Is Scottish Justice Secretary, Keith Brown, being a bit TERFY now too?

[MoirasSaggyBundles]

Presenter: Let's bring it down to basics. As far as you are concerned, is a trans woman a woman?

KB: Yes.

P: So, if that's the case, how can you send a woman to a men's prison?

KB: [Shrug]We have done that as they do in England and Wales and elsewhere over many years. But that's only done after a proper safety assessment which involves medical professionals, psychiatric professionals and a multi-party assessment of the safety implications of doing that. That's the right and responsible way of doing it, and it's been successful so far.

P: OK so does that mean that a trans woman in only a woman who does not commit violent crime?

KB: Someone who designates themselves a trans woman we treat at face value as a trans person, a trans woman [sic]. That's the position that we, and most of society I think accept. But what we do not do, is to accept that just that is sufficient to allow somebody to [be] put into an environment where there are vulnerable women. So we do all the other checks that I've mentioned to make sure the safety of prisoners, prison staff and the individual prisoner is looked after. That seems to me to be the responsible way to go about things.

His bar for what is "successful" is very low, considering the number of violent trans women in the Scottish female estate.

I though "humiliating" medical assessment for anyone claiming to be trans was what the SNP and their TRA pals are fighting against.

Is there ever a situation where a violent, biological female prisoner will be sent to a men's prison? Or any biological female for that matter? If not, then TW cannot be W.

They've tied themselves into the most well-predicted knot ever, and are suddenly finding that having to logic it out loud, makes them look utterly ridiculous.

They can all get in the fucking sea. Years spent shiting our safety down the river only to u-turn when it becomes expedient. Cunts.

Apparently there is a secure prison/wing for the most violent and dangerous offenders, which includes a few women who are do dangerous to be held in the female estate.

This is not for your common-or-garden violent female offender. More manipulative psychopaths and serial killers.

*too dangerous

They've tied themselves into the most well-predicted knot ever, and are suddenly finding that having to logic it out loud, makes them look utterly ridiculous.

Agreed. But journalists need to spell it out loud. If Isla Bryson is a woman, then she should be in a women's prison, regardless of her crime. After all, Rosemary West, Myra Hindley and other women guilty of terrible crimes were put in women's prisons, not men's prisons.

The only reason for putting Bryson in a men's prison is because you know he's a man. And if he's a man, then that means that saying the magic words "I identify as a woman" does not, in fact, make you a woman. And if saying "I am a woman" does not make you a woman, then the whole premise of your gender recognition reform bill, and the towering edifice of self-ID you have erected on it, is shown to be entirely fallacious.

I suspect by 'successful' he means that none of those men have come to any harm.

Doesn't this just prove that the 'risk assessment' looks at nothing more than the needs and best interests of the man in question, and regards damage to women in the process as acceptable.

Agreed. But journalists need to spell it out loud. If Isla Bryson is a woman, then she should be in a women's prison, regardless of her crime. After all, Rosemary West, Myra Hindley and other women guilty of terrible crimes were put in women's prisons, not men's prisons.

I think that is the actual logic of TRAs, Sturgeon etc.

If Rose West, who participated in the torture rape and murder of many young girls, is housed with women. Why can't Isla Bryson be in there too?

Why aren't they saying this?

indeed.

Horrific, but true

The biggest risk, that of being male, is completely ignored by these fuckwits.

Its an interesting question.

You're left to wonder: is it that they have realised that the general public will not accept this? And that their own survival as public figures will involve backing down and giving ground on this, the 'if we can get rapists into women's prisons we can get men in anywhere' lab rat experiment?

Or is it that their own faith has failed and they have hit the wall of having to acknowledge that they know there is a difference between a man and a woman that cannot be brushed away?

Keith Brown is not the least bit terfy.

They are still trying to make out they've been right all along and are simply doing another right thing now.
Even tho transwomen are all women .

Btw have you noticed transwomen are now being called transgender women, in the media ?

Every woman in incarceration is vulnerable, though, no matter what their crime, when they are thrown in with a male, particularly a provably violent and/or sexually violent male. A woman can have been the worst child murderer, but her crimes won't prevent her overpowering a male who wants to rape her. Nor do her crimes nullify her right not to be stared at in a communal shower by a trans woman with an erection.

The incidence of violence (or potential violence) between biological females in prison, is no excuse to throw a male in with them. That happening is a failing of the prison system, not a right of passage for being incarcerated. Losing your freedom is the punishment, not getting correctively raped.

TW would not be in danger in the male estate if the prison system worked properly. Because it is failing, the default position is to move the problem onto the women's estate.

I don't suppose they risk assess a violent TW getting into a romantic entanglement with a violent female prisoner, and the havoc that might wreak both inside and out?

He is very much on team woke.

His partner is Christina McKelvie who was big on pushing the trans agenda in her 'equalities' post.

Keith Brown is not the least bit terfy.

Neither were most women who recognised biological reality and wanted some checks and balances, rather than just wholesale acceptance of self ID. We've just adopted what was a slur as a badge of honour. Browne doesn't realise that nothing but unequivocal acceptance of all self ID claims puts you in terf territory. There's no way he can argue that some TW do not belong in the female estate without being a phobe. That's TRA rules, that he's now breaking.