Gender again. Sorry!

[icowden]

Steady now I haven't said any of those things. You are putting words in my mouth that I never said. So very politely I ask you to go back and read my post again, only this time please take notice the word 'legal'.

Fair enough. I'm not sure that there won't be legal tension however if the Scottish Bill is passed. Even Nicola is having some difficulty with her own legislation:


View: https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1620107934364745728?s=20&t=NQ-2tGbGhCgAWuN9XT60zA

 

[monkers]

Fair enough. I'm not sure that there won't be legal tension however if the Scottish Bill is passed.

Oh there already is - that Section 35 guarantees a legal conflict between two member states of the UK. Brexit has caused a conflict with another member state of the UK (Northern Ireland). The optic is that in Westminster they want to 'take back control' of devolved power, while simultaneously claiming to be the party of small state.

 

[AuroraSaab]

There are no cases of women being attacked in public toilets by trans women.

That's simply not true. Here's 6ft 5" transwoman Katie Dolatowski being found guilty of assaulting a child in the women's toilets:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/metro....saulted-girl-10-morrisons-toilet-8914577/amp/

Dolatowski was in the same Scottish prison that Isla Bryson was in, though there is speculation they have finished their sentence and been released.

And again, we set the bar very low if we are prepared to say everything less than sexual assault doesn't count. It's about privacy and dignity not just safety. Nobody thinks 9 year old boys are rapists but we still separate 9 year old boys and girls when they change for PE because both sexes deserve privacy.

I am perceived as quite masculine looking, while my niece is perceived as feminine. It's me that doesn't 'pass' in this ultra-feministic idealism. I've been in public spaces twice now with my niece and been confronted by an angry feminist telling me that 'I don't belong there and to get out'. Should I carry my birth certificate around with me? It's happened to my horrid sister once too who also has a masculine face; oh the delicious irony.

Feminists not prepared to accommodate a tiny minority of their sisters, while simultaneously telling men to move up along the bus to accommodate a majority. Oh the delicious irony.

I've been misgendered loads of times. I couldn't give a toss. If there is an increase in gender non conforming women being challenged it's as a result of transwomen increasingly entering women's single sex spaces and services. Previously you could be assured that whoever was changing next to you was a female, regardless of appearance. Now you can't.

The struggles of men who identify as women are real, but they are not the same as those of women, who have specific needs and rights and who should be free to organise separately from men, regardless of how they identify.

There is provision for transgender people - exclusive services that are only for them. It's not too much to ask that women have access to the same type of services, exclusively for women.

Time for me to remind readers here. This battle is not trans people versus the rest. It's a battle between women who are pro human rights for trans people versus women who are against human rights for trans people. Trans people are caught in the middle while certain women 'standing up for their rights' call for a 'final solution' and quote from Mein Kampf. I can understand some young trans activists responding to them with what is essentially 'kiss my ass' but in stronger terms.

Trans people have the same rights as everyone else. What some activists seek is to end the specific rights that women have. These were given for a reason - dignity, privacy, safety - and the need for those rights still exists.

To characterise those who seek to maintain these rights as 'against human rights for trans people' is a typically hyperbolic attempt to shut down the discussion.

This needs to change urgently, but it isn't changed by campaigning to keep trans prisoners who are correctly risk assessed as 'safe' out of them.

Women's prisons aren't made any better by adding males, regardless of their offence. They are made worse. A transwoman shoplifter presents the same risk as any other male and they impinge on female prisoners rights to dignity and privacy just by being there.

Being male is the risk in itself. Otherwise why have separate prisons at all. We separate prisons by age too, because we know older prisoners are a risk to younger ones, we don't differentiate by severity of crime.

 

[monkers]

That's simply not true. Here's 6ft 5" transwoman Katie Dolatowski being found guilty of assaulting a child in the women's toilets:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/metro....saulted-girl-10-morrisons-toilet-8914577/amp/

Dolatowski was in the same Scottish prison that Isla Bryson was in, though there is speculation they have finished their sentence and been released.

And again, we set the bar very low if we are prepared to say everything less than sexual assault doesn't count. It's about privacy and dignity not just safety. Nobody thinks 9 year old boys are rapists but we still separate 9 year old boys and girls when they change for PE because both sexes deserve privacy.



I've been misgendered loads of times. I couldn't give a toss. If there is an increase in gender non conforming women being challenged it's as a result of transwomen increasingly entering women's single sex spaces and services. Previously you could be assured that whoever was changing next to you was a female, regardless of appearance. Now you can't.

The struggles of men who identify as women are real, but they are not the same as those of women, who have specific needs and rights and who should be free to organise separately from men, regardless of how they identify.

There is provision for transgender people - exclusive services that are only for them. It's not too much to ask that women have access to the same type of services, exclusively for women.



Trans people have the same rights as everyone else. What some activists seek is to end the specific rights that women have. These were given for a reason - dignity, privacy, safety - and the need for those rights still exists.

To characterise those who seek to maintain these rights as 'against human rights for trans people' is a typically hyperbolic attempt to shut down the discussion.


Women's prisons aren't made any better by adding males, regardless of their offence. They are made worse. A transwoman shoplifter presents the same risk as any other male and they impinge on female prisoners rights to dignity and privacy just by being there.

Being male is the risk in itself. Otherwise why have separate prisons at all. We separate prisons by age too, because we know older prisoners are a risk to younger ones, we don't differentiate by severity of crime.

I can only urge you to read what I have written in the thread; though I can't insist on it.

As usual I find myself having to repeat what I have said before.

Previously I have had to explain the following.
That the word 'transgender' is problematic. I don't happen to like the word on a number of levels. Lord knows where it comes from and why it's still used.

Firstly trans people do not change gender, they 'confirm' their gender identity through the machinations of state. Their legal record of gender identity and the record of their sex become congruent. What becomes changed from the process is not that the person's identity is changed, but the perceptions of others to the knowledge of that confirmation changes, in some cases people do this negatively, other people engage positively.

Secondly the term 'transgender' is an umbrella term, a catch all for people who are all those who are or sometime present as gender variant. This includes cross dressers, transvestites, and even drag queens. These groups are not people who identity as female in full time role or permanently in an acquired gender.

In the case you've linked to, I agree the behaviour is monstrous. What you need to note is the language in the article, while being sensationalist on the one hand, it does at least manage enough to use the term 'transgender' and not 'trans woman'.

My next point is that I have not advocated for all people who are either 'transgender' or trans women to default to being accommodated in women's prisons. What I have done is state the correct legal position in terms of the Equality Act and referenced case law. In addition I've given an opinion on how I think this situation can be improved, and I've called for increased funding so that 'mistakes' made by the prison service can eliminated.

What you have done in the urgency to win the point is to substitute the word 'transgender' in the article with 'transwoman'. Further the correct usage of that term is trans woman.

Where we disagree is that there should be a blanket ban instead of a pragmatic approach.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Secondly the term 'transgender' is an umbrella term, a catch all for people who are all those who are or sometime present as gender variant. This is includes cross dressers, transvestites, and even drag queens. These groups are not people who identity in full time role or permanently in an acquired gender.

Should they all have access to women's single sex spaces and services then? Self-ID doesn't differentiate between cross dressers and people with a genuine crushing body dysphoria from a young age. Who gets to decide?

Stonewall certainly tell us it must be 'Acceptance without Exception' and we should believe people when they tell us who they are.

In the case you've linked to, I agree the behaviour is monstrous. What you need to note is the language in the article, while being sensationalist on the one hand, it does at least manage enough to use the term 'transgender' and not 'trans woman'.

My next point is that I have not advocated for all people who are either 'transgender' or trans women to default to being accommodated in women's prisons. What I have done is state the correct legal position in terms of the Equality Act and referenced case law. In addition I've given an opinion on how I think this situation can be improved, and I've called for increased funding so that 'mistakes' made by the prison service can eliminated.

Where we disagree is that there should be a blanket ban instead of a pragmatic approach.

There's a blanket ban because they are all male bodied people. Whether genuinely trans with body dysphoria or just chancers gaming the system, they are male and that's why we exclude them, for safety, dignity, and privacy.

Safeguarding doesn't work on a case by case basis. It never has.

 

[monkers]

Should they all have access to women's single sex spaces and services then? Self-ID doesn't differentiate between cross dressers and people with a genuine crushing body dysphoria from a young age. Who gets to decide?

Stonewall certainly tell us it must be 'Acceptance without Exception' and we should believe people when they tell us who they are.




There's a blanket ban because they are all male bodied people. Whether genuinely trans with body dysphoria or just chancers gaming the system, they are male and that's why we exclude them, for safety, dignity, and privacy.

Safeguarding doesn't work on a case by case basis. It never has.

Q1. No, and it is disingenuous to suggest that they do. The process for all prisoners regardless of sex, gender identity, race, age, is by risk assessment. The process applies to all. Within the risk assessment factors due to personal characteristics must be taken into account.

Q2. Yes.

Q3. Parliament does, and the Scottish Parliament have decided.

The Scottish Act does not give instant access to women's spaces willy-nilly. It's spurious to say otherwise. The Scottish Act sets out transition as a process of six months rather than two years. The Scottish Act contains the requirement of an oath be taken of solemnity. Breaking that oath either with or without other offences can result in a prison sentence.

Some people claim that it is impossible to track individuals who Self-ID. This is a false claim. Their NI numbers remain the same, they are traceable whether they work or claim benefits. This provides the state with the means to check that they live and work under the legal status and protections they pursued under the act.

Where have I said that I necessarily agree with Stonewall?

If you want a genuine discussion about the safeguards in the 2004 Act and the Scottish Act we can make it sensible, but that is impossible if you maintain you present MO.

 

[monkers]

There's a blanket ban because they are all male bodied people. Whether genuinely trans with body dysphoria or just chancers gaming the system, they are male and that's why we exclude them, for safety, dignity, and privacy.

Safeguarding doesn't work on a case by case basis. It never has.

There is not a blanket ban in force, that is a lie. There is case law which deems a blanket ban under current legislation to be unlawful.

One minute you claim that there are trans women housed in the women's prison estate, and you object to it. In the next breath you claim there is a blanket ban. Forgive me for saying, but you talk in riddles.

You also rant that I approve of dangerous trans people being housed with women. I have written clearly that I don't think that should be the case. What more does it take?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Q1. No, and is disingenuous to suggest that they do. The process for all prisoners regardless of sex, gender identity, race, age, is by risk assessment. The process applies to all. Within the risk assessment factors due to personal characteristics must be taken into account.

We're not just talking about prisons though. We are talking about women's single sex spaces, which includes women's prisons. They don't individually risk assess male prisoners for female prisons; they automatically put them in the male estate because the fact they are a risk is a given. Transwomen pose the same risk.

Q2. Yes.

Yes to 'Acceptance without Exception' and 'People are who they say they are'?

Then Rachel Dolezal really is black and you must be outraged that she had to leave her job as a black community leader. Do these mantras only apply to transgender people? Can they apply to those who say they are disabled? Surely you can see the difficulty in giving out Mobilty cars to people who simply identify as disabled? You can see how that would upset and disadvantage genuinely disabled people?

Q3. Parliament does, and the Scottish Parliament have decided.

The Scottish Act does not give instant access to women's spaces willy-nilly. It's spurious to say otherwise. The Scottish Act sets out transition as a process of six months rather than two years. The Scottish Act contains the requirement of an oath be taken of solemnity. Breaking that oath either with or without other offences can result in a prison sentence.

Some people claim that it is impossible to track individuals who Self-ID. This is a false claim. Their NI numbers remain the same, they are traceable whether they work or claim benefits. This provides the state with the means to check that they live and work under the legal status and protections they pursued under the act.

Where have I said that I necessarily agree with Stonewall?

If you want a genuine discussion about the safeguards in the 2004 Act and the Scottish Act we can make it sensible, but that is impossible if you maintain you present MO.

The Haldane ruling said that in Scotland 'sex' is not limited to 'biological sex' so difficult to see how someone with a Scottish GRC that changes their sex for all legal purposes could be excluded from single sex services and spaces.

 

[monkers]

Q1. No, and is disingenuous to suggest that they do. The process for all prisoners regardless of sex, gender identity, race, age, is by risk assessment. The process applies to all. Within the risk assessment factors due to personal characteristics must be taken into account.

We're not just talking about prisons though. We are talking about women's single sex spaces, which includes women's prisons. They don't individually risk assess male prisoners for female prisons; they automatically put them in the male estate because the fact they are a risk is a given. Transwomen pose the same risk.

You were specifically talking about prisons. Now you are keen to move the goalposts.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You also rant that I approve of dangerous trans people being housed with women. I have written clearly that I don't think that should be the case. What more does it take?

The blanket ban is the exclusions allowed under the Equality Act, which some service providers - including the Scottish prison service - are choosing not to follow.

My understanding is that you think non violent transwomen who committed their crimes whilst identifying as transwomen should be housed in the female estate if they wish. My view is that they should not be, for reasons of safety, dignity, and privacy.

You were specifically talking about prisons. Now you are keen to move the goalposts.

This thread has never been just about prisons. It's covered all sorts of gender/identity stuff. It's all inter related.

 

[winjim]

Sorry but I keep screaming at my phone every time it's mentioned so I have to write something for the sake of my own sanity before I go and crawl back into my safe space.

Race is a social construct.
Race is subjective.
Race is not recorded on ones birth certificate.
Records of race and therefore policy on race relies on self identification.

It's been a while since I read it but I seem to remember that was a major point raised in the OP, the consideration that we might start thinking about sex and gender in the same way we think about race...



Right, I'm going away again. Carry on.

 

[monkers]

Yes to 'Acceptance without Exception' and 'People are who they say they are'?

Then Rachel Dolezal really is black and you must be outraged that she had to leave her job as a black community leader. Do these mantras only apply to transgender people? Can they apply to those who say they are disabled? Surely you can see the difficulty in giving out Mobilty cars to people who simply identify as disabled? You can see how that would upset and disadvantage genuinely disabled people?

I just answered the question. Your hope that I will change the answer because you asked it again is futile.

More shifting goal posts. More playing the 'opponent'.

The OP asked whether we can find a method of less toxic discussion (OK my form of words). You tried to shoot it down immediately. One can think that the present model suits you as you have prepared answers that you wish to argue. This conversation has related to gender identity.

And now you are attributing your imaginary views of what my opinion must be. Please do stop.

I've had enough of this nonsense. Other posters may be prepared to engage with you on these bogus terms, but I am not. Jog on.

 

[monkers]

I just answered the question. Your hope that I will change the answer because you asked it again is futile.

More shifting goal posts. More playing the 'opponent'.

The OP asked whether we can find a method of less toxic discussion (OK my form of words). You tried to shoot it down immediately. One can think that the present model suits you as you have prepared answers that you wish to argue. This conversation has related to gender identity.

And now you are attributing your imaginary views of what my opinion must be on unrelated topics. Please do stop.

I've had enough of this nonsense. Other posters may be prepared to engage with you on these bogus terms, but I am not. Jog on.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Don't go, winjim lol. I'd be keen to hear more about this. If race relies on self-ID, can you opt in and out of racial groups at will? How does the idea of self-ID regarding race this affect the fact that we would usually recognise that oppressed groups are entitled to organise away from other groups and have their own spaces? Does it just rely on people being honest?

 

[AuroraSaab]

The OP asked whether we can find a method of less toxic discussion (OK my form of words). You tried to shoot it down immediately. One can think that the present model suits you as you have prepared answers that you wish to argue. This conversation has related to gender identity.

And now you are attributing your imaginary views of what my opinion must be. Please do stop.

I've had enough of this nonsense. Other posters may be prepared to engage with you on these bogus terms, but I am not. Jog on.

My whole point with the report Claude posted was that while it might look like a possible way forward, it doesn't work when it comes down to details because it suggests you can self-ID into a different sex group. This disadvantages women.

I am in favour of not recording sex, or race, or age, unless it matters. Sometimes it matters very much though.

I must admit I haven't missed you much either, Monica. I find your long winded convoluted essays as tiresome as you find mine.