Perverted man claims to be a woman - may be housed in a women's prison

I haven't been angry on these threads but have often been confused.
For instance when you say 'transwomen are valid' what do you mean?

If it's 'transwomen exist' - of course they do.
If it's 'transwomen are women' - no, they are not.
If it's neither of those things, what do you mean by it VS?

Not nearly as different as some of the comments I have experienced would suggest galaxy but I've learnt pointing it out gets me nowhere

They are not toxic there are just people with different opinions to you.

It's almost like it has taken 17 threads to be heard on what I have been saying from the beginning.

That's why these threads are a bit toxic, to have a discussion you have to not make others a scapegoat for your anger in order to listen

Personally I would far rather have transwomen using the same facilities than have even one woman challenged over the way she looks.

Really?
I know women who are sometimes challenged in this way - they prefer that to being forced to pretend that some men are women.

I agree with you about prisons - there needs to be a lot of rethinking, starting with all transwomen being housed in male prisons.

Personally, I would rather transwomen criminals have an unpleasant time than that even one woman prisoner feels threatened, or is actually assaulted, because a male prisoner is locked in with her.

Fair enough. The bloke we're talking about is lower than an animal. Raping children & animals? Let's just call it a slug.

Let’s not attempt a bit of consensus or positivity
I will not use the term cis men, it suggests men rather than rapist, peadophile, necrophiliacs, sex offender who enjoys beastiality

Mollygo

This is progress. GJ would put TW who commit sexual crimes using male genitalia in male prisons, VS says her feminism supports women and defends their rights against the onslaught of attacks by men and those TW who by GJ’s definition are only pretend transwomen.
As VS said, it’s a start.

Let me correct you MG. Individuals who use male genitalia to commit sexual crimes are cis men. Whatever fake name they may use to describe themselves.

2/3 isn’t bad.

He has a penis, so male, so male prison. He raped a dog!! Clearly not fit or safe to put him in a cell with anyone. Requires isolation.

I have a friend who believes that the earth is flat. No amount of science talk or reasoned debate will make her change her mind. In fact she becomes more deeply entrenched in her beliefs. Bit like the TWAW debate.
so mollygo, this is indeed progress

As far as admitting transwomen to any event is concerned I would regard them as being entirely admissable to any women's event. When the Michigan Womyns Music festival decided not to admitt them it wasn't done to discriminate against them but to stop others challenging butch women and I think this is one of the dangers we face if we begin discriminating against transwomen in every day life. We risk people challenging the way women look. We risk someone looking at a butch woman and demanding that they either prove they are physically female or that they use a different facility. Personally I would far rather have transwomen using the same facilities than have even one woman challenged over the way she looks.

As far as prisons go I think the whole system needs a major overhaul. Many of the women in prisons shouldn't be there The facilities provided for Category A women prisoners are not suitable or effective. The units used for male sex offenders actually provide space for more experienced sex offenders to share information with younger people. As it s likely that more cases like the one in the OP will be coming to court I think some way of accommodating them safely will have to be found. If he is housed in a female unit he will be a danger to women, if he is housed in a male facility he will be part of the group sharing information about perversions. Perhaps we need high security accommodation specifically designed to hold such offenders

This is progress. GJ would put TW who commit sexual crimes using male genitalia in male prisons, VS says her feminism supports women and defends their rights against the onslaught of attacks by men and those TW who by GJ’s definition are only pretend transwomen.
As VS said, it’s a start.

Right.

Molly yes.

No idea what that means VS.
A simple yes would suffice instead of a politicians non-answer.

VioletSky

Would I call myself a feminist otherwise Molly?

I might rant at you for a few hours about how they made my favoutlrite book into a TV show and its missing out all the bits I thought were important but I don't call that feminism

? ? ?

Some of Doodledog's posts tend to the long but I will assert they need to be long because on these threads you can't rely on any nod towards logic, common sense, or nuance. ....you really have to list every single thing that needs consideration or else you risk being pulled up as a "gotcha". I congratulate her on the calibre of the posts she makes.
FarNorth I so agree, I'm reality based, would really prefer that as a more accurate term than GC. I really don't believe in the religion of gender identity. Why is it I can reject every religion of the world except that of innate gender identity? If feminism doesn't centre and prioritise females then why the hell is it called feminism? Surely everybodyism or humanityism would be more accurate titles? I'm a feminist because although I think the suffragettes did a great job to start the process I still think true equality for women needs a great deal of work..... starting with who women decide may be admitted into the category of women, not told by men who has to be included.

I suppose it's up to the Prison System to decide whether he goes in with men or women.

That is the situation Marmite32.
The UK governments are leaving them to it while the female prisoners, and prison officers, get no say.

I find it completely ridiculous that biological sex is being treated as optional.

the other people on this thread who could be described as gender critical feminists are a fairly recent phenomena. Transwomen were accepted as women for years with no problems.

I have been a feminist for decades and have also disliked sex role stereotypes.
Men in dresses, or anything else, - fine with me, but still men.

Demands that "Transwomen are women - No Debate" , the widespread acceptance of self-id to replace biological sex and the promotion of "gender identity"to children and young people have all contributed to me being "gender-critical" or, as I prefer, reality-based.

Legal fiction is fiction.
Why are some people demanding we accept it as if it is reality?

VioletSky

Would I call myself a feminist otherwise Molly?

I might rant at you for a few hours about how they made my favoutlrite book into a TV show and its missing out all the bits I thought were important but I don't call that feminism

Would I call myself a feminist otherwise Molly?

I might rant at you for a few hours about how they made my favoutlrite book into a TV show and its missing out all the bits I thought were important but I don't call that feminism

VioletSky
Your feminism is different from others. My feminism is about females- whatever age, colour or creed they happen to be.
Support for other groups doesn’t necessarily need a declaration of feminism so I’ll support them without a banner.
So as a feminist I’ll stand shoulder to shoulder with you on matters of supporting women and defending women’s rights against the onslaught of attacks by men and GJ’s pretend transwomen. Presumably your feminism does actually support women and defend their rights.

Seasidelass

My feminsim is different than others.

My attitude to that is, well its a start, better to stand shoulder to shoulder on some issues, if not all.

I've never told anyone they aren't a feminist but I have been told I'm NOT in caps many times.

Just pointing that out because it is relevant and a balanced look at what is said on these threads.

Seasidelass

Hello trisher. Yes I was referring to your remarks on intersectional feminism as well as the thread that seems to run through this discussion, almost like a competition about who is the best feminist.

Thank you Gagajo, I am aware of why and how intersectional feminism came about and for me what is important here is, as you have posted, because of how the feminist movement was "seen".

It is IMO how feminism is "seen" by some that has resulted in other derivatives; Radical, Marxist, Liberal, Difference and of course Intersectional.

For me, intersectional feminism is a nonsense. You say it "supports equality for everyone", well so does feminism.

But 3rd wave feminism didn't represent all. Women of colour said it didn't support them or understand their differences of experience. Non-western women were not represented. It therefore wasn't for us, who were not in those groups to say it did if those women felt marginalised. They needed the movement to change to include them. So it did.

I didn't define you as anything. I gave a definition of philanthropy, and suggested that your version of intersectional feminism fits that definition. You can decide for yourself if you are a feminist or a philanthropist - in my world you could be both.

I do think that the fight against pit closures was one worth fighting, and I am still proud of my husband for risking his career by sticking to his principles and not going back a day before the NUM conceded defeat.

I admire the women who supported the men, and know that they put up with a lot more than many of the article writers will ever do. I say this as an academic myself - I am not someone who sneers at articles or theory - I am just aware that theory simply describes reality from one person's point of view. It doesn't create reality or necessarily define it - for every theoretical stance there is another that posits the opposite.

None of this is relevant to the thread, however. It has been used as a diversion from the thread topic, and given you an opportunity to ask me to repeat myself over and over as usually happens on these threads.

I know my posts can be long, but I would prefer to engage with people in as thoughtful a way as possible, and when I am talking to you I am conscious that I need to spell things out more than usual, as you never miss a chance to twist what I have said and repeat the twisted words as though they were mine. Do you think that posters prefer soundbites to more nuanced posts? Maybe so, although many other voices are heard on here, and it is clear that the vast majority of posters have understood what I am saying, whether they agree with it or not.