Gender again. Sorry!

[multitool]

 

[Ian H]

I think he's associating the word 'performance' with an implication of inauthenticity or pretending, which is of course one of its connotations, although it needn't mean either of those things. Indeed I hope it doesn't, or I am in the wrong business. I don't think he thinks the bit in bold

Performance as implying conscious choice of body language and gesture is what I meant.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I never said should, the question was "Does the Geneva Convention apply to civilians in domestic non-wartime settings "
You were the one who mentioned the Geneva Convention in relation to civillian prisons. You introduced the low you mentioned, not me.

You're saying that there are "vulnerable men in prisons who would be safer in a women's jail - disabled men, gay men, mentally vulnerable men" who would apply for a GRC just to be moved to a women's prison!

Previously you argued that those with mental issues should be moved outside of the prison system to a secure facility where they could receive treatment. As this would be "better for them" than a women's prison. Are you now saying that the disabled and gay be sent to seperate facilities? You lumped them all together, so I'll base this question on your lumping.
If you do believe that, then that's one hell of a regressive step, not progressive.

Well the answer is 'No it doesn't apply in peacetime' but it's widely regarded as a blueprint for how people under detention should be humanely treated, which is why I mentioned it.

I'm not saying any of those groups of men (gay, disabled, mental health issues) would apply for a GRC to be moved. What I was pointing out is that being a vulnerable male is not, in itself, a reason to be moved to a women's prison if you identify as female because there are lots of vulnerable men who are able to be cared for adequately in male prisons. Not perfectly, but adequately.

No, I didn't say that gay and disabled male prisoners should be sent to male mental health facilities. Why on earth would they be? I said that someone like Barbie Khardashian would be better placed in a high security male mental health facility, where they could receive treatment and have more freedom, than in a women's prison where they are unlikely to be receiving optimum psychiatric care. I would very much not want them to be in a women's mental health unit for very obvious reasons.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Performance as implying conscious choice of body language and gesture is what I meant.

That's fair enough. I didn't mean body language or gestures when talking about performing femininity so sounds like we were both at cross purposes.

 

[classic33]

Well the answer is 'No it doesn't apply in peacetime' but it's widely regarded as a blueprint for how people under detention should be humanely treated, which is why I mentioned it.

I'm not saying any of those groups of men (gay, disabled, mental health issues) would apply for a GRC to be moved. What I was pointing out is that being a vulnerable male is not, in itself, a reason to be moved to a women's prison if you identify as female because there are lots of vulnerable men who are able to be cared for adequately in male prisons. Not perfectly, but adequately.

No, I didn't say that gay and disabled male prisoners should be sent to male mental health facilities. Why on earth would they be? I said that someone like Barbie Khardashian would be better placed in a high security male mental health facility, where they could receive treatment and have more freedom, than in a women's prison where they are unlikely to be receiving optimum psychiatric care. I would very much not want them to be in a women's mental health unit for very obvious reasons.

It doesn't apply, so why introduce it trying to back your claims up with it.

You were the one saying that there are "vulnerable men in prisons who would be safer in a women's jail - disabled men, gay men, mentally vulnerable men".
Presumably this was just another distraction attempt by you, as you now say you didn't say, or imply, that they would be safer in a women's prison.

With regards Barbie Kardashian, you were saying that "they" should all be removed from women's prisons and placed in a place where they could be treated for their condition. This in relation to trans men in Irish women prisons. Not just the one individual.
You also gave a figure for the number of such prisoners, which cannot be verified by either the Irish prison service(Seírbhis Phríosuin na hÉireann) or the state. Where did that figure come from?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Practically every male prisoner would be safer in a women's jail than in a men's jail - this is because they would be away from male violence. We don't move them though because they can be satisfactorily accomodated in the male estate whatever their issue. And womens jails aren't there to accommodate vulnerable men, whether that vulnerability comes from their age, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity or anything else.

I think prisoners with mental health issues should receive appropriate mental health care, whether in prison or a mental health unit. BK is unlikely to be getting that in a women's prison as they are require close supervision due to being dangerous. I think males should be in the male estate whether a male prison or a male mental health unit.

It's not safe to have men in women's jails but it's clear that the 2 transwomen still held at Limerick aren't having an easy time either. Constant supervision because they aren't safe around women.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40352726.html

If they are recorded as females they won't appear in records as anything other than female. It's only through news reports and inside information that we even hear about these things.

 

[classic33]

Practically every male prisoner would be safer in a women's jail than in a men's jail - this is because they would be away from male violence. We don't move them though because they can be satisfactorily accomodated in the male estate whatever their issue. And womens jails aren't there to accommodate vulnerable men, whether that vulnerability comes from their age, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity or anything else.

I think prisoners with mental health issues should receive appropriate mental health care, whether in prison or a mental health unit. BK is unlikely to be getting that in a women's prison as they are require close supervision due to being dangerous. I think males should be in the male estate whether a male prison or a male mental health unit.

It's not safe to have men in women's jails but it's clear that the 2 transwomen still held at Limerick aren't having an easy time either. Constant supervision because they aren't safe around women.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40352726.html

If they are recorded as females they won't appear in records as anything other than female. It's only through news reports and inside information that we even hear about these things.

Why introduce it then, if you now feel that way?

The Irish Examiner link is from August 2021. The number in that piece is less than the number you gave earlier.
Barbie Kardashian is in isolation due to her attacking a male prison worker, nothing to do with her GRC, issued before he reached the legal age required to apply himself. The "inside information", if from anyone within the prison service would cost them their jobs. Which leaves hearsay, not official "evidence" as the source.

Why did you include the disabled, gay men and mentally vulnerable in your list of those likely to want to move to a women's prison.

You swap and change your points to choose what you want to try and portray is the problem.

There's something that frightens you, and that is driving the hatred you are posting.

 

[Unkraut]

There's something that frightens you, and that is driving the hatred you are posting.

Accusations of hatred are common in discussions of this sort. It is a very strong word to use and implies you know the motivation of a poster.

It seems to me arguing even vociferously for women's private sphere to be protected does not automatically imply hatred of anyone else, in this instance transwomen.

 

[multitool]

In itself, no it doesn't imply hatred.

But it is entirely possible that the actual motivation for it comes from a darker place, and there are thoughts that cannot be said openly. The clues come when the mask slips and more denigrating language and attitudes towards trans women emerges.

 

[monkers]

My part 6 ~ what is a penis? When is a penis not a penis?

Those of a sensitive disposition should look away now.

I'm guessing people reading this will likely have seen the film The Imitation Game. If you haven't I recommend it, it is excellent. It portrays (though not always accurately) the life of the British genius mathematician Alan Turing - the Enigma codebreaker. Turing was a gay man living at a time when being a sexually active gay man was a criminal offence. Turing was tried and found guilty of a sexual offence in 1952. He was a man that could not be parted from his work without mental collapse. Instead he was given the 'chemical cosh' or 'chemical castration' to prevent him reoffending.

This is something I find astonishing given his contribution to the war effort, the strives that the UK made in establishing near worldwide international human rights, that this form of torture went on until 1967 in a supposedly civilized country. And then for the country to be drawn into another period of structural homophobia with Section 28 under Thatcher. Extraordinary, but I digress.

There now follows some discussion of male genitals, so this is your second caution to take the opportunity to look away in case you missed my first. I'm not medically trained, so I will not attempt to use the language of a medical professional short of using language that some may consider too vulgar.

The word 'penis' immediately draws the mind to what is it's primary purpose - a sexual organ. Though it does obviously have a second function, it is a uretha. The testes obviously are involved in the production and release of sperm. Less thought about as an essential part of the sexual apparatus is the scrotum - not merely a bag, but a muscle without which orgasm can not be achieved. You've probably guessed where this is going, but I'll continue in case not.

When a trans woman is given hormone treatment, it's a case of volunteering for the chemical cosh, chemical castration. The result is atrophy of all the sexual apparatus of the sexual organs, We are not talking a little bit, we are talking a lot - atrophy that reverses the primary part of puberty. The effects are astounding. Yes, yes, I admit I've seen this is a number of trans friends that I'm that close to, and not in a sexual way.

Secondary sex characteristics are not affected, so body hair, facial hair remain and the voice remains unchanged.

The penis reduces to about a third of its length, girth is lost too, the testes to about quarter size, the scrotum loses its muscle and from the literature I know that the prostate gland becomes small and soft. Libido is also lost.

The rate of change in the individual depends on a number of factors including age. metabolism etc, but it is relentless until a minimum state that resembles the kit that a small boy might have within a pretty short time. Erection becomes impossible, therefore so does orgasm. Episodes of 'morning glory' disappear first along with other involuntary or less voluntary erections. The person is not just sterile and impotent, but left with no desire or capacity for penetrative sex.

So let's put this out there straight out, a trans woman on hormones loses the capacity to be a rapist, though technically they could fit under the definition if they were to force another person to take the flacid little chappy into their mouth.

Let's remember that this used to be an available punishment for sex between consenting men, and it was known to be effective.

In some cases trans women have entered prison, and have been allowed to continue with their hormone regime - and by the way, these drugs are very cheap, even on private prescription, it is a bigger dose of HRT.

In other cases, I'm not just talking about the UK here by the way, trans women have been denied access to their hormones. I'm going to argue that this makes no sense. When trans women are on hormones, they experience a calmness which is surely a useful effect for the safety regime of prison. Some sexual function may return, or may not, but the atrophy can not be fully reversed.

I'm also going to suggest that in the case of a trans woman, with a penis, but having been taking a hormone regime for a period of some three months or so, they do not have a penis since the primary function is not there, what they have is a boy like remnant that continues to serve as a uretha only.

So there we are gay men historically poisoned in a regime of torture ultimately taking their own lives as Alan Turing did, trans women denied access to hormones so that they can continue with their transition, another form of torture, and as prisoners left in isolation in prison cells 23 hours per day. The latter is criticised by IGOs as inhumane treatment, but our government denies this and uses this as a further reason that the UK should leave the ECtHR. All good Brexit benefits you see - the ability to return to torturing citizens.

Remember Terry Waite? The Church of England envoy taken hostage and left chained to a radiator for 23 hours per day while he was falsely imprisoned. We criticised Lebanon for their detention of Waite and the nature of his treatment. Waite was a wreck of a man on his release.
Yet this is the regime that trans prisoners are subjected to in the UK. Further, this government is bringing forward legislation soon that prevents judges recommending placements, but deems any trans prisoner with a penis to be sent to their 'specialist' transgender prison in Surrey where prisoners are held in single cell isolation for 23 hours per day. Yes, just the same treatment as given to Terry Waite in Lebanon.

Welcome to Tory Britain in the post Brexit era.

 

[Bromptonaut]

I confused him with Bromptonaut. I'd be happy to hear him clarify his views though as my impression was that he thinks femininity is somehow an innate trait that signifies femaleness whereas I don't. Perhaps he can explain what he means more fully.

I think most of it is learned but suspect that gait for example may be a product of physiology.

However it doesn't really matter.

My point was that, as part of the process of transition, somebody doing a proper job of male>female will need to study and practice 'female' mannerisms.

 

[Bromptonaut]

My part 6 ~ what is a penis? When is a penis not a penis?

Those of a sensitive disposition should look away now.

I'm guessing people reading this will likely have seen the film The Imitation Game. If you haven't I recommend it, it is excellent. It portrays (though not always accurately) the life of the British genius mathematician Alan Turing - the Enigma codebreaker. Turing was a gay man living at a time when being a sexually active gay man was a criminal offence. Turing was tried and found guilty of a sexual offence in 1952. He was a man that could not be parted from his work without mental collapse. Instead he was given the 'chemical cosh' or 'chemical castration' to prevent him reoffending.

This is something I find astonishing given his contribution to the war effort, the strives that the UK made in establishing near worldwide international human rights, that this form of torture went on until 1967 in a supposedly civilized country. And then for the country to be drawn into another period of structural homophobia with Section 28 under Thatcher. Extraordinary, but I digress.

There now follows some discussion of male genitals, so this is your second caution to take the opportunity to look away in case you missed my first. I'm not medically trained, so I will not attempt to use the language of a medical professional short of using language that some may consider too vulgar.

The word 'penis' immediately draws the mind to what is it's primary purpose - a sexual organ. Though it does obviously have a second function, it is a uretha. The testes obviously are involved in the production and release of sperm. Less thought about as an essential part of the sexual apparatus is the scrotum - not merely a bag, but a muscle without which orgasm can not be achieved. You've probably guessed where this is going, but I'll continue in case not.

When a trans woman is given hormone treatment, it's a case of volunteering for the chemical cosh, chemical castration. The result is atrophy of all the sexual apparatus of the sexual organs, We are not talking a little bit, we are talking a lot - atrophy that reverses the primary part of puberty. The effects are astounding. Yes, yes, I admit I've seen this is a number of trans friends that I'm that close to, and not in a sexual way.

Secondary sex characteristics are not affected, so body hair, facial hair remain and the voice remains unchanged.

The penis reduces to about a third of its length, girth is lost too, the testes to about quarter size, the scrotum loses its muscle and from the literature I know that the prostate gland becomes small and soft. Libido is also lost.

The rate of change in the individual depends on a number of factors including age. metabolism etc, but it is relentless until a minimum state that resembles the kit that a small boy might have within a pretty short time. Erection becomes impossible, therefore so does orgasm. Episodes of 'morning glory' disappear first along with other involuntary or less voluntary erections. The person is not just sterile and impotent, but left with no desire or capacity for penetrative sex.

So let's put this out there straight out, a trans woman on hormones loses the capacity to be a rapist, though technically they could fit under the definition if they were to force another person to take the flacid little chappy into their mouth.

Let's remember that this used to be an available punishment for sex between consenting men, and it was known to be effective.

In some cases trans women have entered prison, and have been allowed to continue with their hormone regime - and by the way, these drugs are very cheap, even on private prescription, it is a bigger dose of HRT.

In other cases, I'm not just talking about the UK here by the way, trans women have been denied access to their hormones. I'm going to argue that this makes no sense. When trans women are on hormones, they experience a calmness which is surely a useful effect for the safety regime of prison. Some sexual function may return, or may not, but the atrophy can not be fully reversed.

I'm also going to suggest that in the case of a trans woman, with a penis, but having been taking a hormone regime for a period of some three months or so, they do not have a penis since the primary function is not there, what they have is a boy like remnant that continues to serve as a uretha only.

So there we are gay men historically poisoned in a regime of torture ultimately taking their own lives as Alan Turing did, trans women denied access to hormones so that they can continue with their transition, another form of torture, and as prisoners left in isolation in prison cells 23 hours per day. The latter is criticised by IGOs as inhumane treatment, but our government denies this and uses this as a further reason that the UK should leave the ECtHR. All good Brexit benefits you see - the ability to return to torturing citizens.

Remember Terry Waite? The Church of England envoy taken hostage and left chained to a radiator for 23 hours per day while he was falsely imprisoned. We criticised Lebanon for their detention of Waite and the nature of his treatment. Waite was a wreck of a man on his release.
Yet this is the regime that trans prisoners are subjected to in the UK. Further, this government is bringing forward legislation soon that prevents judges recommending placements, but deems any trans prisoner with a penis to be sent to their 'specialist' transgender prison in Surrey where prisoners are held in single cell isolation for 23 hours per day. Yes, just the same treatment as given to Terry Waite in Lebanon.

Welcome to Tory Britain in the post Brexit era.

Wow. The atrophy bit and the timescale is new to me. I'm not sure I understand how the pubertal growth spurt in that department can actually reverse. Is it reabsorbed or are we talking more of an effect like that resulting from cold?

I've mentioned upthread somebody I worked with who transitioned openly while continuing to fulfil the requirements of appointment to a public body. They went abroad for surgery some way into their transition but I cannot remember the exact timeframe.

 

[monkers]

Wow. The atrophy bit and the timescale is new to me. I'm not sure I understand how the pubertal growth spurt in that department can actually reverse. Is it reabsorbed or are we talking more of an effect like that resulting from cold?

I've mentioned upthread somebody I worked with who transitioned openly while continuing to fulfil the requirements of appointment to a public body. They went abroad for surgery some way into their transition but I cannot remember the exact timeframe.

Sorry Bromtonaut, this is a question I'm unable to answer due to lack of knowledge. If I had to guess, I'd suppose that the mechanism of this atrophy is similar to the atrophy of say leg muscles after a plaster cast is removed or maybe astronauts returning from a tour in space. I'll have a look around the literature though.

Is there a doctor in the house?

 

[mudsticks]

I think most of it is learned but suspect that gait for example may be a product of physiology.

However it doesn't really matter.

My point was that, as part of the process of transition, somebody doing a proper job of male>female will need to study and practice 'female' mannerisms.

Yes the difference in gait comes about for the most part because women have a wider pelvis, which need to be more flexible for obvious reasons.
It also has to do with the shape and way the head of the femur inserts into the socket of the pelvis.

The difference is very marked I see it in my 'other job' all the time.

Apart from that I'm strangely (and rather horribly) fascinated by this idea that gender specific 'mannerisms' should be 'learnt' in order to 'pass' and that the idea of them be perpetuated.

What on earth are these?

In the case of women, lowering the gaze when addressed?

Not answering back (if at all) until a guy has properly 'splained everything to them.?

Tilting the head to one side and twiddling ones hair when in the company.?

Repeatedly apologising for daring to have an opinion on anything more controversial than kittens, nail polish, or baby clothes.

Often apologising for daring to exist at all.

The whole concept is bizarre.

I do have close aquaintances who are trans in both directions, none of them appear to be doing this kind of 'gender normative' self training.

Edited to add - I'll ask one of them (politely of course) if that is what they're actually doing as part of their 'journey'.
Edited again for spelling.

 

[monkers]

I think most of it is learned but suspect that gait for example may be a product of physiology.

However it doesn't really matter.

My point was that, as part of the process of transition, somebody doing a proper job of male>female will need to study and practice 'female' mannerisms.

The problem for trans people with this is that it can lead to accusations of intending to deceive. Trans people get caught between this accusation of intending to deceive and not trying hard enough to fit in. Imagine walking that particular tightrope.

There's also a hint, unintended on your part I'm sure, that not appearing 100% authentic is unacceptable.

A further problem is that if this is policed by society, there will cis gender women being wrongly perceived as being trans. This is something that must be avoided. With this is mind, I caution against going down this path.