Lisa Nandy says child rapists should be in women’s prisons if they identify as female

[RoyalCorgi]

Extraordinary.

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=oUon9j1zJ_E&

And before the deletions for 'negative generalisations' start: please. Show me the tweets and articles and speeches from any TW apart from Miranda Yardley, and possibly Fionne, talking about the importance of female safety, privacy, dignity, the importance of female only spaces, the importance of the female experience. Show me the lobbying alongside females as comrades. Show me the sisterhood and reciprocal 'kindness'. Please.

Anyone. Because that isn't a generalisation, that is hard fact.

(I haven’t got to the end of the thread yet but)
Crone yes yes yes -
It starts with some males being allowed in female-only spaces like toilets (especially if they have made a bit of an effort to appear female, and perhaps had their penis removed), and it ends with men who have convictions for rape being entitled to enter every female space.

I want to understand why there are so many people who refuse to hear our NO & do not care that we DO NOT CONSENT.

That makes my point very well. DBS is a good proportionate system which weeds out undesireables' access to the vulnerable. I have, in the past, undertaken (and passed) the enhanced level of check as I took a managerial role in the activities of a charity which held children-centred events. What did NOT occur was the exclusion of me as a trans woman.

Noone has suggested that transwomen should be excluded from working for charities which hold 'child centred events'.

Charities which hold such events for children should though have appropriate & robust Safeguarding policies which protect all children in attendance.

Some of these Safeguarding policies/principles will be based on sex & some on age.

Safeguarding policies & principles will apply to all adults, particularly those employed whether paid or voluntary.

I 'want in the Ladies' because it is the appropriate door for who I am.

Women's services are not designed for your inner validation robin.

And, please try to understand, women are not 'support humans.' We are people in our own right. A discrete category. With shared characteristics that place us in the same cohort.

You have shared characteristics with men and other transwomen. They are completely different groups to women.

It never ceases to surprise me how certain individuals simply do not see women as human beings in their own right. Merely as an addendum to themself, to be utilised for their own ends.

No.

So the argument is based on the need to manage a single especially challenging prisoner trumping the rights of 12 to 20,000 law abiding citizens?

Well you’re happy for 1% of the population (if transwomen are 1%) to trump the safety, dignity and privacy of 51% of the population.

Any male bodied adult in female spaces affects the safety, dignity and privacy of women and girls.

Male bodied prisoners in the female estate will intimidate and frighten by definition of their male bodies. They don’t all have to be Karen White - whose sexual assault of female inmates was state enabled.

if someone can't grasp the fact that women supporting women has nothing to do with them, then they really just won't ever be able to actually understand women, or see things from their POV.

The one trans rapist is not in prison with zero women. Or even one women. Do you know how many women are in there? How many women would be affected by every currently claiming to be trans sex offender being transferred to a women's prison. I believe the answer is pretty much every woman in prison.

Now that is a crazy sledgehammer to crack the nut of a criminal male feeling discomfort with his body.

Again, this is a thread about an elected official proposing that men should be able to identify as women and have access to the women's prison estate, this putting vulnerable women at risk.

Not about you, and your respectability.

Thanks also for this. Arguments must run forwards and backwards.

The Prison Service's need to keep all inmates safe is, of course, very different from appropriate measures to deal with any real problems between law abiding private citzens going about their business.

Thank you for de-bunking Julia Long's fallacious attack on Lisa Nandy.

Thank you for de-bunking Julia Long's fallacious attack on Lisa Nandy.

???

Nothing here is ‘fallacious’ and nothing has been ‘debunked’.

Crikey, it’s like you are having a different discussion to the rest of us.

‘Male bodied people are from Mars, Female bodied people are from Venus’

😂

it doesn't de-bunk it at all

You’ve over played your hand Robin, you and your ilk.
Whatever you and your pals thought you’d manage to do by the back door, we’re ensuring that a spotlight is shone all over it.
If there’s a contest between your inner validation, and the safety of women, there’s no contest.

NOT ABOUT YOU.

Are you having trouble with the concept?

Thanks. That makes my point very well. DBS is a good proportionate system which weeds out undesireables' access to the vulnerable.

But what if I am offended at having to have a DBS check? What if my feelings are hurt that anyone would think that I might want to harm vulnerable people when I know I am completely safe? What if I think that that kind of gatekeeping is stupid because I know I am not a threat to anyone? What if I don't want to pay to prove that I am safe? What if I think it's a waste of resources because only people with good intentions are going to want to work with vulnerable people and we can't assume that everyone is bad can we? I mean, no one is going to bother with the effort of trying to get an actual job working with vulnerable people just so that they have easy access, are they?

Just like no man is going to bother with self identifying as a woman just to gain access to vulnerable people....Are they?

Everyday I develop the stronger and stronger opinion that TW care only about themselves and other TWs and couldn't less about women or girls.

I still can't get over how she once again doubled down on the defamation!

Nandy was asked why she signed the pledge about WPUK. In her response she said:

'But I think if you deny the right of trans people to exist and you deny their very basic human rights then no meaningful dialogue is possible at all. And that is one of the reasons why I have a fundamental disagreement with the statements and aims of that organisation'

I 'want in the Ladies' because it is the appropriate door for who I am.

Robin,

There was an excellent post by Barraker regarding this on a now deleted thread.

I apologise in advance for my lack of comparative eloquence in summarising her point, but feel it applies just as equally to the prison debate as toilets and other single sex spaces.

Barraker suggested a thought experiment where there were 2 sets of toilets with identical facilities.

Which one would you use, firstly in the case they both had no sign and secondly in a theoretical situation where they were labelled Male/female but the women used the facilities labelled Male and vice versa?

Remember the toilets are identical so from a purely functional point of view either would meet your needs.

So why is one facility more appropriate than the other regardless of the sign on the door or the facilities?

The answer is simple.

The facility that is deemed more "appropriate " to you is the one that you observe adult human females using.

You're effectively using your right to observe sex (not gender identity) to qualify what you feel to be appropriate spaces for you to use, whilst denying the rights of the women using those spaces to do the same.

The whole trans lobby promotes this fundamental lack of parity with regard to single sex provision whether it be toilets, prisons, DV services/shelters whilst peddling the line that sex is "assigned" not observed whilst using observation as the very cornerstone of determining which spaces they should be able to access on the basis of "equality".

Could an employer ask what your previous name was if you present your self as MaryJane Smith but it looks very much like you were born Fred Smith?

There are special policies available to people who identify as transgender & are required to have DBS check.
This enables them to present the relevent required id to their potential employer with current name & then contact the DBS service with details of their former name.

The DBS information which comes back to the potential employer does not disclose the former identity, sex or that the person is transgender.

There are potential Safeguarding issues eg where a role is intended to be held by a female due to the needs of the people in receipt of the service or nature of the care/support given.

If a male person applies for such as role with identification which shows female for sex/gender & then uses the DBS service for transgender people the potential employees DBS check would (I think possibly) come back to the employer with 'gender' described as female or this part be left blank.

(extract)
'The sensitive applications route gives transgender applicants the choice not to have any gender or name information disclosed on their DBS certificate, that could reveal their previous identity.

The sensitive applications team
If you are asked to complete a DBS check and have a previous identity that you do not wish to be disclosed to your employer and/or on your DBS certificate, you should call or email the dedicated sensitive applications team before submitting your application. The team is experienced in dealing with sensitive cases and will advise you of the process and what you need to do
www.gov.uk/guidance/transgender-applications

Alec - agree.

Two completely different life experiences. TW cannot and should not be our political representation through All Women Shortlists that’s for sure. They haven’t the first clue as to what it’s like to be female.

I can't think why AlecTrevelyan006, I've seen no evidence of that. Oh...

Lisa Nandy absolutely, clearly stated that a convicted male child rapist (named example given for clarity) should be in a women's prison if they identify as a woman. Male rapists have already been granted access to women's prisons. There is no "fallacious attack", and asking questions of our elected representatives is not an attack anyway. It is what we should be fully entitled to do.

Everyday I develop the stronger and stronger opinion that TW care only about themselves and other TWs and couldn't less about women or girls.

Whilst wanting to be us! What the hell is that about?

Thank you for de-bunking Julia Long's fallacious attack on Lisa Nandy.

Thank goodness the video is available in the OP

I'm sure any sex person who had raped a a child wouldn't last long in a prison full of women. Proper justice would be served, sounds like a great idea!

There are a number of reasons why people who identify as transgender seek to use facilities/spaces for the opposite sex. Its obviously not just (in the case of transwomen) about seeking refuge from potentially dangerous men

Oh dont worry I am.well aware of the deal. Its just that as far as the tras go safety is their number one concern apparently. So when its pointed out that the same men they fear can follow them there or that a third space would do the same thing or that its unfair that women can't also be allowed to feel safe, they dint have an.answer.
And as has just been revealed it's about validation.

You cant keep up the pretence if appearing reasonable when you arent being truthful.

As far as prisons go these prisoners are not content with being allowed make up clothing etc or being kept safe from the men who seek to do them harm.

What they want is women to validate them even if that's against their will.

The arguments will now get ever more defensive and I'm.sure the insults will commence soon however point proven...