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

Mollygo

Trisher 17:57 congratulations!
I think you’re finally catching on to what we’ve been saying. i.e.
* The men/TW who are using the claim to be women for nefarious purposes or purposes causing harm or unfairness to females are doing damage to your ‘real transwomen’ as well as natal women. *
We don’t think that includes all TW, and even going back through the myriad threads about this I wonder who you would find who would support all TW including those I mentioned at ** above.

I don't think I have ever said anything different Mollygo Feel free to scrol through my posts if you wish to. I tried to address the problems some seemed to see. Like the fact that a transgender prison unit has opened, and the problem with housing all sex offenders in prisons.
My question is why bring transwomen into the post at all?
It might be more valuable if we actually discussed the problem of sex offenders and prison. This person had offended before but he was never sentenced to prison. I wonder if judges are unwilling to apply prison sentences because of the violence involved. I wonder if a better system which involved more re-education and treatment could be applied to more offenders and it might result in less reoffending. None of that is anything to do with transwomen.

My question is why bring transwomen into the post at all?

Eh? Hasn't that been answered several times already? Isn't the answer "because as soon as the dog raping paedophile realised that he was facing a jail term (October 2021) he decided that he was a female, probably in order to avoid having to be locked up with men who might give him a leathering?" Fairly sure you've had this explained already.

But trisher you spend time defending all transwomen whether or not they wish to use their claim to be women to take jobs specifically intended for natal women, to compete unfairly, to access spaces intended for females, and in between that I have noticed you dragging in all sorts of strange deviations which you seem to think prove that men can be female, -which they can’t.
Your comment above starting, It might be more useful . . . could be useful so why not start a thread, as long as you accept that the primary concern of most of the posters is that men, pretend transwomen or real transwomen who have been convicted of sexual crimes or abuse against females should not be in women’s prisons.
Good luck with trying to educate such men-but do it before they claim to be female in order to be placed in women’s prisons.

It would indeed be useful to tackle sex offending, the prison system in general, the gender pay gap, female poverty and numerous other social problems. Nobody is denying that.

What we are discussing here, however, is the fact that a man can say he is a woman and ask to be housed in a women's prison, despite being a paedophile and a dog rapist with a history of sex crimes to his name.

To claim that because he is a dog-raping paedophile he can't be 'real' trans is disingenuous. It misses the point that one of the worries expressed by feminists is that the insistence on allowing anyone who says they are a woman to be treated as such opens the door to people like him, whether they are 'real' trans or not. I very much doubt that anyone attacked by him could care less how he identifies - the fact that he is a man means that he is likely to be stronger than the average woman, and the fact that he is genitally intact means that he is capable of rape, and the fact that it is nowadays possible to say that he's a woman and be locked up with women gives him that opportunity on a plate.

I know you don't listen to what we say, or take it at face value, but we have all said all along that we have nothing against transpeople, so please don't go on again about how all transpeople shouldn't be tarred with the same brush? Nobody is doing that. What we are arguing is that biological men are not women, and as such belong in male prisons and other spaces that have not traditionally been set aside for women.

There have been so many inconsistencies in the TRA arguments on this thread that it's disorientating, so I'm not surprised that there are far more readers of these threads than contributors.

Off the top of my head:
The people who defend the TAWA stance, and who claim to know more transpeople than others openly admit that they have never before heard the arguments they so vehemently rebuff, yet suggest that those of us with broader circles are out of touch.

There is a strange notion that only 'fake' transpeople can commit crime, yet there is a recognised problem with where to house transpeople in the prison system.

We've been told that having 'unbiased search parameters' and trusting only scientists who 'support' transpeople are somehow the same thing.

We've had the way in which DNA works eloquently explained to us by Elegran, and her obvious expertise refuted with something about unidentified 'traces' being in foetal brains at 8 weeks' gestation.

There is an unexplained leap in logic that says that many transpeople are indistinguishable from others of their adopted sex, yet they are victimised. It is not clear how this works if nobody knows who they are, and if, in any case, the gender-critical view is rare and only held by the old and out of touch.

Oddly, given the above, we've been told that transpeople should not be excluded from anything, as some women (not transwomen) are indistinguishable from men, and might be questioned on their appearance, and if this happens even once it is worse than having women locked up with rapists.

We've been lectured at length about how feminism is not about women, and how only people who have written books can comment on the lived experience of others.

That's just what I can remember.

We have now come full circle to a question about why we are bringing transwomen into the thread at all, when it is about how someone is claiming to be trans in order to get a place in a women's jail. Unbelievable.

Wait for a comment about not having the attention span to read a long post

I have a good attention span. I read your excellent, informative post Doodledog I'll probably now get accused of being a 'groupie' or 'clique member' but regardless you have some decent content in there!

I have a decent attention span too. Doodledog’s posts are always relevant, well thought through and very measured.

Just to add to the comments, I find DD’s posts comprehensive and factual. I have a good attention span so reading them is not a problem.

So do I. I suspect those who complain that they are too long and involved are the same ones who did a lot of gazing out of windows in their schooldays, and now say, "Oh, we didn't learn that!" when someone mentions something that everyone else knows.

Another excellent post Doodledog.

Elegran

So do I. I suspect those who complain that they are too long and involved are the same ones who did a lot of gazing out of windows in their schooldays, and now say, "Oh, we didn't learn that!" when someone mentions something that everyone else knows.

Seriously? I'm a teacher actually and hold post grad qualifications.

There is a difference between analysis and waffle.

I have listened to the posts about how there will be "pretend" transwomen in women's spaces. If they are there they will be there already. I really don't understand exactly what all of the posters who claim they are not anti-trans in anyway want. The legislation to exclude transwomen from places where they might prevent women using the service is already in place (as I have said many times) the reason it isn't being applied I am told by them is because some transwomen are being very aggressive and Stonewall exercises great power over everyone.
I have asked for evidence of that power and been told it can't be given and it's wrong to question someone because of issues of confidentiality.
I have never asked that transpeople should not be excluded from anything simply posed the very practical questions how would it be done and who would do it. The law as it is means that where someone is responsible for the organisation of female spaces it can and should be applied.
But if other women are happy to share their space with transwomen a bunch of transphobic women should not be allowed to dictate the rules of that space.
I'll refrain from discussing what sorts of people are known to anyone on GN. I'll refrain from discussing the highly illogical and completely false accusations hurled about by the people who are not anti-trans on this thread.
You can dismiss the research on foetal development if you wish (although I fail to understand why anyone would unless it is the source you are actully questioning). In actual fact both things are true. The sex of the baby's cells is decided at conception, but all foetuses remain female until male hormones are released to change them.
I think it's then fairly easy to consider that in some people proper balance isn't acheived.
Criminals pretend to be all sorts of things and their fraudulent claims are dealt with without any mention or involvement of other parties. This should have been dealt with in just such a way.
So if you aren't anti-trans then explain exactly what you want and how it will be acheived. Because as a transgender prison unit has been opened showing an intention to house transwomen separately it obviously can't be that.

No men in womens spaces.
Could you please specify who you mean when you say anti trans posters. Am I in that description. If so could you describe which bit was anti trans.
I have pointed out that frightening trans people about murder rates in the UK is not kind, I have raised concerns that there seems to be information that shows the treatment offered to transwomen has a negative affect on suicide rates, to have this dismissed as 'bodily autonomy'.
I think strangely enough that transpeople should have access to the same quality medical care as anyone else. The tavistock has just been rated inadequate on various factors, that was certainly partly due to campaigning by GC feminists (and the brave whistleblowers) for someone to have a look at whst the hell was going on there.
The prison changes are due partly to womens groups campaigning on this issue and partly done to those running prisons saying er we did point out this would happen.

GagaJo I love your last line. There is a difference between analysis and waffling.
If you know the difference, does that mean your waffling is deliberate?
The only remotely anti trans comments I’ve seen on GN threads are those where posters, e.g. me, say that we believe many TW exist without any intent of harm or unfairness to natal women and have no problem with them.

I then go on to explain for your benefit, that I am anti those trans who choose to use claiming to be a woman for harmful or unfair purposes. If you are not anti-trans at all, then you obviously support that small but toxic group, whose actions not only harm natal women, but also harm the transwomen.
Calling them pretend trans as you did on 25.12.21 at 10:41, doesn’t help, unless, as you wrote later in the same post, that real transwomen wouldn’t commit those crimes and you can tell which TW are likely to do that, before the crimes are committed.

Incidentally, I also am in education and have post grad qualifications, but isn’t saying that boasting and nothing to do with perverts or transwomen?

No men in womens spaces.
Well that's clear isn't it. Except it isn't. It doesn't consider the practicalities (possibly because they are too complex) of who would police this and what is meant by women's spaces.
If you are anti-trans you know it. Anyway it's not up to me to judge is it?
Well done then those groups who have campaigned. Although I suspect the authorities were aware of what was happening and would have acted anyway.
Time and time gain we go back to the same old cases. I asked what do you want? I've had one rather vague reply. Let's forget the past and plan the future as you see it.

I have listened to the posts about how there will be "pretend" transwomen in women's spaces. If they are there they will be there already.
GagaJo talked about fake transpeople. Maybe take this up with her?
If they are there they will be there already.
That's not the point, is it?

I really don't understand exactly what all of the posters who claim they are not anti-trans in anyway want.
Why 'claim'? I don't know about 'all of' the posters, but for me, a good start (as I've said numerous times before) would be a clear distinction between women and transwomen. Not a difference in how they are treated or respected; but a recognition that transwomen are male. This would mean that they could not compete as female in sport, that they would have to declare their maleness in limited circumstances, such as if a rape victim asks for a female doctor to carry out an intimate examination, and that the language would continue to differentiate between women and men, and keep the words for women and men as they have been used for centuries.

The legislation to exclude transwomen from places where they might prevent women using the service is already in place (as I have said many times) the reason it isn't being applied I am told by them is because some transwomen are being very aggressive and Stonewall exercises great power over everyone.
I think it is true that the influence of Stonewall has meant that people are reluctant to enforce existing legislation, as training is often underpinned by the TWAW agenda, and people on the ground are (understandably) confused by it.

I have asked for evidence of that power and been told it can't be given and it's wrong to question someone because of issues of confidentiality.
This is disingenuous. I think you are referring to the time when I said that many people in workplaces were compelled to declare pronouns on emails and Zoom/Teams screens, and you disagreed (despite having admitted that you are rarely in work-based situations these days). I said that I was looking at the screens as I typed - I was in a screen break droning a work meeting - and you accused me of lying, and asked for proof. I pointed out that this would be impossible to provide, as I don't have access to other people's emails or others' directives from HR about pronouns. Nothing to do with it being wrong to question people, or that it is wrong because of 'reasons of confidentiality'. You are twisting my words again.

I have never asked that transpeople should not be excluded from anything simply posed the very practical questions how would it be done and who would do it.
In your post about the Michigan Music Festival you said As far as admitting transwomen to any event is concerned I would regard them as being entirely admissable to any women's event. These things can't both be true, can they? Which one are you retracting?

The law as it is means that where someone is responsible for the organisation of female spaces it can and should be applied. But if other women are happy to share their space with transwomen a bunch of transphobic women should not be allowed to dictate the rules of that space.
Doesn't that depend on the differentials in numbers between the 'women' and the 'bunch of transphobic women'? Who defines 'transphobic' here? And using what definition? The dictionary one (I know you love dictionary definitions) that says that transphobia is 'fear or hatred of transgender people', or are you using it to mean 'anyone who does not agree that sex and gender are interchangeable'?
And what about the non-transphobic women who have reason for wanting safe single-sex spaces? Do we not get a voice?

I'll refrain from discussing what sorts of people are known to anyone on GN. I'll refrain from discussing the highly illogical and completely false accusations hurled about by the people who are not anti-trans on this thread.
Refrain away. It's probably easier than answering how it is that the most vocal supporters of the notion that TWAW are the ones saying that they have never before engaged with others who have different views. There is form for dodging difficult questions by refraining from answering them, so no change there, then.

You can dismiss the research on foetal development if you wish (although I fail to understand why anyone would unless it is the source you are actully questioning). In actual fact both things are true. The sex of the baby's cells is decided at conception, but all foetuses remain female until male hormones are released to change them. I think it's then fairly easy to consider that in some people proper balance isn't acheived.
I'm not dismissing it. I just don't think that it's relevant to the discussion of whether a male-bodied criminals (see posts passim for a definition) should share cells with female-bodied ones.

Criminals pretend to be all sorts of things and their fraudulent claims are dealt with without any mention or involvement of other parties. This should have been dealt with in just such a way.
Which other parties are not mentioned? I'm not sure I understand this statement.

So if you aren't anti-trans then explain exactly what you want and how it will be acheived.
Double standards here? If I ask for explanations, I am DEMANDING, but anyway, I have explained in this post above.

Because as a transgender prison unit has been opened showing an intention to house transwomen separately it obviously can't be that.
No obviously about it. I would be happy for transwomen to be housed in special wings - where have I said otherwise? The one you refer to has three prisoners in it though, which doesn't begin to scratch the surface of the problem. Nor does it answer questions about how to deal with those whose trans feelings take effect when a prison sentence is looming.

GagaJo, I agree that there is a difference between waffle and analysis. Neither has anything to do with the number of words used. It is possible to waffle in one paragraph, as we've seen on this thread, and equally possible to be analytical in a thesis or a book.

Congratulations on your qualifications, btw. Well done!

Finally - thanks to those who posted kind words. It is appreciated

Actually there are 500 transgender cells planned.
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/150million-give-transgender-prisoners-new-25230999
So there you are.
Any other requests?
Any other ideas about what these men-free spaces would include or is it all theoretical?

So there I am ?

Ok, not sure what to say about that, at least not until the plans come to fruition. It's great news that the powers that be are finally taking notice of feminists' concerns, though.

My only request was that you let us know which of your contradictory statements you are going to retract. Not sure which 'other' one(s) you mean; but if you felt inclined you could answer the question about who decides whether other people are transphobic, and with definition they would use to do so. Your comments on my other points (ie not just the one that you can answer with a potential 'gotcha') would be good, and might go some way to making this a debate, but that's probably a triumph of hope over expectation.

We have covered single sex spaces over and over, so I'll take a rain check on that one, if you don't mind.

Refuges. Prisons. Sport. Crime stats. In law courts (i.e no woman who has been assaulted by a man having to use any word other than he) in sex segregated hospitals wards, etc etc. Its not requests its fighting for rights that were already existing for women.

Refuges are already subject to the law. You don't trustthat law so what else would you have done?
Prisosn have been dealt with.
Sports are a problem partiicularly as there are currently women (usually women of colour) who have been subjected to bans and discrimination on an unproved ruling about their hormone levels. How would you solve that?
Crime stats are recorded on a basis of sex- see my earlier post and a link.
Sex segregated hospitals would probably lead to women facing longer waiting lists than men because of their longevity. At present it is possible to change the sex allocation of a bay on a ward according to the numbers on waiting lists if this was changed then male wards might have empty beds and women's wards might be overcrowded. Is this a price you would want to pay? I'd rather have flexibility and the needs being met as closely as possible.

The legal case with regards to refuges in the next one Trisher. Happening this year I believe. It all has to be done via the legal system obviously that's how I would tackle it. It's no good saying prisons have been dealt with there are still transwomen in female prisons.
If you are talking about people with a dsd in terms of sport then as far as I am aware all conditions can be identified in terms of sex.
I didnt say sex segregated hospitals I said sex segregated hospital wards, so those that are already sex segregated (sorry I dont think I expressed that very clearly) I have particular concerns about mental health provision from some of the reports I have heard. Each reverting to sex in these issues is because of the work of much braver women than I am. That work keeps going.

I’m fascinated by the latest fashion in dismissive comments from some posters.
Everything will be OK,
real transwomen wouldn’t commit those crimes
So there you are
What’s the point of these little snippets?

Galaxy

The legal case with regards to refuges in the next one Trisher. Happening this year I believe. It all has to be done via the legal system obviously that's how I would tackle it. It's no good saying prisons have been dealt with there are still transwomen in female prisons.
If you are talking about people with a dsd in terms of sport then as far as I am aware all conditions can be identified in terms of sex.
I didnt say sex segregated hospitals I said sex segregated hospital wards, so those that are already sex segregated (sorry I dont think I expressed that very clearly) I have particular concerns about mental health provision from some of the reports I have heard. Each reverting to sex in these issues is because of the work of much braver women than I am. That work keeps going.

Galaxy I understand what you meant about hospitals but the fact remains that for elderly patients in particular sex segregated wards are not practical. My mum spent a considerable time in a large hospital ward which had allotted bays for men and women. The women far out numbered the men. If more spaces were needed for women it was a simple task to reassign a bay. There were about 4 of these wards. If 2 had been designated women and 2 for men then the waiting lists for women would be huge. If 3 were designated women and 1 for men the unfairness is obvious. The bays gave flexibility to a system stretched to capacity. I for one don't want to be waiting for treatment because an inflexible system can't accommodate me because of my gender.

Refuges are already subject to the law. You don't trustthat law so what else would you have done?
I think that is covered by the first answer in my post above. If there were a clear distinction between transwomen and women, transwomen would not be allowed in female refuges. They were set up by feminists who raised money to do so and often fought against prejudice against women who left abusive husbands, and they should, IMO, be able to continue to be there for women leaving men. If men need refuges (and I'm not denying that some do) they should set up their own, and those for some, men and transpeople should be separate.

Prisosn have been dealt with.
No, they haven't. As Galaxy points out, there are still men in women's jails, and plans for more trans cells may or may not come to fruition.

Sports are a problem partiicularly as there are currently women (usually women of colour) who have been subjected to bans and discrimination on an unproved ruling about their hormone levels. How would you solve that?
With better sex testing? I'm not a medical doctor, so I can't go into more detail, but if you look at Elegran's post upthread, you will see that it is possible to sex a 400 year old skeleton with accuracy, so it shouldn't be difficult to do so on a live athlete.

Crime stats are recorded on a basis of sex- see my earlier post and a link.
All of them? Many other stats are not, though, and accurate recording is very important to women.

Sex segregated hospitals would probably lead to women facing longer waiting lists than men because of their longevity. At present it is possible to change the sex allocation of a bay on a ward according to the numbers on waiting lists if this was changed then male wards might have empty beds and women's wards might be overcrowded. Is this a price you would want to pay? I'd rather have flexibility and the needs being met as closely as possible.
Fair point, but it would be easy enough to make female wards larger than male ones, particularly for conditions where there are more older people and the sex balance is greater. Or have more single rooms, or ones with smaller numbers of beds, so that it is easier to segregate by sex.

Sex segregated hospitals would probably lead to women facing longer waiting lists than men because of their longevity. At present it is possible to change the sex allocation of a bay on a ward according to the numbers on waiting lists if this was changed then male wards might have empty beds and women's wards might be overcrowded. Is this a price you would want to pay? I'd rather have flexibility and the needs being met as closely as possible.
Fair point, but it would be easy enough to make female wards larger than male ones, particularly for conditions where there are more older people and the sex balance is greater. Or have more single rooms, or ones with smaller numbers of beds, so that it is easier to segregate by sex
How many new hospitals will need to be built to accommodate these different wards? Hospitals wards are allocated on conditions anyway. For older people the biggest wards are the rehab ones where they are recovering after injury. Single rooms are used for patients who need barrier nursing or who are too ill to place on a ward. Bays hold 6 patients and are effectively small wards. They are connected by a long corridor-hallway which provides access for everyone.. It's a mixed ward but men and women are not next to each other.