Times reporting on Lord Blencathra's attempt to keep violent/sex offending males out of women's prisons

[ahagwearsapointybonnet]

Just seen this! www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0f6562b4-47b2-11ec-aa43-5cc5157b09b9?shareToken=c3f29babf05112278c0015e3038622ca

Glad see this getting some sunlight

Well ok I mean I have no idea who this fella is.

He's still essentially on the side of males though isn't he. Just a bit of humanity when it comes to violent male offenders.

• how do you know for sure if any male is violent/ could be violent to women?

• what about the basic fact that males can and will make some/ many female inmates feel worried scared etc full stop?

• what about risk of pregnancy. This is NEVER mentioned by anyone. Not the prisons service, not the left or the right, by anyone involved in this online, not by anyone. Or. Very rarely. I mean I mention it! Risk of Pregnancy is just obviously surely a massive issue. Whether you are lock em up and throw away the key, or a lentil weaving bleeding heart type. NO ONE wants that. Consensual/ non consensual sex can mean baby. Why is this not a major point with this?

• tiers? Like what? At this point. The time for looking at possible compromise is gone. No males in women's prison. Full stop. Separate wing etc yes whatever don't mind as long as no male prisoners are in with female ones. The end.

Eh?

Have you actually read or listened to what Lord Blencathra said?

No I just read the link in the OP.

What did he say? In brief obv. Must be something interesting you are obviously taken aback!

Why don't you listen to him?

I assume you are "gender critical"? If so he's on your side.

Although I'm puzzled even if you just read The Times article that you leapt to the conclusions in your post. There's nothing in The Times article which says what you appear to think it says.

I'm watching telly and CBA to be honest. I'm on here for chat and etc and have no desire to sink even more time!

OP said how about this article. I read it and answered.

I have no idea who this geezer is.

I didn't think much of what I read.

My thoughts and opinions are my own. This sides thing is childish.

You posted a longish post of conclusions which bore no resemblance to what is in the Times article nor the direct quotes of Lord Blencathra.

Your post is actually so bizarre I wondered if you'd read the wrong article.

And why is he "this geezer" "this fella"? What odd turns of phrase.

It's normal language.

I don't know who this gentleman is, then.

I can't be arsed to listen. I read the OP. Maybe I got an impression from the title.

Ok then. Ignore what I said. I'm watching Dr who. I don't often look at vids posted.

And I don't understand your reaction.

I'd say oh no he didn't say that he said put all the trans male prisoners in a separate wing or whatever. And then you would say oops sorry wrong end of stick and yay all sorted.

Is it normal? You seem to be looking for words to disparage him rather than what he said.

And yes, I do get the point about your ignorance of this "geezer's existence". He's been a politician since 1983. I'm not sure what significance you think attaches to the fact of your never having heard of him- is that supposed to devalue anything he has to say?

Diamond geezer... Top geezer...
Nice fella... Alright fella!...

Just means bloke, chap. Man. Nothing disparaging.

I'm guessing you are not from my neck of the woods. At all. Those words are definitely not disparaging. In any way.

Disparaging would be words like wanker, tosser, shitbag, arsehole. Those sort of words.

Wellll no. I've not heard of lots of people. The fact I haven't heard of him means he could be lovely or a bastard. I have no idea. You said I must be 'on his side'. Well who knows. And as I mentioned this sides thing is childish.

I've taken back what I posted. So all is good.

Ps your approach is not very persuasive when it comes to getting me to watch.

You posted the video link so seem well informed on him/ what he said etc. I get this bloke is someone you have an interest in/ or watch a lot of speeches on this topic.

And I mean on the one hand you're telling me to watch something and on the other hand you're saying reading a book of political theory is naval gazing etc.

Why are you telling me what I should and shouldn't read/watch? It's a bit peculiar.

Just watched it & it's a good speech & raises lots of pertinent points!
I'll be interested to see how or if it is reported by the press other than the Times.
I'll also be interested to see how it is reported. Whether Lord Blencathra is viewed as being transphobic or not for stating common sense.

Well all that ^ was weird.

For some posters who might like to know/should simply have posted a shortened version.
The lord whatisface (who I've never heard of) actually stated
"A male, no matter how he identifies, should never be housed in a women's prison". Hansard, Lords, 15/11/21 col 102.

I think cheese has read the headline, not the article and may also have been at the wine. The headline says to keep violent transwomen out rather than all transwomen.

I still reel at the "High Court ruling that the MoJ policy that allows prisoners to be housed according to their gender identity “irrespective of whether they have taken any legal or medical steps to acquire that gender”

Bonkers.

I saw a snipett of the Liason Committee yesterday (Boris Johnson being grilled) and Sir Bernard Jenkins talked about VAWAG and asked about language and that sex needed to be used and not gender which would end up with women's safety potentially being at risk. Used examples of prisons, single sex spaces etc.

BJ waffled a bit but agreed and went on to what was being considered and what was being done but didn't answer the language question in real terms

The MoJ has stated that "it's impossible to tell someone's sex without genital inspections" to justify why they allocate prisons on the basis of gender identity instead, so I really don't hold much hope for women in prison right now.

@Gncq

The MoJ has stated that "it's impossible to tell someone's sex without genital inspections" to justify why they allocate prisons on the basis of gender identity instead, so I really don't hold much hope for women in prison right now.

The MoJ is talking nonsense.

All prisoners' DNA is on record. If there is any doubt after examining that, a quick look during the obligatory strip search on reception to prison would usually reveal their biological sex. Wrong sex, off to another facility.

In the vanishingly unlikely case that neither DNA nor a look at the prisoner was enough to decide, they would need to go to a suitable secure medical facility for further investigation by experts - proper scientific ones.

And I mean on the one hand you're telling me to watch something and on the other hand you're saying reading a book of political theory is naval gazing etc

Up to you of course. You could spend less than 10 minutes listening to an eloquent and well thought out speech by a Tory grandee in the House of Lords succinctly setting out the gender critical position and what is wrong with the GRA.

Or you could trawl through a political manifesto on which some of the most oppressive regimes have founded themselves and which has never created anything but misery in practice trying to find some saving grace in it which builds a case as to why prostitution is wrong.

Omg will you two please take a chill pill

"Men who identify as the female gender are not biological women".

Parliamentary privilege protects him.

I was just reading the times. In T2 there’s a bit on menopause... it was going ‘reasonably well’ (a kid a woman who runs ‘classes’ to explain to men/partners/businesses but guess what? ‘It’s not just women who go through the menopause...’ it’s ‘anyone with ovaries secreting female hormones...’ boak

T2 now going to the neighbour for her cats litter tray (after I’ve done the crossword)

Secreting is a horrible word!

Usually used for unpleasant things. Slug slime comes to mind.

Would secreting testosterone be used? Maybe. It sounds horrible.

Just realised- it means secreting substances out of your body doesn't it? Through your skin. I'll look it up but think it's wrong word.

There seem seems to be a drive to use words for our bodies and the functions that are the most objectifying, unpleasant etc.

Just looked word is used fine but it still sounds somehow gross to my ear..

'a process by which substances are produced and discharged from a cell, gland, or organ for a particular function in the organism or for excretion.'