Again, I think this is crazy mental gymnastics.

Having perfectly normal, functioning penis and testes makes you male.

There is no grey for these healthy men.

"but who nevertheless recognises/ understands/ knows/ experiences self as female = yet despite the above, they have a 'thought' issue, and to make their own lives easier, wish to negatively impact others to resolve that."

I'm not sure I have to spend so much time on this - Your language here is obviously unscientific, vague and full of presumptions. What is a "thought issue"? - completely vague and use of the word "issue" is value laden. Tells us absolutely nothing about trans experience.

"to make their own lives easier wish to negatively impact others to resolve that" - contains completely unsupported, unscientific and transphobic implications that being trans is selfish and negatively impacts others.

"who nevertheless recognises/ understands/ knows/ experiences self as female" is simply a description of trans experience. It contains no value judgements.

Good luck. Youre a braver woman than I am. I noped out when this posted minimised womens distress at sharing spaces with males and mocked a rape victim.

Ah, so you don't accept that there are bad actors who wish to harm women through these loopholes.

I do.

Thanks Tandora. Not remotely persuaded, but a helpful exchange.

Right, I have to be productive now.

Sure 👍

There is a problem with every interaction he has with his patients, if he expects them to participate in his fetish and gets hurty feelings and complains when a patient with dementia fails to follow his script, or a nurse won't undress in front of him.

Patients are not props and bit-part players in his fantasy. The fact that he thinks they should be shows that he is a bad, sleazy doctor.

Absolutely not. Humans cannot change sex. ‘Gender’ is just an aspect of an individual’s personality. Male convicts should only be housed in men’s prisons. Their discomfort is not women’s responsibility to solve.

As we now know from Ministry of Justice stats, trans-identifying men are more (not less) likely than other men to have committed sexual offences. And those are usually committed against women or children.

But regardless of their crime, men should not be housed in women’s prisons.

Yes, absolutely. And how many colleagues or patients would have the guts to complain, no matter how distressed they were by having to collude with a man’s sex fetish?

We have seen so many examples of people losing their jobs and livelihoods for daring to disagree.

Patients have actually been penalised and even refused treatment — sorry I haven’t time to find the references now, but they have been posted on Mumsnet.

I am so glad that heroic women, and some heroic men, are dragging all this sleaze out into the sunlight.

This was the most egregious thing about the “suggested words” from Tandora - apparently Upton should feel himself entitled to attend women requesting female only care, so the woman should mark herself as a “transphobe” by spelling out that she specifically didn’t want a “trans woman” doctor.

Male doctors should under no circumstances be presenting themselves as female where a woman has asked for female only care. This should be a disciplinary issue. Its harassment of vulnerable women patients.

Yes! As if someone ill or in pain is going to dare pick a quarrel with the people they need to help them!

And as always, the transactivists’ relentless effort to dilute the meaning of the word ‘woman’.

You don't find it wrong that a male doctor complained about being called son by a patient with dementia? Did Upton really consider that worthy of a complaint? Talk about putting your feelings above the needs of patients...

Oh yes - so egregious that I suggested it was helpful for communication/ clarity to use language that acknowledges the existence/ experience of trans women.

EGREGIOUS I tell you 😂

(But accusing another of being less than human and a male pervert who taunts women - that's just pa for the course for A-TRAs on mumsnet isn't it?).

I don’t think Tands is all that au fait with medical ethics. Or any.

Why are you attributing another person's words to me?

I think ethics is another of those words with a “special” meaning for some posters

I don’t acknowledge the existence of “trans women” though, they are just men who claim to be women. A highly disputed claim and one I don’t accept. So why would I use that language?