Gender again. Sorry!

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
monkers

monkers

Legendary Member
AuroraSaab said:
Again though, why is the number of trans identified men in women's jails so low now? Because women campaigned and got men removed. You try to spin this as meaning there isn't a problem. Well it's less of a problem because it was a problem and it was (partially) sorted out. Somehow you think this win for women supports your case. Gaslighting again.
Click to expand...

Because it was never high. The risk assessment system predates you gaslighting on the thread. The government defeated the complainant in the High Court partly on the basis that the number of trans women in women's prisons was so low.

Again I have to tell you, I have made no opinion that trans women who have harmed women and girls should be in women's prisons. I'm just rejecting all these months of wild claims. It's not only you to be fair, there is seemingly no end of GC spreading this alarmist propaganda. But as you are the one spreading the moral panic and alarm on the thread, you need holding to account. And this is what has just happened.

I just knew you was going to take the Paula Vennels approach and deny everything. You've been lying your head off about this for months, and now you are fully exposed. I have no sympathy for you, you brought it upon yourself.
 
monkers

monkers

Legendary Member
AuroraSaab said:
All prisons are unpleasant places. Saying 'Well they're full of violent women anyway, adding trans identifying men won't matter' is a poor argument.
Click to expand...

No the argument put by me is that women's prisons are not a safe place for trans women or cis women who are vulnerable to attack by violent sex predatory women.

You found the truth that England's most violent prison is a women's prison too much to take. How you tried to spin your way around that one.

Whenever you are faced with evidence that women can be violent, or can abuse children, you try hard to play down the horror of it, almost as if their victims don't really matter.
 
A

AuroraSaab

Squire
It wasn't zero in March 2021 though was it? You don't know for sure it's zero now do you? I hope it is. I hope there are no more men placed in women's jails, whether sex offenders or not. That would be marvellous.

Nobody doubts that women's prisons are unpleasant, often violent, places. This is no reason to increase the risk by adding men to the mix. No women's prisons ever improved by the addition of male criminals to the population.
 
Last edited:
monkers

monkers

Legendary Member
AuroraSaab said:
It wasn't zero in March 2021 though was it? You don't know for sure it's zero now do you? I hope it is. I hope there are no more men placed in women's jails, whether sex offenders or not. That would be marvellous.
Click to expand...

If the number of trans women in women's prisons in England and Wales for all offences is 5, then given the risk assessment system in place, I'll wager that the number of trans women in women's prisons for harming women or girls is zero.

Just a little reminder Aurora, the law says that trans women with a GRC are both female and women. If those five trans women are no threat to women and girls, why the need to be shitty and call them 'men'?

When it is the case that there aren't 103 (your preferred number not mine) cis gender women in prison for sex offences that will indeed be marvellous, until then, it's grim isn't it?
 
A

AuroraSaab

Squire
103 out of 30 million suggests women are a very low risk in terms of being sex offenders, so not that grim really, though zero would be better. Even just 5 transwomen out of 35,000 is a much higher ratio, and therefore risk.

Your 'wager' is based on the knowledge that the transwomen sex offenders have been removed as of this year. It's not a case of there aren't any, it's a case of they've been put in the male estate.

It's not shitty to correctly sex people, especially sex offenders. I might occasionally use the term 'transwomen' for clarity, as above.
 
monkers

monkers

Legendary Member
More news from the Guardian.

Angela Raynor has not only been cleared by police of criminal wrongdoing, but she has also been cleared of tax accusations by HMRC and the local council.

Mel Stride has been on TV within the last few days trying to keep the smearing going on even after the police said no charges can be brought.
 
monkers

monkers

Legendary Member
AuroraSaab said:
It's not shitty to correctly sex people, especially sex offenders
Click to expand...

Yeh it is shitty, but you can't help yourself.

Even though we've now drilled down the numbers to show that the likely number of trans women in women's prisons in England & Wales for sex offences is most likely to zero, you are still looking to call trans women sex offenders, and using this falsehood as a justification for other abuse.

It's really nasty.
 
A

AuroraSaab

Squire
Oh ffs. It's 5 or under in women's prisons exactly because there was a fuss and nearly all got hoofed back to the men's. It's ridiculous for you to try to spin that as a win. If there wasn't a fuss they'd still be there and they'd still be sending new ones there.

And no, I'm not calling male rapists She. You can if you like.
 
monkers

monkers

Legendary Member
AuroraSaab said:
Oh ffs. It's 5 or under in women's prisons exactly because there was a fuss and nearly all got hoofed back to the men's. It's ridiculous for you to try to spin that as a win. If there wasn't a fuss they'd still be there and they'd still be sending new ones there.

And no, I'm not calling male rapists She. You can if you like.
Click to expand...

It's not a win, it's a fact, and one you've been oh so reluctant to acknowledge. A win would be no sex offenders anywhere ever. Let's agree to declaring that in the future sometime never.
 
AndyRM

AndyRM

Elder Goth
Screenshot 2024-05-30 at 16.51.00.png


The absolute state of that incel...

His website is hilarious: https://petersweden.com/

Andy old chap, you can't stick up for women's rights with one hand and stick the other up for someone who's anti-feminist.
 
A

AuroraSaab

Squire
It's good news but mixed in that it may not be permanent and it doesn't seem to apply to hormones to adults. It's intended to stop medics like Dr Helen Webberley from giving kids drugs based on limited appraisal via a Zoom call, from a company based in the Philippines. Her company was recently advertising jobs for prescribing medics, no experience in paediatrics, mental health, or gender medicine required, and you got commission on every child you referred. Her husband was struck off for poor appraisal of children and her company was referred to in a recent family court case for giving a 15 year old girl an adult dose of testosterone that another medic called life threatening.

It should never be possible to circumvent UK regs on child medicine by ordering online from abroad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

monkers
GCN+ and GCN app to close. Corporate bastards strike again.
Replies
3
icowden
And They're Off! The race for London Mayor begins again!
Replies
46
Salty seadog
Fantastic imagination from the Dutch.... Again.
Replies
6
Bromptonaut
Benefits Again
Replies
205
Top Bottom