Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

We aren't talking about 2 prisoners though.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2022-01-06/98878

In 2022, of 146 transwomen prisoners 91 of them had at least one conviction for sex offences. A much higher ratio than other prisoners.

I can (and have previously) quite happily say that these are mostly men with fetishes, not body dysphoria. But if you are going to insist that gender is innate and that you don't need a diagnosis to be trans, and that 'you are who you say you are' - well these individuals say they are trans so you must surely accept they are transwomen. And they have a higher rate of sexual offending than other men. And far, far higher than women obviously.

We've gone back down the crime/prison avenue though, when the reality is it's as much about dignity and privacy as safety. I know lots of lovely men. Totally trustworthy and safe. I still don't think they should be in women's single sex spaces and services.

You don't half chat a load of bollocks. You've not the faintest idea. Fetishes, body dysphoria. What the fark are you on about?

Gender identity in prison is Self-ID. In 2019 they tried a 'data gathering exercise' in an attempt to form data they didn't have.

Trans people with a GRC are not included in the data collection process without their express permission. The numbers are not real.

The data can not be reliable. The government say that don't know the numbers because they don't.

The numbers you bandy around are mostly fiction.

You've previously denied 'case-by-case' by risk assessment and called for blanket bans - which are not permissible under the law.

Trans prisoners do not shower at the same time as cis prisoners.

Separate risk assessments are carried out for cell sharing. The whole thing is carefully managed.

Bottom line - there have been no cases of assaults on women since 2019 (the Karen White episode).

@icowden's attempt to rescue you failed. His example relied upon 'known biters' and a no risk assessment, no segregation scenario.

Prisons are very dangerous places, where the cohort of people at greatest risk of harm are trans people.

 

[monkers]

5. HMPPS Practice

5.1 According to the HMPPS Offender Equalities Annual Report (2018/2019)3 , in 2019 there were 163 prisoners who are transgender (an increase on the figure of 139 recorded in 2018). Of those, 129 prisoners reported their legal gender as male, 32 as female and two did not state their legal gender.

There were ten prisoners who are transgender from a BAME background.

The Report also provides the following as a result of a data collection exercise in April and May 2019:

• 62 of the 121 public and private prisons (51%) in England and Wales said that they had 1 or more transgender prisoner.
• There were 163 prisoners currently living in, or presenting in, a gender different to their sex assigned at birth and who have had a local transgender case board.
• Of these, 129 reported their legal gender as male, 32 reported their legal gender as female and 2 did not state their gender. When asked about the gender with which the prisoner identified, 130 identified as female, 20 as male and 13 did not provide a response.
• Prisoners were asked to specify another identity and 88 gave a response. 15 identified as gender-fluid, 8 as Transvestite, 7 as intersex, 6 as nonbinary and the remaining 51 gave preferred not to say.
• 10 of the 163 prisoners reported their ethnic group as Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Group and 152 as White, with 1 unknown.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Welcome to the wonderful world of risk assessment. Or do we just stereotype all dogs as 'dangerous' and treat them as such because we are too fark-witted to do something sensible else instead?

Actually we do. There are 4 dog breeds in the UK that are banned, regardless of the nature of individual dogs. We don't assess them on a one by one basis on the off chance that the pit bull in Slough is lovely even if the pit bull in Bristol is dangerous. We look at probabilities and the characteristics of the group they belong to, because that's how safeguarding works.

As for your other 2 lengthy posts, I've no idea what point you are making. Other than your usual one that transwomen are not to be treated like other men, of course.

 

[newfhouse]

Actually we do. There are 4 dog breeds in the UK that are banned, regardless of the nature of individual dogs. We don't assess them on a one by one basis on the off chance that the pit bull in Slough is lovely even if the pit bull in Bristol is dangerous. We look at probabilities and the characteristics of the group they belong to, because that's how safeguarding works.

I don’t think your example of a headline driven, ill conceived, and discriminatory piece of legislation that targets appearance and not behaviour is quite the argument winner you think it is.

 

[monkers]

Actually we do. There are 4 dog breeds in the UK that are banned, regardless of the nature of individual dogs. We don't assess them on a one by one basis on the off chance that the pit bull in Slough is lovely even if the pit bull in Bristol is dangerous. We look at probabilities and the characteristics of the group they belong to, because that's how safeguarding works.

As for your other 2 lengthy posts, I've no idea what point you are making. Other than your usual one that transwomen are not to be treated like other men, of course.

Dogs don't have human rights numpty. While those breeds of dogs are subject to those controls, other breeds are still assessed case-by-case. If you had a dog and it proved not to safe around children, what would you do? And still Mr Cowden's analogy is the work of a fool.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I don’t think your example of a headline driven, ill conceived, and discriminatory piece of legislation that targets appearance and not behaviour is quite the argument winner you think it is.

If pit bulls were responsible for 98% of dog attacks and the other breeds responsible for 2%, would you feel differently? The point is that this allusion to making safe guarding a case by case endeavour is impractical and isn't how safeguarding works.

Dogs are not assessed case by case all the time. In certain circumstances they are all excluded. If a children's play area says 'No dogs' it means all dogs - and we know why, it's because all dogs have the potential for harm. Safeguarding is about taking reasonable steps to limit the opportunity for harm.

Everybody understands the logic of separating people by sex, and even by other characteristics like age, in certain limited circumstances. I don't know of any man that feels offended and demonised by not being able to have access to women's and girls spaces. They know why they are necessary.

 

[monkers]

If pit bulls were responsible for 98% of dog attacks and the other breeds responsible for 2%, would you feel differently? The point is that this allusion to making safe guarding a case by case endeavour is impractical and isn't how safeguarding works.

Dogs are not assessed case by case all the time. In certain circumstances they are all excluded. If a children's play area says 'No dogs' it means all dogs - and we know why, it's because all dogs have the potential for harm. Safeguarding is about taking reasonable steps to limit the opportunity for harm.

Everybody understands the logic of separating people by sex, and even by other characteristics like age, in certain limited circumstances. I don't know of any man that feels offended and demonised by not being able to have access to women's and girls spaces. They know why they are necessary.

Here we go,trying to portray trans women as responsible for 98% of attacks. Literally dog whistling transphobia!

 

[Bromptonaut]

The idea that the proscribing of Pit Bulls and a handful of other breeds under the Dangerous Dogs Act is any sort of example of how to do things is nonsense on stilts.

The DDA is quoted widely, even by people who were in the Cabinet at the time, as an example suma cum laude of how not to do deal with summer headline issues.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The point is that safeguarding doesn't work on a case by case basis. 'Dogs must be on leads' means all dogs, even the lovely ones. Nobody seems to get offended. They understand why it's necessary.

Cue Monkers saying 'You want transwomen banned from parks!!!! Something...something ...UN park rights...'.

 

[monkers]

The point is that safeguarding doesn't work on a case by case basis.

I thought that any fool knew that is exactly how it works. I was wrong.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It's never worked on an individual case by case basis. We don't sell alcohol or rated 18 films to 17 year olds based on their maturity. We don't let small 25 year olds play under 15's football.
The whole point of safeguarding is that it's a framework that takes reasonable steps to lesson the chance of harm. By its nature it is discriminatory. Most people accept that it's necessary in certain limited circumstances. Not you, obviously, but most people.

 

[classic33]

Here we go,trying to portray trans women as responsible for 98% of attacks. Literally dog whistling transphobia!

That 98% figure isn't for those arrested, it's for those convicted. Women have a higher arrest rate than men, for violence against the person.

 

[classic33]

The point is that safeguarding doesn't work on a case by case basis. 'Dogs must be on leads' means all dogs, even the lovely ones. Nobody seems to get offended. They understand why it's necessary.

Cue Monkers saying 'You want transwomen banned from parks!!!! Something...something ...UN park rights...'.

Dogs on leads is there to stop the owners letting their dogs run loose. They can cause accidents, maybe even get themselves injured.
Some places even ban the extendable leads/say that dogs are to be kept on a short lead.

 

[monkers]

It's never worked on an individual case by case basis. We don't sell alcohol or rated 18 films to 17 year olds based on their maturity. We don't let small 25 year olds play under 15's football.
The whole point of safeguarding is that it's a framework that takes reasonable steps to lesson the chance of harm. By its nature it is discriminatory. Most people accept that it's necessary in certain limited circumstances. Not you, obviously, but most people.

You have not the first concept of what you are talking about. Trans women are not all children, nor are they akin to dangerous dogs.

Safeguarding in prisons is by way of a safeguarding risk assessment carried out on each prisoner. Separately from that there will be a risk assessment for the building, a fire risk assessment, risk assessment carried out on members of staff, risk assessments carried out on all activities of prisoners, risk assessment of pairings for cell mates, etc etc.

After the Karen White incident, the prison governor apologised because for some reason Karen White had been admitted to the prison without risk assessment. It was a failure to carry out risk assessment. The service in that prison was contracted out, the contractors were accused of putting profit before safety due to failing to carry out the required risk assessment.

 

[monkers]

A review five years after the implementation of the Dangerous Dogs Act found no significant reduction in dog bites. In fact, a study published this year found that adult hospital admission rates for dog bites tripled in England between 1998-2018, and the incidence of dog bites in children had remained consistently high.

Back in 2018, I shared this evidence and my experience with members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee on behalf of BVA. The committee’s report later that year recommended a full-scale review of the existing dog control legislation and policy to better protect both public safety and animal welfare. It concluded that “changing the law on Breed Specific Legislation is desirable, achievable, and would better protect the public” and criticised the lack of Government action on this front as showing “a disregard for dog welfare.” However, three years on, the Government still hasn’t taken any action on the report’s recommendations.

It is clear from current evidence that the Dangerous Dogs Act has not improved human safety around dogs. Furthermore, the focus on breed specific legislation has detracted from efforts to properly understand the motivation behind serious dog attacks - an understanding which might have allowed us to better educate dog owners and the public at large on how to have a healthy relationship with dogs that is both safe and fulfilling for us and free of unnecessary fear and anxiety for dogs.

Bans don't work. Risk assessment does.