Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

Excluded for being male. Not for being transgender.

You agreed umpteen pages ago that the law protects legal sex, not biological sex. Yet here you still are reverting to type. Trans women with a GRC are protected as sex = female under the law with an additional layer of protection of 'gender reassignment'. Stamp your tiny foot as many times as you like, you'll never be right.

I've chosen to ride my Orro Gold STC with its new carbon 50 mils on. I'm ready to ride. So laters. Toodlepip.

 

[classic33]

Anybody can have bodily autonomy, but if it impinges on the rights of others it's a problem.


It's a good job nobody is doing any of that then. Except for calling women 'menstruators', 'non men', and 'vulva owners'. That's dehumanising obviously.

Isn't that second part exactly what you want to do though?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Trans women with a GRC are protected as sex = female under the law with an additional layer of protection of 'gender reassignment'. Stamp your tiny foot as many times as you like, you'll never be right.

Transwomen with a GRC can still be excluded if justifiable and proportionate. You seem to think you know better than the EHRC.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-single-sex-services-if-justifiable-says-ehrc

 

[multitool]

Hahaha hahaha

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64548844

 

[AuroraSaab]

Hahaha hahaha

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64548844

Not new news. I guess we'll see how far they get with it.

 

[matticus]

The state thinks differently.

Is it not reasonable to discuss what the state SHOULD do? I have heard that governments occasionally get things wrong.

 

[multitool]

Aurora has got what she wants.

This predatory paedophile sex attacker, who attacked a young girl, is imprisoned in a place full of vulnerable females. Aurora doesn't want pragmatism to play a part in this. Just objective biological truth. Whatever the cost to women.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...-scots-beast-attacked-schoolgirl-29136038.amp





 

[AuroraSaab]

Accommodating female sex offenders in the female estate is how it's been for 200 years. It's a case of a female offender sent to a women's prison, regardless of crime and regardless of how they identify. Which is exactly where they should be. I'd also like all biological males to be in men's prisons, regardless of crime or how they identify. Seems reasonable.

How odd that you think women's prisons don't deal with unpleasant women, and that therefore adding men to the mix won't be a problem.

 

[multitool]

Moving goalposts again, I see.

 

[multitool]

If the rationale is some sort of utilitarian safeguarding females then this trans man should be nowhere near vulnerable women and girls.

Which means that your rationale isn't about women's safety at all. It's about ideology. You hatred of the trans is greater than your desire for girls to be safe.

At some point, despite you banging on about trans ideology, you'll realise that all of it is pragmatism, whether it be living a life comfortable in your own skin, or safety.

You are the ideological zealot. Not them.

 

[AuroraSaab]

There have always been a number of violent females in UK jails and they are successfully accommodated within the female estate (in so much as any prison is successful). To say this individual can't/shouldn't be similarly accommodated is illogical.

If I hated transgender people I would be saying this person should be in a male prison. I'm not. If you cared about women you would say that transwomen should be accommodated in the male estate in a special care wing. That's a pragmatic solution and one which some prison systems already follow.

But you aren't saying that. Instead you're prioritising their feelings over that of the women who are going to be incarcerated with them and saying they should be in women's jails.

 

[monkers]

There have always been a number of violent females in UK jails and they are successfully accommodated within the female estate (in so much as any prison is successful). To say this individual can't/shouldn't be similarly accommodated is illogical.

If I hated transgender people I would be saying this person should be in a male prison. I'm not. If you cared about women you would say that transwomen should be accommodated in the male estate in a special care wing. That's a pragmatic solution and one which some prison systems already follow.

But you aren't saying that. Instead you're prioritising their feelings over that of the women who are going to be incarcerated with them and saying they should be in women's jails.

Your posts are too short and too infrequent. Please try harder.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I'll never match your 800 word treatise on floppy dicks, that's for sure.

 

[multitool]

There have always been a number of violent females in UK jails and they are successfully accommodated within the female estate (in so much as any prison is successful).

And trans women.

Successfully accommodated in the female estate.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Well the ones in Limerick jail aren't being 'successfully accomodated'. And this female ex prisoner would disagree with you.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/ex-prisoner-shaking-fear-sharing-29075541?utm_source=app

As long as the transwomen are happy you seem to count that as a successful policy.