Gender again. Sorry!

[multitool]

Not true.

And your comment that "today I'm a woman" is way off. It takes years to a get a GRC.

 

[icowden]

And your comment that "today I'm a woman" is way off. It takes years to a get a GRC.

Under the new Scottish legislation it will take a few months, not years. And if you read the previous posts and the legislation you will realise that a GRC is not needed anyway. It helps, but isn't an absolute requirement.

 

[monkers]

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.

Thanks ...
Trans women on a hormone regime usually lose most of their libido. They tend to be much calmer. I'm not saying that trans women can do no wrong, they just become more like women emotionally than men.

I'm not defending trans women or absolve any of them from wrongdoing. We've seen a couple with monstrous behaviour. I believe that in each case that the offence and the gender identity of the prisoner should be contemporaneous. But I do oppose a blanket ban without risk assessment.

 

[monkers]

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.

I trust that was a typo?

 

[AuroraSaab]

One of things that strikes me in this thread is how little value some people give to women's privacy and dignity. It really isn't just about the risk of sexual violence, it's not about whether someone has a working penis, though obviously previous sex offences would be an extra red flag in terms of risk.

If women don't want to be around male bodies whilst in vulnerable spaces, that's enough of a reason. If you are disabled and want a same sex carer for your intimate washing, that's reason enough. It doesn't matter whether the person doing it is lovely, you are entitled to same sex care. That applies to men too.

You can't become 'more like a woman emotionally' because no emotion is exclusive to either sex. Any effects from reduction in testosterone are simply that - emotions reduced/increased by testosterone. And any emotion in a male body is by definition a male emotion surely. The reduced intensity of it doesn't somehow render it a female emotion.

What would be a man's frame of reference for saying he feels like a woman emotionally? And vice versa. You would have nothing to compare it to because a female body is completely outside a man's experience, and the same for women.

Edit: I will add that I do think there are limited genetic factors that influence female and male behaviour, but the idea of specific emotions is regressive and based on stereotypes.

 

[monkers]

AS ... Article 1 of the United Nations of Human Rights applies, equally for the dignity of all people.

It's not that people have no empathy, or that people don't appreciate the anxieties of others, but one person's anxieties are not a valid reason to demand that other people are deprived of their rights. That is why trans rights are human rights and have equal validity as your's or mine.

It's not a question of being required to be kind; it's knowing that all humans are all equal in rights, and all equal before the law.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It's not a human right for an adult male to be in the same changing room as women and girls.

Transgender people have the same rights as everyone else. What some transactivists seek are privileges that we don't extend to others.

 

[icowden]

I trust that was a typo?

No. Big Dave is now a woman as he has said that he identifies as such. He or now she is therefore a woman. Because he is a woman he has the right to be incarcerated in a womens prison, unless it can be identified that he(she) represents a health and safety risk. If that is identified, he(she) can legally challenge it. I would reckon that his(her) case would be strong as it is very difficult to quantify future risk in a substantive way.

For example, we might say that Big Dave is a risk due to carrying out two rapes which is why he is in prison. However he has been in for 4 years, behaved well and now identifies as a woman. Thus he no longer presents a risk. Unless you can demonstrate that he is likely to go around raping now that he is a woman and has not undergone surgery or hormone treatment and does not require a diagnosis. Whilst he(she) is waiting for the legal challenge he(she) has applied for a GRC in support. 3 months more of his(her) 7 year sentence isn't going to make a difference if it works.

Alternatively we can question the bill and put some safeguards in place.

 

[monkers]

​

​

Preamble​

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, therefore,

The General Assembly,

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1​

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.


It's covered in the first line of the preample, and the first sentence of the first article.



And finally the last article. Campaigning against the dignity of others is unlawful.

Article 30​

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

​

 

[icowden]

Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

So transactivists campaigning against women and trying to destroy rights to female only spaces are breaching the UN Human Rights Act?

 

[monkers]

No. Big Dave is now a woman as he has said that he identifies as such. He or now she is therefore a woman. Because he is a woman he has the right to be incarcerated in a womens prison, unless it can be identified that he(she) represents a health and safety risk. If that is identified, he(she) can legally challenge it. I would reckon that his(her) case would be strong as it is very difficult to quantify future risk in a substantive way.

For example, we might say that Big Dave is a risk due to carrying out two rapes which is why he is in prison. However he has been in for 4 years, behaved well and now identifies as a woman. Thus he no longer presents a risk. Unless you can demonstrate that he is likely to go around raping now that he is a woman and has not undergone surgery or hormone treatment and does not require a diagnosis. Whilst he(she) is waiting for the legal challenge he(she) has applied for a GRC in support. 3 months more of his(her) 7 year sentence isn't going to make a difference if it works.

Alternatively we can question the bill and put some safeguards in place.

Sounds like your fantasy friend Big Dave is now a shapeshifter. Please do try to keep it real.

 

[classic33]

It's not a human right for an adult male to be in the same changing room as women and girls.

Transgender people have the same rights as everyone else. What some transactivists seek are privileges that we don't extend to others.

Why then are men expected to put up with women walking into men only spaces.

I'm back to toilets and changing areas again. Say anything and you're told "What do you expect them to do?"

Given the prevalence of mobile phones in the workplace, "required item" it seems. Why are they using them in male only areas, and is the camera in use?

 

[monkers]

So transactivists campaigning against women and trying to destroy rights to female only spaces are breaching the UN Human Rights Act?

Here's your error, trans activists are not campaigning against the interest of cis women, they are campaigning for their rights that are applied by international law are recognised in domestic law.

 

[theclaud]

Blimey! A lot of words have been written since I partially switched off from this thread in order to concentrate better on other things for a bit. I'm not saying that there's been nothing illuminating in the mix, but as someone who considered herself quite well up on the issues involved, I feel further away than ever from where I attempted to start.

For all that I agree that icowden's caricatures are reductive and insulting, I can't help but conclude that he has a point about discrimination claims in relation to prison accommodation requests. Discrimination claims require a comparator, and previous litigation in this area has involved (legally male) prisoners with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (but without a GRC) having their treatment assessed by comparison to that of a hypothetical male prisoner without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. It seems merely a matter of time before a lawyer successfully argues that the possession of a GRC means that the appropriate comparator must be a female prisoner? Again I stress that I am not a legal expert, but I remember this point being made by Julian Norman (FOTP) in the context of an exchange with Stephanie Hayden, as it prompted me to reference it in a submission in the public consultation at the time, which was back when it seemed possible to have a constructive debate in public about these things.

I respect Monkers' intention to offer a counterweight to fear and panic, but if the law seems (to reasonably well informed people who might need to use it) to to be a contradictory mess riddled with circular definitions, conflated key terms, incompatible pieces of key legislation, and alarming unintended consequences, then we have a problem, especially in the context of proposed legal changes, public understanding thereof, and a cultural climate extremely conducive to right-wing populist wedge politics. I recognise that the GRA predates the EA, but let's also not forget that the legislation replaced by the EA included the Sex Discrimination Act, and that there might be losses as well as gains from rolling up all unequal social relations into a single framework.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Why then are men expected to put up with women walking into men only spaces.

I'm back to toilets and changing areas again. Say anything and you're told "What do you expect them to do?"

Given the prevalence of mobile phones in the workplace, "required item" it seems. Why are they using them in male only areas, and is the camera in use?

They're not. If that is the case you should complain. Men have a right to privacy and dignity too.