Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

People aren't blind. Emily Bridges and Lauren Hubbard aren't figments of our imagination. The fact that you give no weight to the issues that arise is your choice; others do.

N here. Monkers is resting.

'People aren't blind'. Zero relevance. 'Emily Bridges and Lauren Hubbard aren't figments of our imagination'. I doubt anybody claimed that they are; again zero relevance. There is no sense of reasonable argument here.

The fact that you give no weight to the issues that arise is your choice; others do.

Without checking, wasn't it only yesterday, that Monkers explained to you that sport is a permitted exception under the GRA? That doesn't sound like she was stating a converse position. This line of argument is therefore bogus and a false attack upon her character.

You speak about her being obnoxious, but do you not see these falsely fabricated attacks upon her character as obnoxious? It's just that, without wearing my legal hat, perhaps you should.

 

[Deleted member 159]

If they were 'women' why have them separate from general women's population. Why segregate them- reason, fundamentally they're men, with male urges. Not safe to have them around females at all

 

[monkers]

If they were 'women' why have them separate from general women's population. Why segregate them- reason, fundamentally they're men, with male urges. Not safe to have them around females at all

N here Andy.

I understand that you have little respect for the law, or at least some of it. This is a prerogative that the law permits.

Notwithstanding your views and your entitlement to hold them, the laws have a history of being arrived at under the democratic apparatus of our sovereign state. It is a fundamental right to either seek effective remedy against laws which bring about abuses of the state, and another fundamental right to protest against them.

I will urge you to consider the following; is it of greater importance to be concerned with Bills being placed before parliament which remove the fundamental right that you enjoy to hold those opinions and the right to protest, or to promote the removal of fundamental rights enjoyed by others? If it is the latter, then you will no doubt lay down quietly when your own fundamental rights are taken from you?

 

[AuroraSaab]

N here. Monkers is resting.

'People aren't blind'. Zero relevance. 'Emily Bridges and Lauren Hubbard aren't figments of our imagination'. I doubt anybody claimed that they are; again zero relevance. There is no sense of reasonable argument here.



Without checking, wasn't it only yesterday, that Monkers explained to you that sport is a permitted exception under the GRA? That doesn't sound like she was stating a converse position. This line of argument is therefore bogus and a false attack upon her character.

You speak about her being obnoxious, but do you not see these falsely fabricated attacks upon her character as obnoxious? It's just that, without wearing my legal hat, perhaps you should.

I must admit I find it impossible to discern where Monkers ends and Niece begins, they sound so eerily similar. We've been over the jails/GRC thing ad infinitum so there's no point rehashing it further. You can if you like, Monkers.

 

[icowden]

You speak about her being obnoxious, but do you not see these falsely fabricated attacks upon her character as obnoxious. It's just that, without wearing my legal hat, perhaps you should.

I'm not sure anyone has been attacking Monkers character. Both Aurora and I have been trying to engage in positive discussion but have been accused of being liars or posting flim flam, trying to shut down conversation and other such. I hope it's a reflection that she hasn't been feeling well as I genuinely find it interesting discussing this with both she and you.

 

[monkers]

I must admit I find it impossible to discern where Monkers ends and Niece begins, they sound so eerily similar. We've been over the jails/GRC thing ad infinitum so there's no point rehashing it further. You can if you like, Monkers.

N here.

Given that whenever I contribute I begin with the same form of words 'N here', it will seem that even on this point you are generating a bogus argument, this time against me. I remember your ongoing references to personal attacks against you. To steal and use your own ableist terminology, 'people are not blind'.

You might expect similarities between the child me and the adult who raised me; so what is your point exactly? I do notice similarities between the language that you use and that of CXRAndy; however I do not express surprise since you seem to be members of the same cult.

You are factually incorrect concerning trans prisoners. I do remember Monkers and others clearly laying the facts before you a number of times. Monkers has used the phrase 'fact resistant'. This short form of words seems very apt.

Lord Justice Holroyde and Mr Justice Swift made very plain in the case between FDJ and the Secretary of State for Justice that the starting point for trans women who hold a GRC is that they are to be treated the same as other women except in the face of exceptional circumstances, that this must be a high bar. They also emphasised the use of risk assessment in the process of placing prisoners.

I put to you the following hypothetical cases:

Case 1; a trans woman with a GRC is convicted for a violent offence. She has not previous criminal record. The court hears that she assaulted a male while defending a woman (female). Will you contend that if convicted and sent down that she must go to a male prison because she is not safe around women?

Case 2; a trans woman with a GRC is convicted for violent offences. She has previous convictions for assaulting men, but never women. Will you content that women are made safer by placing her in the male prison estate? Does it not flow that male prisoners will be less safe by placing her in the male prison estate?

The purpose of the exercise is to consider that risk assessment informs the process of safeguarding, and not the go to, male must always mean 'unsafe to women' mantra.

 

[monkers]

I'm not sure anyone has been attacking Monkers character. Both Aurora and I have been trying to engage in positive discussion but have been accused of being liars or posting flim flam, trying to shut down conversation and other such. I hope it's a reflection that she hasn't been feeling well as I genuinely find it interesting discussing this with both she and you.

N here.

You tried positive discussion? That would mean demonstrating a lack of bias and being truthful. Under any assessment that has not been the case.

 

[icowden]

The purpose of the exercise is to consider that risk assessment informs the process of safeguarding, and not the go to, male must always mean 'unsafe to women' mantra.

I agree with you here, but the detail is in that risk assessment, and the hard bit for the justice system is balancing the safety of the trans offender with the safety of biological female offenders. Sometimes the appropriate place might be the women's prison, sometimes it might be to segregate entirely or to place in a male prison. Presumably a strong indicator would be rape or sexual assault of a woman, in which case the perpetrator should never be placed in a women's prison.

It's quite possible that that is already part of the risk assessment, but obviously the detail of how the risk assessments are carried out may not be public. There is certainly a perception that male offenders may be "going trans" in order to seek places in a women's prison rather than the male estate. Maybe there needs to be some more work to make it clear to the public that this is not something that is permitted to happen.

 

[icowden]

You tried positive discussion? That would mean demonstrating a lack of bias and being truthful. Under any assessment that has not been the case.

I am always truthful. I find it very difficult to dissemble (slightly neurodiverse and all that). Why should a positive discussion require a lack of bias? I have my point of view which I can support with evidence and statistics. You may have yours, together we share our views, and if the evidence so moves us, we may change our views.

I have been pretty open and honest that my problem with the trans activist lobby is the constant desire to silence discussion and oppress women who wish to express their opinion, the unfair inclusion of transwomen in women's sport and the lack of caution around medicalisation of what, to me, seems to be a psychiatric disorder. I am entirely happy for it to be proven that the desire to be trans is linked to a genetic difference for example, making it a natural phenomenon but none has been yet identified. That we are who we are when we are born with the body we got is, thus far, immutable. We can force minor changes through hormone treatment and major changes via surgery, but none of these things changes our biology or who we are, and my personal view is that these sorts of interventions should really only be used as a last resort.

Slightly sad that you appear to be obliquely calling me a liar again.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Men should go in the men's estate, in a wing appropriate to their needs and vulnerabilities. We don't put gay men in women's prisons if they ask just because they are unlikely to be interested in sexually assaulting women. The risk factor comes from being male, as does the need for privacy and dignity for women prisoners - these needs are unaffected by how a man identifies.

Calling people liars, morons, fascists is literally all you've got left because your arguments ultimately rest only on the idea that there are a special group of people who should be treated differently from the rest of their sex.

 

[monkers]

I agree with you here, but the detail is in that risk assessment, and the hard bit for the justice system is balancing the safety of the trans offender with the safety of biological female offenders. Sometimes the appropriate place might be the women's prison, sometimes it might be to segregate entirely or to place in a male prison. Presumably a strong indicator would be rape or sexual assault of a woman, in which case the perpetrator should never be placed in a women's prison.

It's quite possible that that is already part of the risk assessment, but obviously the detail of how the risk assessments are carried out may not be public. There is certainly a perception that male offenders may be "going trans" in order to seek places in a women's prison rather than the male estate. Maybe there needs to be some more work to make it clear to the public that this is not something that is permitted to happen.

Hi again (it's Iain isn't it?) N again.

I'm glad we can find some agreement.

Yes, people can be unpredictable, especially when under stress. Part of the risk assessment must include how the trans prisoner will cope with an environment where other prisoners may or will subject them to ridicule or abuse. We must never underestimate the possible events of pushback from people under stress or caused distress.

But let's be clear in order to promote proper discussion; blanket bans against the inclusion of people on the basis of any protected characteristic are always unlawful. This is not just limited to trans prisoners as if they are a special class. This is the ongoing, I'll be somewhat generous and call this 'a mistake', position that a blanket ban on permissible exceptions under the EqA is flat out wrong. Not only is it clear from the legislature, but also from the interpretation of it by the judiciary.

In this respect I actually prefer the position adopted by @CXRAndy by simply stating his opinion is that 'the law is an ass' to the refusal of @AuroraSaab to accept the legislature and judiciary as it stands, while maintaining the bare-face pretence that it is something that she'd prefer.

I'm not sure that prisoner risk-assessment should be public or need to be public. What the public needs to see is that the system is working to the extent that few (it can never be none) cases of breach of safety protocols occur. As Monkers will say, female prisons are not safe spaces, they are dangerous spaces which are controlled to make them as safe as reasonably possible within the limitations of the available resource.

 

[monkers]

Men should go in the men's estate, in a wing appropriate to their needs and vulnerabilities. We don't put gay men in women's prisons if they ask just because they are unlikely to be interested in sexually assaulting women. The risk factor comes from being male, as does the need for privacy and dignity for women prisoners - these needs are unaffected by how a man identifies.

N here.

This is a personal opinion that is your prerogative to hold. You present it as a legal fact - it very much is not.

Calling people liars, morons, fascists is literally all you've got left because your arguments ultimately rest only on the idea that there are a special group of people who should be treated differently from the rest of their sex.

If your argument rests on reduction of a legally protected group of people as an 'idea' then this is indeed the perspective of the fascist. Your 'idea' or to be more exact 'ideology' is that they (we) should be erased. Your ideology is to promote harm for a group of people. If trans people have 'an ideology' as you tend to say, it is not to promote hatred of women or to cause harm to women. This is fundamental to any understanding of the underlying principles of human rights, including women's rights.

 

[matticus]

Your 'idea' or to be more exact 'ideology' is that they (we) should be erased. Your ideology is to promote harm for a group of people.

I see the "New Era of positive discussion" is going well!

So glad "N" is here - there was a danger this thread might slow down. You can't sustain 400 pages-a-year of high-quality debate without reinforcements you know!

 

[monkers]

I am always truthful. I find it very difficult to dissemble (slightly neurodiverse and all that). Why should a positive discussion require a lack of bias? I have my point of view which I can support with evidence and statistics. You may have yours, together we share our views, and if the evidence so moves us, we may change our views.

I have been pretty open and honest that my problem with the trans activist lobby is the constant desire to silence discussion and oppress women who wish to express their opinion, the unfair inclusion of transwomen in women's sport and the lack of caution around medicalisation of what, to me, seems to be a psychiatric disorder. I am entirely happy for it to be proven that the desire to be trans is linked to a genetic difference for example, making it a natural phenomenon but none has been yet identified. That we are who we are when we are born with the body we got is, thus far, immutable. We can force minor changes through hormone treatment and major changes via surgery, but none of these things changes our biology or who we are, and my personal view is that these sorts of interventions should really only be used as a last resort.

Slightly sad that you appear to be obliquely calling me a liar again.

N here.

I have no wish to insult you Iain. In general I applaud people who learn something and subsequently change their mind. As an observation, and as somebody who has only read parts of the thread, I'll leave you with the perception or impression of what I think.

I think you have a desire to be objective, to be fair, and ready to change your mind. My observation is that you seem to switch sides as it were that bit too often according to the last thing you read. I admit this characterisation might be unfair.

One can behave somewhat like an anachist as @CXRAndy occasions to do, or like a cultist as @AuroraSaab tends to do, or otherwise like a democrat, a legal head like myself. Each person has fundamental right to an opinion, but that is not to say that all opinions are valid or equal. Essentially balanced views based on truth have more value than those based on lies, or those that intend harm to others.

Where, I admit, my head is with the law as that is my vocation, I see your head having an inclination to try to being a decent person. Nonetheless, I find some of your arguments skewed which unfortunately sometimes in a way that looks like bias. One observable skew being the classification of gender identity within the database classifications that you help to manage. I'll just urge that you consider that some of these classifications are 'best fit' rather than 'exact fit'. Whatever database classification I am best-fitted to as a person with a long trans history, I can tell you is not an exact fit.

 

[Deleted member 159]

Calls for prosecutions


View: https://youtu.be/VHaJ37axHzc?si=w40TDuFmaW5suEvV