Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

Legal sex is a protected characteristic. Gender critical may not have noticed the distinction - to me that is unknowable. I certainly knew.

You are correct that 'gender reassignment' is the protected characteristic. The select committee under Maria Miller accepted that this should be changed since 'perceptions of gender reassignment' are more legally difficult than 'gender identity'. There remains an expectation that might still be changed.

The 2004 Act made trans women to be legally women for all purposes. Between 2004 and 2010 that was the case. Each GRC was sent out with an explainer that trans women were women and trans men were men for all purposes. This was proven by examination of marriage law.

This was before the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act. On receipt of a GRC a trans woman was not allowed to marry a woman, but allowed to marry a man. Today if a trans woman wishes to marry a man, then they marry under the terms of the Same Sex Marriage arrangement.

The 2010 Equality Act actually watered down the rights of trans people. Before 2010 there were no exceptions to the law. From 2010 there were exceptions available in exceptional circumstance to meet a legitimate aim. The Act provides examples. However a blanket ban is not available.

 

[classic33]

There are no subsets of Women lol. It is simply anybody born female. Transwomen are a subset of men - and there's nothing wrong with that.
On what possible grounds would you include them as Women, but exclude them from Men? What do transwomen share with women that is exclusively shared by all women? That isn't stereotypes?

The only things all women share are their sexed body and the oppression they face because of it, which will vary. Everything else is cultural or personal expression that anybody, male or female, can do.

Wouldn't trans men, using that logic, be a subset of women?

 

[monkers]

Wouldn't trans men, using that logic, be a subset of women?

May I?

No. People with more than one protected characteristic have intersectional characteristics. Having two personal characteristics, does not make one a subset of the the other.

Black women have the two intersectional personal characteristics, they likely have others too, but being a black woman does not place her in a subset of being a woman. She is both black and a woman.

Likewise a man has a disability say. His disability does not make him a subset of men. And in the Equality Act no protected characteristic hold legal preponderance of any other.

As AS agrees that biological sex is not a protected characteristic, it flows thus ...

A trans man has intersectional characteristics of 'sex or 'perceived sex' along with 'gender reassignment' or perceived as having undergone gender reassignment (read as gender identity, it's easier). Both things are equally true and legally speaking one can not be a subset of the other.

 

[icowden]

You should have read all of the link you provided; or at least the conclusion copied below ...

1.5 Conclusion​

The key legal points to consider are:

1.5.1 Wherever possible transgender suspects or offenders have to be placed in a prison along with people from their chosen non-birth gender, whether or not they have changed their physical sex appearance or received a gender-recognition certificate.

1.5.2 This approach may only be varied under special circumstances where, for example, health and safety risks necessitate accommodation of a trans inmate along with prisoners from their birth gender or in isolation.

I did. I read that as a transwoman must be placed in a womens prison regardless of whether they have a full beard, muscles the size of watermelons and a penis, or have undergone extensive therapy, surgery, medication and lived as a woman for 15 years.

This may only be varied where the prison can prove a health and safety risk. If they cannot prove that Big Davina (formerly Big Dave) is a threat to other women, she is entitled to be in a women's prison despite looking, walking and talking like a man. If Big Dave says he is a woman, then that's good enough.

I would expect legal challenges to decisions where a health and safety risk is identified. It's quite difficult to prove that just because Big Dave raped two women in 2017, that he is still a threat to women now that he is one himself.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Wouldn't trans men, using that logic, be a subset of women?

There aren't really any subsets of binary sexes. When I said 'Transwomen are a subset of men', they are only a subset of men in the way that 'French men' or 'Tall men' are a subset. So transmen are a subset of women in that sense, but not in the sense that they are a different sex from women because, well, that's scientifically impossible.

 

[monkers]

I did. I read that as a transwoman must be placed in a womens prison regardless of whether they have a full beard, muscles the size of watermelons and a penis, or have undergone extensive therapy, surgery, medication and lived as a woman for 15 years.

This may only be varied where the prison can prove a health and safety risk. If they cannot prove that Big Davina (formerly Big Dave) is a threat to other women, she is entitled to be in a women's prison despite looking, walking and talking like a man. If Big Dave says he is a woman, then that's good enough.

I would expect legal challenges to decisions where a health and safety risk is identified. It's quite difficult to prove that just because Big Dave raped two women in 2017, that he is still a threat to women now that he is one himself.

I see you are building caricatures of trans people now to go for the win. The risk assessment does not have to be proven, it has to anticipate.

So your friend 'Big Dave' might actually be a gentle giant who glued himself to the M25 in protest to the government's failure to spend the EU funds they were holding for insulation to insulate homes.

Either you want human rights, equality and inclusion or you don't, but to attempt a win by demonisation and / or dehumanisation isn't a valid debating point anyway.

 

[monkers]

Good news in from Finland. I don't have the full details yet, but here is a news story. It looks honest and genuine - time will tell.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/finland-approves-transgender-laws-cuts-red-tape-96818526

 

[icowden]

I see you are building caricatures of trans people now to go for the win. The risk assessment does not have to be proven, it has to anticipate.
So your friend 'Big Dave' might actually be a gentle giant who glued himself to the M25 in protest to the government's failure to spend the EU funds they were holding for insulation to insulate homes.

The point is that whoever Dave is, you have to prove that he *might* be a threat in order to prevent him from being in a womens prison. The only thing he has to do to get there is say "today I am a woman". That, to me, is crazy.

 

[monkers]

There aren't really any subsets of binary sexes.

Again we agree.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Good news in from Finland. I don't have the full details yet, but here is a news story. It looks honest and genuine - time will tell.

Seems to only mention gender? Am I right in thinking most on here would not find much problem with that or have I misread things? I get a bit confused by the constant conflation of sex and gender.

 

[monkers]

The point is that whoever Dave is, you have to prove that he *might* be a threat in order to prevent him from being in a womens prison. The only thing he has to do to get there is say "today I am a woman". That, to me, is crazy.

That would be 'crazy'. If he raped a woman the day before and attempted to mitigate by pretending to be trans, that wouldn't be believed and would not therefore be an exception under the terms of the Equality Act for risk assessment purposes.

Without meaning to sound pugnacious, I do urge you to keep it real. When your argument relies upon you making stuff up it isn't the best optic.

Isla B is now in a men's prison.

I've done two things in this thread. I have provided explainers and given some personal opinion. When I provide an explanation of the law, it does not necessarily follow that I agree with it unless I actually say so.

I have explained how atrophy takes away a man's ability to rape. If a man (and note I'm using that word so that the gender identity is contemporaneous with the offence) commits rape, and that offence is historic. It is reasonable in the risk assessment to note whether the prisoner has retained the capacity for rape.

 

[multitool]

The point is that whoever Dave is, you have to prove that he *might* be a threat in order to prevent him from being in a womens prison. The only thing he has to do to get there is say "today I am a woman". That, to me, is crazy.

No he doesn't. You haven't understood a thing. He can request it, but that doesn't mean it'll be granted.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I have explained how atrophy takes away a man's ability to rape. If a man (and note I'm using that word so that the gender identity is contemporaneous with the offence) commits rape, and that historic offence is historic. It is reasonable in the risk assessment to note whether the prisoner has retained the capacity for rape.

I read that in your earlier post. Does the wish to dominate/sexually abuse women (or men/children) vanish with that atrophy? I would imagine that most sexual assaults/violence fall short of actual rape, but that does not mean they are not a problem. As you can tell, I lead a sheltered life.

I'm hopefully not judging in any way as I think blanket bans on trans women in womens' jails should be a very last resort only if/when it can be clearly demonstrated that judgements based on individual cases can be proved unworkable.

 

[multitool]

The older I get, the more I'm aware of the absolute dominance of hormones in our behaviour. I've seen the changes in myself and, indeed, my wife, as we have aged.

Testosterone accounts for a lot.

 

[icowden]

No he doesn't. You haven't understood a thing. He can request it, but that doesn't mean it'll be granted.

But in order to prevent it being granted, the Prison Service has to demonstrate that there is a clear health and safety risk. Otherwise they are infringing his rights as a woman.