Gender again. Sorry!

[CXRAndy]

Shithead.

 

[monkers]

All that applies to every other offence. We don't dismiss those incarceration rates as meaningless because of it.

I was replying to Shithead's post which was bollocks. Not everything is about you.

Statistically they have a higher rate of offending than the male population

 

[monkers]

You need to prove that the current status quo - of excluding men from women's spaces in certain limited circumstances - should be changed to allow a certain subset of men (and only them) access. You haven't provided a single compelling piece of evidence for this.

I don't need to prove any such thing. There is a standard protocol for academic argument that extends through professional practice and the legal system. They who make the claim need to be prepared to bring the evidence.

You've been bringing the claim about offending rates and you haven't provided the evidence.

Instead:

1 You've pretended that all transgender people who present as women define themselves as women - they don't. They majority state that they are legally male.

2 You've taken the total number of transgender people, whether they be transgender men or transgender women, from the prison stats across the whole spectrum of offences, and then pretended further by treating them all as sexual offences against women and girls.

3 This compound of errors is then further compounded by pretending that they are housed in the women's prison estate.

The stats given in the report that you cherry-pick from classes set out in their definitions ...

For the purposes of this report, transgender prisoners are defined as those individuals known within prison to be currently living in, or presenting in, a gender different to their legal gender[footnote 7] and who have had a local case board (as defined by ‘The Care and Management of Individuals who are Transgender’ policy framework[footnote 8]) and are known to the diversity and inclusion lead within the individual prison where they are housed. Prisoners who have a full Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) are excluded from any analysis within this report. Only an overall count is provided to ensure compliance with the Gender Recognition Act 2004[footnote 9]. Statistics on the number of applications to the Gender Recognition Panel are published in Tribunals Statistics Quarterly at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics. The figures reported in this bulletin give an estimate of the number of transgender prisoners and are likely to underestimate the true number. This is because some transgender prisoners, both with and without GRCs, may not have declared that they are transgender or had a local case board. Additionally, the prison population is dynamic, meaning prisoners may have entered or left prison outside the time period of the data collection. Details of the number of transgender prisoners as of 31st March 2024 were provided by Equalities Representatives in public and private prisons in England and Wales.

It's clear then that the number that you say are trans women are not even included in the number that you claim they are. They are listed separately and are within the 10 trans people who are prisoners or were prisoners at the date of the report. The report does not say how many of the 10 are trans women. The report does not say that any trans women have been convicted for sexual offences against women, girls, or boys for that matter.

We just know that there are 10 trans prisoners for unspecified offences, and that that number may include trans men and trans women. We know that just one trans woman is being held in the women's prison estate, and then for an unspecified offence.

This representation of yours is entirely false and fabricated in order to cause alarm.

 

[CXRAndy]

Google knows better than you 👌

 

[monkers]

Google knows better than you 👌

Then read the farking report that your sources quote from Shithead.

https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...ransgender prisoners (83%),50 (17%) as female.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I don't need to prove any such thing. There is a standard protocol for academic argument that extends through professional practice and the legal system. They who make the claim need to be prepared to bring the evidence.

We all know why women have certain single sex spaces and services that exclude men.
You are making the claim that some men - not all, just some - should not be excluded. You haven't provided a single compelling reason other than some waffle about having a certificate.

You've been bringing the claim about offending rates and you haven't provided the evidence.

Instead:

1 You've pretended that all transgender people who present as women define themselves as women - they don't. They majority state that they are legally male.

Do they? Just because they say they are legally male doesn't mean they don't define themselves as women - in fact, why call themselves transwomen if they don't define themselves as women?

What is it's relevance in wider issues when access to women's spaces is being demanded on the basis of self declared identity not legal status?

2 You've taken the total number of transgender people, whether they be transgender men or transgender women, from the prison stats across the whole spectrum of offences, and then pretended further by treating them all as sexual offences against women and girls.

3 This compound of errors is then further compounded by pretending that they are housed in the women's prison estate.

The stats given in the report that you cherry-pick from classes set out in their definitions ...



It's clear then that the number that you say are trans women are not even included in the number that you claim they are. They are listed separately and are within the 10 trans people who are prisoners or were prisoners at the date of the report. The report does not say how many of the 10 are trans women. The report does not say that any trans women have been convicted for sexual offences against women, girls, or boys for that matter.

We just know that there are 10 trans prisoners for unspecified offences, and that that number may include trans men and trans women. We know that just one trans woman is being held in the women's prison estate, and then for an unspecified offence.

This representation of yours is entirely false and fabricated in order to cause alarm.

TL;DR ...... The Ministry of Justice, The Daily Telegraph, the Canada Bureau of Prisons .... none of them can be trusted to provide accurate info on prison stats, apparently.

The reason they should be in men's prisons is because they are men.

 

[icowden]

TL;DR ...... The Ministry of Justice, The Daily Telegraph, the Canada Bureau of Prisons .... none of them can be trusted to provide accurate info on prison stats, apparently.
The reason they should be in men's prisons is because they are men.

If you read Monkers reply to my question about transgender vs transman / transwoman, I think the nuance is this.

Lets say we have a prison population of 300 transgender prisoners and their offending rate is as high as or higher than the hetero male population, it doesn't give us a useful statistic because of those 300 prisoners only say 10 of them are transwomen. The others are men who like to present as women either as transvestites or whatever. Because those 270 transgender men are men, they stay in the male estate.

This leaves us with the transwomen and this is where it gets tricky. At what point do we consider someone to be a transwoman? Is it when they put on womens clothes and declare their new name? Is it when they have been living as a woman for x years, and do those years need to be before they were arrested? Is it when they start hormone treatment? Is it when they obtain a GRC?

Once we have that definition, the next question concerns how to safely keep these people in prison. If someone is a transwoman and has had surgery it might present considerable difficulty and danger to keep that person in a male prison. Prisons do have a duty of care to ensure that prisoners are not killed and do not commit suicide. Remember the intention is both to punish and rehabilitate. This is the main problem. A men's prison may not be safe, but a women's prison may not be appropriate.

For me, the main issue that focuses this is whether and at what point being transgender is considered to be a mental illness rather than an innate state of being. My personal opinion in that rather than housing a transwoman in a women's prison, we ought to consider whether they should be in a psychiatric prison.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

My personal opinion in that rather than housing a transwoman in a women's prison, we ought to consider whether they should be in a psychiatric prison.

Transwoman, trans woman. Are you saying only transwoman should be in psychiatric prison?
Let's take the criminal/offender bit as said, shall we.
Seems to be a lot of juggling and hoops involved - might be just me being stupid again. Perhaps someone can provide some sort of decision tree to help us slow people consider this.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Lets say we have a prison population of 300 transgender prisoners and their offending rate is as high as or higher than the hetero male population, it doesn't give us a useful statistic because of those 300 prisoners only say 10 of them are transwomen. The others are men who like to present as women either as transvestites or whatever. Because those 270 transgender men are men, they stay in the male estate.

They're all men. That's the point. How they identify on any given day or what piece of paper they hold is irrelevant - especially given that you don't know when a man is standing in front of you whether he has a certificate or not, and that (in most circumstances) you aren't allowed to ask. Your post is based on the idea that those who don't have a GRC don't identify as women - we can't possibly know this. We do know they call themselves 'legally male but transgender' which suggests they do.

This leaves us with the transwomen and this is where it gets tricky. At what point do we consider someone to be a transwoman? Is it when they put on womens clothes and declare their new name? Is it when they have been living as a woman for x years, and do those years need to be before they were arrested? Is it when they start hormone treatment? Is it when they obtain a GRC?

The answer is never, because none of those things make you a woman. What does 'living as a woman' mean other than stereotypes?

Once we have that definition, the next question concerns how to safely keep these people in prison.

We keep them safe in the same way that we keep other vulnerable men safe - like the disabled men, the gay men, the men with mental or educational issues - in the men's estate in a separate wing or unit if necessary.

This is the main problem. A men's prison may not be safe, but a women's prison may not be appropriate.

Agreed. Women's prisons are not refuges for men that other men don't like. It's never appropriate to house men in them.

For me, the main issue that focuses this is whether and at what point being transgender is considered to be a mental illness rather than an innate state of being. My personal opinion in that rather than housing a transwoman in a women's prison, we ought to consider whether they should be in a psychiatric prison.

I think you'll find this view makes you a raging transphobe in the eyes of transactivism.

 

[monkers]

We all know why women have certain single sex spaces and services that exclude men.

This is shifting goalposts. The discussion is to do with offending rates. Your lies are debunked by reference to the source. Your lies do not trump the facts.

You are making the claim that some men - not all, just some - should not be excluded. You haven't provided a single compelling reason other than some waffle about having a certificate.

No. I've proven time and again that the law says that trans women are women except in some exceptional circumstances. You take the view that trans women are excluded from wherever you decide and whenever you decide. I don't know who you think you are.

The ''compelling reason'' is that trans women are women before the law because it is the case that parliament legislated to make it so, and the courts have upheld the principle that parliament has decided it.

That's why I call you Karen, because you feel that your sense of entitlement and privilege trumps the law made by parliament. And further you think that claiming that you have a 'protected belief' trumps the human rights of others.

Anyway, stop being boring. I answered a point made by Shithead and you've decided to repeat many of your lies and bigoted opinions of the past.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Those 'circumstances' are single sex spaces (like prisons...) when it's proportionate and legitimate to exclude men. The EHRC has made that clear, even if you don't like it.

 

[monkers]

Those 'circumstances' are single sex spaces (like prisons...) when it's proportionate and legitimate to exclude men. The EGRC has made that clear, even if you don't like it.

Who are the EGRC? Or rather why would the Enterprise, Governance, Risk and Compliance Group overrule parliament or the courts?

 

[AuroraSaab]

It's the EHRC, which as you know I immediately corrected. Had you thought of applying your proof reading skills to your own posts?

As you struggle to navigate your way around a single letter typing error, here's the Guardian explaining it again for you:

 

[monkers]

It's the EHRC, which as you know I immediately corrected. Had you thought of applying your proof reading skills to your own posts?

As you struggle to navigate your way around a single letter typing error, here's the Guardian explaining it again for you:

View attachment 7433

Well we all make mistakes said the Dalek climbing off the dustbin.

Yeh, I knew what you meant, but decided to have a little fun with it.

The EHRC, and specifically Faulkner tried to intervene in the cases heard in both the Outer and Inner Courts of Session. She embarrassed herself in the legal argument and got quite a slap for it. Both times the judgement was that the EHRC were incorrect- exactly why it was heard in the Supreme Court at the end of November last year.

The essence of the For Women Scotland and others (inc. Sex Matters) is that they know that trans women are legally women, but they don't like it the way it is.

I haven't mentioned N for a while and she hasn't felt inclined to post to people who refuse to listen to legal opinion.

N has said before, that higher courts rely on errors being made by lower courts to change a finding. She points out that FWS and SM did not challenge the previous judgements on the basis of errors being made, but on the basis of they didn't like the answer. Unless the SC identify a sufficient error to change the judgement it is likely to stay the same.

The primary test is always to consider what parliament intended in legislation. The EHRC made a statement in the SC, but they did not point to a procedural error, or indicate that statute is not written as parliament intended. In fact they were quite humble after the slap they got in the Outer Court of Sessions.

Sometimes the courts will examine Hansard to consider what parliament did intend. Not even the SC can overrule parliament on matters of statute. Parliament is supreme, though there will be times when I don't like the law, and you may not like the law. However I'm making the assumption that you, like me, are an ordinary citizen.

The challenge offered by FWS is that they that don't like what parliament did. Ordinarily that's not enough. Judgement awaiting but said to be happening sometime this spring.

The only way to get the statute changed is through parliament. This has been tried in two all party select committees, which after their deliberations recommended a form of self-ID as the way forward - so don't hold your breath.

 

[AuroraSaab]

TL;DR.

You'll still be the sex you were on the day that you were born, in fact the sex that was determined at conception, regardless of the outcome of any court case.