Words matter: MoJ What is a non-transgender woman

[pombear]

Looking at the Ministry of Justice case today regarding who should be housed in women's prisons and the judge's comments. Language is so important (channels Barracker).

I thought I'd try a translation, within guidelines and the law.

Judge's comments:
I can accept, at any rate for present purposes, that the unconditional introduction of a transgender woman into the general population of a women's prison carries a statistically greater risk of sexual assault upon non transgender prisoners than would be the case if a non-transgender woman was introduced.

Words matter.
A transgender woman (I understand we're protected when talking about classes of people, not an individual, that our belief that sex is immutable is valid.)
So in this case the judge is referring to the sex class A male

Non-transgender prisoners
(I understand we're protected when talking about classes of people, not an individual, that our belief that sex is immutable is valid)
In this case, therefore, when the judge is referring to women's prisons, they are talking about 'non-transgender prisoners' to be male? There's not another sex class they could be, within the women's prison.

Non-transgender women = women, for those of us with gender critical beliefs who don't believe people can change sex.

So in reality, the Judge said today in a judgement regarding women's prisons and women's safety:
I can accept, at any rate for present purposes, that the unconditional introduction of a transgender woman male into the general population of a women's prison carries a statistically greater risk of sexual assault upon non transgender prisoners women than would be the case if a non-transgender woman woman was introduced

Words matter.

Doubleplus ungood newspeak.

So in plain English the judge was saying that placing a man in a women's prison increases the risk of women being sexually assaulted.

Who knew, eh?

Bollocks - it's friday and I'm not at work so not proof-reading!

Non-transgender prisoners
(I understand we're protected when talking about classes of people, not an individual, that our belief that sex is immutable is valid)
In this case, therefore, when the judge is referring to women's prisons, they are talking about 'non-transgender prisoners' to be female? There's not another sex class they could be, within the women's prison.

somethinginoffensive

Yep, when you pare it down to plain english, that's the meaning behind the many words. Who knew, eh? Exactly!

@somethinginoffensive

So in plain English the judge was saying that placing a man in a women's prison increases the risk of women being sexually assaulted.

Who knew, eh?

Yeah and they just don't fucking care. Women prisoners get the extra punishment of being raped and sexually assaulted by male born people because the desires and feelings of the male born person must take priority.

Absolute fuckers.

Because the GRA says that a male can legally be a woman. Until we can row the lie back, this sophistry will continue, and more importantly, women will continue to be at risk because of the privileges granted to males by this unjust law.

Non-transgender women are nothing, that's what.

Not humans, but objects existing to provide validation for others, whether they want to or not.

Not worth keeping safe, protecting from rape, sexual assault or violence, because that might hurt the feelings of males, and we can't be fucking having that.

Non-transgender women don't have rights, because when they say rights need to be 'balanced', what they really mean is 'the rights of the penis trump everyone else's'.

Non-transgender women are acceptable collateral damage, that's what.

Man's world indeed.

The language alone is misogynistic abuse.

Gilead moves ever closer.

yourhairiswinterfire

And let's remind everyone here (most of us know already) that non-transgender women just means 'women'.

So the judge is talking about dangers specific to a clearly definable group, without naming that group. Not only without naming the endangered group, but with giving the name of the endangered group to the people he understands pose the risk to the group. And the at-risk group share a protected characteristic not shared by those posing a risk to them. And the risk posed to the at-risk group is one specific to their Protected Characteristic.

But it, and they, could not be named.

Oh brave new world that has such creatures in it.

You are right language does matter.

I’m just pleased he didn’t say the c word.

That was in my head the whole time I was reading bits of the judgment. While the judges are using the word women when referring to men, it skews the whole discussion in favour of the men.

They have been allowed to choose the words that refer to them, where the women involved have not been considered, let alone consulted,

Non-men
non-transwomen
menstruators

etc.

I would be interested in some follow-up on outcomes for transwomen prisoners, too. For those whose request to he imprisoned in the female estate is denied, how many continue to "live as women" for the full duration of their incarceration in the male estate? And for those transwomen who do manage to get themselves transferred into women's prisons, what happens after their release? How many are continuing to "live as women" 2 years after release? Or 5 years, or 10 years? Somebody needs to record these statistics.

The language suggests that they have accepted the TWAW doctrine before making the decision

Ya don't say.

(Re OP.)

I think they think we are too stupid to notice.

Then we are supposed to have sympathy for the terrible position they are in or play along with the pretence they don't understand.

They know exactly what they are doing.

Sick.of this abusive shit.

Appalling. Language matters.

Also worth bearing in mind that the transgender women being referred to here don't have a GRC, so are legally male.

I think they think we are too stupid to notice.

I’m not convinced they’ve given us even that much thought. I think rather, that the judges themselves have given no consideration to the language they used.

It’s been the same throughout this aggressive takeover bid. Activists introduced new word meanings, then socially engineered a situation where the use of normal English is considered impolite and even bigoted. And just as nobody considered the effect on women when doctors told men it was acceptable for them to use women’s spaces, and nobody considered the effect on women when the Ministry of Justice told the prisons that men must be moved into women’s estate, nobody in the judiciary has given any consideration to the effect on women of using prejudiced and prejudicial language throughout a case where consideration of women should be paramount.