Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

N here.

Seriously? I go out for a few minutes to satisfy a chocolate craving and it kicks off.

Now then @AuroraSaab, if you don't wish for anybody to call you 'an idiot' I have some advice for you. It's simply this, stop saying idiotic things.

Nobody has asked for blanket bans for trans people. It remains lawful to exclude people on the basis of their sex (or age, or religion, or sexuality etc etc) in limited situations. It doesn't have to be done on a case by case, one individual person at a time basis.

This but one example of this idiocy.

If a general exclusion is made on an entire group of people with a shared protected characteristic, and not considered on a case-by-case basis, then it is not lawful.

There is no legal merit in the arguments you present. Not only does the 'in limited circumstances' apply, but the bar must also be set very high. This is not some casual process that can be made while making value judgements while scratching one's chin. The decision processes needs to be formal and made with rigour.

In others words, the intent must be a starting point to include. I can tell you frankly, reading any of your posts that I have, would very quickly bring any judge to believe that your starting point is to include is bogus. Your attempts using highly charged emotional and inaccurate writing to persuade others to your cause would very quickly lead to them being assessed as inadmissible due to being a bad faith actor.

Although I don't actually approve of the exchange of abuse between you, it does seem that Monkers has made a correct assessment of your words.

Addendum: @AuroraSaab.

In order to show that Monkers has consistently posted to say what you say she has said, can you provide at least two examples?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Excluded for being male, not being trans. Which is why a trans identifying woman (unless on testosterone) wouldn't be excluded from riding in the Women's category but trans identifying male Emily Bridges is.

It's remarkable how much styles of writing are a hereditary trait. I'm starting think there's something in this 'It's innate' business after all.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Addendum: @AuroraSaab.

In order to show that Monkers has consistently posted to say what you say she has said, can you provide at least two examples?

I have no idea what you think I think you've said. No point @ ing me. I have notifications turned off. You'll be pleased to hear I'm busy for the next couple of days though and any spare Internet time will be spent reading about the Cass report rather than on here.

 

[Deleted member 159]

Has Monkers binary, two sides same coin, bipolar, schizotypal type disorder.?

Seems when the heat turns up , all hell breaks loose

 

[monkers]

Excluded for being male, not being trans. Which is why a trans identifying woman (unless on testosterone) wouldn't be excluded from riding in the Women's category but trans identifying male Emily Bridges is.

It's remarkable how much styles of writing are an hereditary trait. I'm starting think there's something in this 'It's innate' business after all.

N here.

Setting aside the snide remarks, you are factually incorrect. I happen to know that you've been told this many times. I happen to know that argument with an absolutist is futile, as the truth is irrelevant to them.

In the meantime I see you. For the sake of other readers here, let me just say this presentation is falsely constructed. While attempting a discussion with Aurora about the nature of blanket bans, she has taken the discussion to sport, and naming individuals in the process.

As Monkers clarified for Aurora yesterday, sport is a permitted exclusion under the 2004 GRA, whereas other exclusions she speaks of such as prison placements are not.

This is a tactical diversion since she has realised that her bogus argument has been rumbled by a lawyer speaking here.

For those in doubt, I will urge you to read any court ruling that touches on the matter, but as the placement of trans prisoners is the hot potato of the day, I will urge you to read the case of FDJ vs The Secretary of State for Justice on this very matter. Here are two of the most relevant parts:-

75. The statistical evidence available to the court is unsatisfactory. It is clear that the number of transgender women in women's prisons is small, and the number who hold GRCs (and are therefore entitled to be treated as women in accordance with the Gender Recognition Act 2004) is very small. Professor Phoenix is in my view correct to say that the data, limited though they are, do permit some conclusions about the population of known transgender women. There is however a severe limit to those conclusions, both because the numbers involved are small and because the manner in which the data have been collected and presented to the court left many questions unanswered. I accept that the statistical evidence shows that the proportion of transgender prisoners who have been convicted of one or more sexual offences is substantially greater than the corresponding proportions of non-transgender men and women prisoners. I do not accept that the statistical evidence permits the conclusion, for which the Claimant contends, that a transgender prisoner is 5 or 6 times more likely than a non-transgender prisoner to commit a sexual assault on a non-transgender prisoner: that seems to me a misuse of the statistics, which in any event are so low in number, and so lacking in detail, that they are an unsafe basis for general conclusions. I can accept, at any rate for present purposes, that the unconditional introduction of a transgender woman into the general population of a women's prison carries a statistically greater risk of sexual assault upon non-transgender prisoners than would be the case if a non-transgender woman were introduced. But that statistical conclusion takes no account of the risk assessment which the policies require.

102. The position of transgender women prisoners with GRCs is different. For this group the overarching rule is at paragraph 4.64 of the Care and Management Policy – they "… must be placed in the women's estate … unless there are exceptional circumstances, as would be the case for biological women". Exceptional circumstances is a high bar; the working assumption must be that transwomen prisoners with a GRC will be placed in women's prisons. However, the Care and Management Policy then requires risk assessment to ensure arrangements for "appropriate accommodation, regime and supervision", including the option that these prisoners will be in women's prisons but not within the general population (and the way in which specific risks can be managed within a specialist unit is further addressed by the E Wing Policy). Hence the policies require steps to be taken to identify and manage any particular disadvantage that would be relevant for the purposes of an indirect discrimination claim. For this group of prisoners too, the requirement to "promote the safety of all individuals in custody" is the objective of the assessment process.


As given my own stated personal characteristics, it is only correct that I link to the document in full in order for it to be read in its entirety.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/1746.html

 

[monkers]

Has Monkers binary, two sides same coin, bipolar, schizotypal type disorder.?

Seems when the heat turns up , all hell breaks loose

N here. Monkers has nodded off again with her head on my shoulder, so I'll keep going.

I see you @CXRAndy. While some claim to be the victims of Monkers tongue, I see she is made the target by her detractors by allegations of psychiatric illness, and most usually just for being factually correct. It's not hard to see why she has a few choice words for you.

 

[AuroraSaab]

So the starting point for trans identifying men with a GRC is to go in the women's estate .... but the MOJ can assess risk, one risk factor being that they are male, and place them in the men's estate or a segregated wing in a women's prison ....

And of course, those who have kept their genitalia or comit sexual or violent crime go in the men's estate, regardless of a GRC. So hardly the individual case by case protocol that you claim the EA demands.

Look out, Andy, Monica sees us! (insert rolling eyes emoji here if you wish).

 

[Deleted member 159]

N+1 appeared last time M had a moment .

Unless we have conclusive photographic proof of them stood together. Doubts will remain for some

If each of you hold a loaf 🍞 on your head, I will be convinced

 

[monkers]

So the starting point for trans identifying men with a GRC is to go in the women's estate .... but the MOJ can assess risk, one risk factor being that they are male, and place them in the men's estate or a segregated wing in a women's prison ....

And of course, those who have kept their genitalia or comit sexual or violent crime go in the men's estate, regardless of a GRC. So hardly the individual case by case protocol that you insist the EA allows.

Look out, Andy, Monica sees us! (insert rolling eyes emoji here if you wish).

N again.

It is not hard to see the reason why Monkers holds the opinion of you that she does. Every post contains levels of unpleasantness aimed at others. I actually disagree with Monkers that you are 'an idiot', but I think you are troubled and a very unpleasant person to know.

The starting point for a trans woman with a GRC who is committed to prison is to go the women's prison estate. Yes, that is agreed. It is entirely unnecessary to use the word 'male' other than to exhibit obvious bias.

Safeguarding is very important, if you start with the general assumption that 'male means violent' as you seem to want to do, then you are not a person capable of preparing a risk assessment.

Allow me to take you to another line in the ruling:-

1. There is no statutory requirement that male and female prisoners be accommodated in different establishments, but rule 12(1) of the Prison Rules 1999 provides that –"Women prisoners shall normally be kept separate from male prisoners."

To be clear this means that under the law, women's prisons have never been places that can exclusively accommodate women. However women with a GRC do have legal right to accommodated with women in the women's prison estate as a starting point.

It is not only trans women that can be excluded from women's prisons on the basis of risk assessment, but cis women can be excluded too. That is the nature of safeguarding.

 

[monkers]

N+1 appeared last time M had a moment .

Unless we have conclusive photographic proof of them stood together. Doubts will remain for some

If each of you hold a loaf 🍞 on your head, I will be convinced

N here

When all else fails to disprove the truth, attempt to discredit the poster. This attempt is rated by me as 'piss poor'.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Has Monkers binary, two sides same coin, bipolar, schizotypal type disorder.?

Seems when the heat turns up , all hell breaks loose

You are accepted as the village idiot but please don't sink any lower, just because you can.

 

[monkers]

Could this be CXRAndy?

A weird fetish but each to his own.

 

[Deleted member 159]

Could this be CXRAndy?

A weird fetish but each to his own.

View attachment 5775

There's only one of you?

 

[multitool]

There's only one of you?

It's meant to be you, you thick twât

 

[Deleted member 159]

N here

When all else fails to disprove the truth, attempt to discredit the poster. This attempt is rated by me as 'piss poor'.

No attempt to discredit, elevated praise, thank you