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&

I think this particular Labour boil is coming to a head.

All crossed

Fucking hell.

To rapists in the country and around the world I say this: I've got your back, I will always support you. Women don't matter.

Can't watch Black Mirror any more either.

Heather Peto has a short but very informative thread at 🥝 🌾 🚜

I have rarely been as disappointed with anyone as I am with Nandy. I really thought she was a thinker, someone with vision. Well it turns out her vision is to throw the most marginalised women in society under the bus. Been on the verge of tears for most of the evening.

Puts wellies on...

Andrew Neil did some satire this week about HS2 and Boris Johnson.

Satire is the only real way to present the current reality - on this issue and others.

Watching it again, it’s like she’s never considered the logical conclusions of blanket self-ID. As if Julia’s question tonight is the first time she’s considered the possibility that self-ID would impact crime stats, or where prisoners are housed. She was thinking on the hoof and just followed her TWAW ‘logic’, and didn’t seem to realise where it took her.

Yes, I think this is just it. And like someone said, it's the ideology that is the problem, because if you really really believe that TWAW, it is the only answer. We do put some nasty dangerous women in women's prisons, being nasty and dangerous isn't a barrier to going to prison. If there is no difference between a transwoman and any other woman, they would go to women's prisons.

The problem is the base assumption. We can logically derive any position if we start from the right premises, that's why it's so important to be really careful about the premises we accept.
Some people do this pretty naturally, and others have a strong instinct for when a premise begins to lead to conclusions that seem absurd, so they will walk back through their logic and re-examine a premise. But there are a lot of people who aren't natural at this, they tend to accept what they learn is good from trusted sources, their parents, their faith, their political or social affiliates, whatever. Many people like this don't really realise they are making an assumption.

I think the reason Nandy keeps talking about that one constituent is she is someone who focuses on personal relationships, that's how she learns and thinks things through, how she sees what seems to be right, impacts on people. People who do this are often great at interpersonal skills, sympathetic to others, have a strong sense of the importance of treating people right.

I bet the best thing for her to begin to rethink would be to meet someone, for example, who had to share a cell with a trans prisoner.

But to me it says, this person is really not made for political office, it requires skills and capacities she doesn't have.

Goosefoot, what a great post.

Great post, Goose

Pleased to see this - calls for an actual definition of ‘Transphobia’

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/16/labour-pledges-to-fight-transphobia-stifle-debate

If the offender has a penis HE is a man and should be imprisoned with men.

Well. That was certainly an informative trip to the farms and well worth putting on the wellies for.

Someone earlier posted Megan Murphey's interview with Heather Mason a Canadian ex-prisoner who's on twitter.
They discuss the paedophile Madilyn Harks"terrorising the women" in jail. Harks sexually assaulted two fellow female inmates. Harks kept getting transferred around low-security women's prisons, there was incident after incident followed by transfer after transfer.
Women's jails are in not capable of coping with these inmates, the security is not there yet politicians don't mention this.

Of course women's jails are incapable of coping with male inmates, because they were not designed for or intended to house male inmates. This is bleeding obvious to anyone who's put any thought into it, which makes it very interesting to note those who think it's a great idea.

I think RBL has significant backing and is 100% going with what will get her the powerful woke vote in the party. Starmer is keeping out of the way and letting this consume his rivals.

But Nandy, it appears, is functioning on pure female socialization, and seems to have a concept of integrity that hasn't moved on from the primary school playground. She's made a pinky promise to a constituent and seems to think that is a good enough reason to argue, apparently in all earnestness, that rapists should be able to be incarcerated with women, and have their crimes recorded as such.

I mean, I was joking about this pinky promise to the constituent the other day, but she actually talked about the high rates of domestic violence in her constituency as a part of her impenetrable logic to justify only listening to the trans constituent.

So, while I think she's probably the least calculating of all of them, she will be just as effective in destroying our rights because that's exactly how this has got this far. A few bad actors pushing their case behind the scenes, and an awful lot of people bumbling along, trying to be nice, and eventually so frog-boiled they are publicly defending the rights of rapists to access victims.

I think the reason Nandy keeps talking about that one constituent is she is someone who focuses on personal relationships, that's how she learns and thinks things through, how she sees what seems to be right, impacts on people. People who do this are often great at interpersonal skills, sympathetic to others, have a strong sense of the importance of treating people right.

People with high levels of empathy & altruism?
Also more likely to be targetted by those with narcisstic control pattern behaviours.

I'm crying here and feel so sick.

I suffered years of abuse as a child. Like many in that situation I then entered relationships that were toxic (domestic violence and abuse). I was raped by my husband and on leaving him was then homeless. I have mental health problems and a criminal record.

All of the resources that would/should be available to be like me are (or will be) a thing of the past because of people like her. If I were to be sectioned will I be housed with men? If I need a rape crisis centre will there be men? If I need an examination after being raped will that examination be done by a man? If I get sent to prison will I be housed with men? Will I be strip searched by a man? What if I become homeless again, will I be in a shelter with men?

All of the these scenarios are very possible for me and many other women. I try every single day to keep my shit together, to keep going and to try and make sure that any none of those things happen. People like her make people like me feel even more worthless, like we don't matter, I hope the woke cookies were worth it.

The problem is the base assumption. We can logically derive any position if we start from the right premises, that's why it's so important to be really careful about the premises we accept. Some people do this pretty naturally, and others have a strong instinct for when a premise begins to lead to conclusions that seem absurd, so they will walk back through their logic and re-examine a premise. But there are a lot of people who aren't natural at this, they tend to accept what they learn is good from trusted sources, their parents, their faith, their political or social affiliates, whatever. Many people like this don't really realise they are making an assumption.

This. This, exactly.

People want to be kind. So they accept TWAW from compassion for those struggling. And then hold to it, without realising the horrifying, Owellian consequences for women.

The thing that really angers me isn't the position held at the start. It's the refusal to listen and take on board why the position is catastrophic for women, and the deeply entrenched misogyny in assuming women raising the alarm need 'education' and just don't understand. The reality is that we do understand, and that's exactly why our position has moved on from TWAW. We are raising complex and fundamental - existential, really - threats to women's rights, welfare and participation if this position becomes law in the form of self ID. And people won't engage with FOFW or WPUK, in favour of lecturing us from their Stonewall-trained deliberate ignorance. So the risk to women's rights escalates, because we aren't trusted to understand our own positions on our own definition, and consequent provision, as a group.

We do not house very nasty and dangerous female prisoners in the female estate. They are housed in male prisons, with much higher security.

When people sigh and tut about being kind I always want to remind them that we are being kind - to women like ExhaustedGrinch. Those of us who're immune to attempts to take advantage of our female socialization and lucky enough to have reached adulthood without any significant trauma are fighting this so hard precisely so that more vulnerable women won't have to.

I am 100% mama bear in regards to people who're genuinely vulnerable, I just have enough sense to recognize the difference between someone genuinely vulnerable and someone who's trying to manipulate others by pretending to be.

Goosefoot
We do put some nasty dangerous women in women's prisons, being nasty and dangerous isn't a barrier to going to prison
No, we do not, such women are housed in special wings in the men's prison estate where security is much higher.
Posting for a friend.

When people sigh and tut about being kind I always want to remind them that we are being kind - to women like ExhaustedGrinch.

Thank you @TheProdigalKittensReturn

Sorry for the self pitying rant I just feel exasperated.

Rant away! What's happening is an absolute disgrace and everyone should be very angry with the people who're facilitating it.

I think the suggestion that Nandy is using personal contacts to learn about issues is too kind.

This is someone who is not only an MP so you would hope had learnt they need to check their facts, but is not trying to become Leader of the Labour Party.

She is making totally untrue statements about an organisation, and has signed a public declaration which on one level doesn't even link to the child.

This is bottom of the barrel scraping. When you find yourself in a pile of shit you bring out a distraction ie a soft sentimental story about a young person in distress. Then you add to that some nonsense about child soldiers (not saying that being a child soldier isn't shocking) as though to prove she nows about taking informed decisions. But again proves she hasn't done her research, because there are so many examples of how this just isn't safe. Even if you supported violent men suddenly discovering they are really women, by would you think that took priority over the safety of women.

She is either totally out of her depth, or has been so captured by a group of woke aides who have captured her and are force feeding her nonsense.

This is the sort of "arguing" that makes people think women shouldn't be in public live. It is beyond parody. Let alone the irony of a group of men heartily clapping her. Did you see those who left as she was speaking?

So what with this and "Rebecca Long-Bailey says women's refuges must accept trans women and urges Labour members to 'stop having this debate'" www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/long-bailey-trans-women-refuges-law-a9337911.html does this mean that Stammer is in fact the most open to gender critical feminism???!!

The pledge he signed was for L, G & B rights.

What a terrible time for national politics. We've got Boris and his mimicking clowns, with Cummings bringing in what look like unemployed Incels, and the likelihood that the opposition will be working with the tories to dismantle women's rights.