JK Rowling has sadly opened her mouth again

[DayAndAge]

How the metro can put out this tweet which effectively suggests a woman shouldn't be allowed to speak is beyond me. Shocked but not surprised. Comments are heartening though, as is the ratio.

In this topsy turvy world when words have gone all Humpty Dumpty, who knows sex ‘Dadjoke’ actually is, or even if they identify as a ‘dad’?

We are (or certainly I and those I know) are fighting to keep men out of our spaces. If third spaces is what then evolves from that, great, but fighting for a third space isn't womens jobs.

Because the trans lobby wanted and won self ID there is no wrong trans woman they are all "genuine" trans women.
Also about 95% of transwomen still have their male genitals.

Far too many people think that those that have "transitioned" have had genital surgery.

why is Blake being put in a men's prison?

Because he is a very dangerous MAN.

Then there is no point as those that you want to use the third spaces don't want them so are not going to fight for them.
Its a self defeating prophecy.

It is worth remembering that lurkers need to see false claims argued. But also to able to assess what are absolute bollocks arguments and which may have merit.

Also to be able to recognise the falsehoods that support ideological thinking. And to know what male entitlement and misogyny looks like these days.

@2under4 Not spoiling for a fight but whether they have had their bits lobbed off or not - they are still biologically men. Are you suggesting that it's ok for the thieves and drug dealers put in with women? It does not work for me.

Even a man who has breasts had had his penis inverted into a internal tube and his balls removed, has filled himself full of oestrogen and called himself Samantha for 20 years is still a man and should go in the male estate..

No ifs no buts no exceptions no special cases. Transwomen are men.

They are women so have been socialised as women. From what I see, transmen more often simply live their lives. It tends to be transwomen and their supporters that make threats and unreasonable demands that their feelings be prioritised over everything.

Male socialisation and the strong desire to please men in action.

Perhaps that's another part of the problem then. That is, there should be case-by-case analysis, as to where a person should be detained. Most other things are done case-by-case, after all, to see what a person can access / is entitled to.

I totally get your aim is to get men out of women's spaces, and that is your priority. However more broadly, and as a society, I think we should becable to protect everyone who needs it (in different places, possibly). Obviously the people who are genuinely trans, are a different case to those who have committed violent crime, who are clearly making it up. I don't think anyone on this thread is advocating for them (although I haven't read every comment...).

I don't "want" them to do anything other than not be in single sex spaces. I don't care where else men need. I'm pretty much only interested in defending female single sex spaces.

Yes. Good point.

And how do you tell whether they are genuine or making it up?

They've had this streak in them for quite some time. Even as far back as 2016-ish. They came across to me like a bit of a laddish publication. Not surprised they're publishing such nasty shit.

But why make that person suffer unnecessarily though? If they pose no threat, and / or go to a third prison type, with other transgender people? Can't see the benefit of sending them there, even if some people still view them as men.

We want the same thing, we just see a different way of getting there. :)

Obviously the people who are genuinely trans, are a different case to those who have committed violent crime, who are clearly making it up.

So where would you put someone you might deem 'genuinely trans' who'd committed a violent crime?

Would you want to see genuine transmen put in the male estate? Is it only males' gender which needs to be considered above sex?

This way madness lies. The only rational basis of the first level of segregation is by sex, and then within those broad categories make provision for those that may need it.

Quite simply threat or not the women in the prison estate cannot know the difference, the prison staff cannot know the difference. A man is a man is a man. And should not be anywhere near a woman's prison. If there's a third space prison then they could use that, but until then the men's prisons exist and a man should go in the men's prison. Whether that man suffers or not is nothing to do with women. That man's prison experience will be the problem of the male prison estate to deal with.

What is the difference between genuine and not?

It is the million dollar question these days. Even so, when you have to face reality, no male can become a women. Why should women become human shields and give up their privacy and safety to accommodate some
males who present themselves to the world as ‘women’?

Do you really think that they are more at risk because they ‘look feminine’ vs any other vulnerable male person?

And should female people have to give up single sex spaces to ‘some genuine male people’ who think they are women?

There were three people in this case - the murderer, the victim, and the murderer's "girlfriend". All of them male.

I just searched the latest BBC article, which now seems to have dropped "woman" entirely (it now begins with "A murderer who led a man to his death") and has one instance of "trans woman", to describe Ashlyn Bell, along with a couple of "transgender". But "she" is used 21 times, and "her" 4 times - strange, eh, for an article with absolutely no women in it.

The Metro likewise has one "transgender woman", 17 "she" and about 9 "her".

Guardian - one "transgender woman", one "trans woman", 18 "she" and 5 "her".

Meanwhile, the police statement that someone linked to elsewhere (can't find it now) was an astonishing feat of writing in that it was several paragraphs long but didn't use a single she/her, or he/him/his, or woman, or man, to refer to Blake.

But why make that person suffer unnecessarily though?

Many female inmates are known to themselves be the victim of male aggression. Why make them suffer unnecessarily by incarcerating them with males?

But how do you know who is and isn't trans?

The trans lobby has already stated and won self ID. It would be completely disingenuous to say that anyone that has committed a crime is not a trans person, when by their rules they are indeed trans.
And FYI transitioning does not mean having surgery.

Why are you so sure that they "pose no threat"?

Regardless, they are men. It's not just that "some people still view them as men" - they ARE men.

Women who are in prison have been found to have suffered a disproportionate amount of male violence. "New research has found that 78% of women prisoners in Scotland have a history of significant head injury – most of which occurred in the context of domestic abuse that often lasted over periods of several years."

These women should not be incarcerated with men. They have suffered significant trauma at the hands of males. You have no right to subject them to more trauma just so you can think of yourself as 'nice'. Show these women a bit of respect, FFS!

(https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/archiveofnews/2021/may/headline_792437_en.html)

But why make that person suffer unnecessarily though? If they pose no threat, and / or go to a third prison type, with other transgender people? Can't see the benefit of sending them there, even if some people still view them as men.

How do you know they pose no threat? Because they are trans? Spaces are segregated by sex for a reason. The male estate has protections for vulnerable prisoners, they can be dealt with there. As they are male.

If they don't feel safe around other males then they should campaign for males to be more sympathetic/accepting of transwomen. Why is it a problem for females to solve?

And what is a GENUINE trans person? Because they've gone to the hassle of mutilating their body they pose no risk?

And they would be in prison. They pose some sort of threat generally to be there in the first place and to get a custodial sentence.