Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

You are confusing lying with opinion. Hers is different to yours

I challenge the facts on which she bases her opinions. That is why you see me carefully examining the data. Little of the data that GCs go on about is credible.

Just as I did with the prison data, and now with the Swedish Study data, that the lead author was saying was being misused - turns out it was.

 

[monkers]

We all agree with this.

Aurora doesn't. She just said earlier, these changes are just cosmetic.

Aurora said something similar yesterday. You posted to say that you disagreed with her.

 

[AuroraSaab]

What counts first is safety. There is no evidence to suggest that trans women with a GRC are a danger to women. You are grasping at straws.

There is no evidence whatsoever why a man with a certificate should be treated differently from any other man in regards to single sex spaces. It would be completely illogical to do so. It is literally a piece of paper. There's no character test to get one.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Aurora doesn't. She just said earlier, these changes are just cosmetic.

Correct. I don't agree that erectile dysfunction or surgery has any bearing on safeguarding. It would be nuts if it did. We don't give men in wheelchairs or men with prostate issues a free pass into women's spaces and services. This idea that women should accept men being present as long as they don't have a working penis is bizarre.

 

[monkers]

There is no evidence whatsoever why a man with a certificate should be treated differently from any other man in regards to single sex spaces. It would be completely illogical to do so. It is literally a piece of paper. There's no character test to get one.

N here Aurora.

This is an example of upside-down thinking. The requirement in cases of criminality is to prove guilt. On the basis of potential for criminality, then we each of us have similar potential except in some limited circumstances. Once a suspect has been arrested, that is the point at which risk assessment begins to be used, thereafter control measures are used to minimise risk. Please note the word 'minimise'. To eliminate risk, each prisoner would need to be held in isolation and served by robots.

I noted Monkers' comment about a dystopian world which you seemed unhappy with. However, this is an end point to a world in which risk is eliminated and opportunities for rehabilitation would be lost.

 

[monkers]

Correct. I don't agree that erectile dysfunction or surgery has any bearing on safeguarding. It would be nuts if it did. We don't give men in wheelchairs or men with prostate issues a free pass into women's spaces and services. This idea that women should accept men being present as long as they don't have a working penis is bizarre.

N again

In the practice of law, all presentation requires reasoned argument. All arguments that feature false equivalence such as this are disallowed.

 

[icowden]

Correct. I don't agree that erectile dysfunction or surgery has any bearing on safeguarding. It would be nuts if it did. We don't give men in wheelchairs or men with prostate issues a free pass into women's spaces and services. This idea that women should accept men being present as long as they don't have a working penis is bizarre.

Don't you think that there is an argument that a man who has emasculated themselves to that degree has arguably removed themselves from being a threat?

 

[monkers]

Don't you think that there is an argument that a man who has emasculated themselves to that degree has arguably removed themselves from being a threat?

N here Ian.

You make a good point. Further to what you yourself have noted, risk assessments are paired or grouped within the system. To offer one quick example, prisoners have individual risk assessments as I feel sure we will agree. In the case of cell sharing, an additional risk assessment for that sharing arrangement is made. For group activities including therapeutic sessions, group risk assessments are made before these activities go ahead. Safety for all in all circumstances is always at the forefront of prison system management.

 

[monkers]

@AuroraSaab

N here.

I have looked back at your recent comments with regard to the Swedish Study. The Swedish eugenics programme is now a point of national shame for many Swedish people including colleagues at my workplace. They describe it as a 'Nazi programme'. Dejeune et al were highlighting the treatment of trans people during this regime, being included in it as they were. Many victims felt they were fighting for their lives, while at least some of their 'criminality' was committed while attempting escape from terror. My empathy with them is two fold, first being a trans person myself, while secondly, I also attempted suicide and fled from terror.

It is somewhat unfortunate that the gender critical movement in the UK have chosen such a programme to hang flags of support. Can one be surprised that certain gender critical people find support from Neo-Nazis? It is a cogent argument to present that some policies advocated by each group are adjacent.

 

[monkers]

N here.

Well that's me done for this evening. Goodnight all.

 

[multitool]

Anyhow let's move on @Bromptonaut and @ian have got their liberal, nice bloke, virtue signalling in.

The forum megabrain has spoken everyone.

Seems a bit upset. There, Their, they're.

 

[monkers]

monkers here.

N has shown me this. I wish I'd had it earlier ...

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/why...weden set up a eugenics,the envy of the world.

 

[Deleted member 159]

Again women mostly abused.

There can be no reason to allow men access to women's safe spaces without women's consent.

 

[AndyRM]

Yes. They were. As part of a state sponsored eugenics programme. Which is a whole different level of awful.

For all the Scandi approach to social issues is rightly lauded these days, they were pretty barbaric not so long ago.

So was the UK to be fair. But we gloss over the nasty parts of our history with ridiculous regularity.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Don't you think that there is an argument that a man who has emasculated themselves to that degree has arguably removed themselves from being a threat?

It shows commitment but surely you can see that such a man is still male regardless of missing genitalia? Again though the bar is being set at 'He can't rape you so why is it a problem?'.

Do the safeguarding and dignity issues disappear because the male body next to you has chosen to have surgery?

How would it even work as a safeguarding procedure? You don't need to be on surgery or hormones to get a GRC. You aren't allowed to ask if someone has a GRC, btw. So you can't know who has a GRC, or who has kept their genitals, but women are supposed to accept either as some sort of free pass?

Dejeune (it's Dhejne btw) et al were highlighting the treatment of trans people during this regime, being included in it as they were.

No they (she wasn't the only author) weren't. Eugenics isn't mentioned anywhere in the study. Sterilisation was required in order to change legal sex, which is certainly coercion but not exactly forced eugenics.

I think saying gender critical feminism is aligned with eugenics, seeing as most of the victims of Swedish eugenics were actual women, is your biggest stretch so far.