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

Of course they can Trisher. The lies and pretence are part of the problem.
How do you think men who arent trans women are challenged if they go in a female only space. We dont test them whatever that means.

So how many times have you challenged a transwoman Galaxy?

My point about the law remains as well. If there are enough Gender Critical Feminists at anything they can say they will not attend if transwomen are there and legally the transwomen can be banned.
I just don't think there will ever be enough

I am not sure how many gender critical feminists there are in prisons or in individual refuges, it should not be up to women in vulnerable situations to have to respond in thst way. The strategies that feminists and of course those who support feminists have taken is via legal routes because that has the most impact. So a legal challenge with regard to refuges will have more impact than one individual challenge. It's why Maya s legal challenge had such an impact as it set a precedent for all employment.

I've realise why those who are criticising trans supporters have problems it is because this is a complex issue with many variations and it needs serious thinking about. So it is much easier to say men are this and women are that. Or transwomen aren't real women.
You’ve nailed it, trisher. We are all creatures of little brain, and only you can deal with complexity of thought.

I have consistently through all these ridiculous threads maintained my stance that no one should damage. hurt, abuse or inflict pain on another human being regardless of sex or gender.
Whereas we, of course, advocate out and out carnage.

I have never said sex segregation had no place I have often posted the law on that. I agree with that law. If sex was to determine other spaces there would be problems I don't want to see any system introduced for testing anyone's sex and I don't think anyone could distinguish between trans people and others without testing.
My small brain is now confused. As the only person on these ridiculous threads capable of rational thought, can you please explain how you reconcile your first point (that you agree that there is a place for laws on sex-segregation) with your last one, that sex-segregation is impossible without testing, and that testing is wrong?

Before you start with the ‘examination of genitals’ scenarios, (which would apparently be pointless anyway, bearing in mind that according to you genitals are not signifiers of gender difference, and that gender and sex miraculously conflate in the TWAW fantasy), how do you suggest that prison authorities test for sex difference in order to ensure that the sexes are segregated? (I’m assuming that we are working with two sexes here?) Maybe if we understood that, it would help? At least we’d have a working definition of what we can agree is meant by sex differences, which would be a start.

And absolutely, Galaxy. The notion that like-minded people (or people who have been defined by others as belonging to a particular group) should have to seek one another out (unlikely at best, but impossible under GDPR), count themselves, find out who else is going and see which group is larger, then inform the organisers of a boycott is insane. That the organisers should then find out how many transpeople had planned to attend, so they can be advised that their tickets are no longer valid is no less so. And is this seriously supposed to happen in a prison or refuge environment?

Doodledog wouldn't it be nice if instead of picking holes in others statements and/or deliberately misunderstanding them those who advocate changing the law as it now stands say what they actually want
It would also help if you stopped translating me stating clearly what I want, to dictating what you think. Try telling me what you think instead
As far as segregated spaces go there will be spaces where someone's personal circumstances will be examined before they are allowed in (it's called risk assessment) in those places a person with a GRC can be refused entry if it would stop other women using the facility. (How many times have I explained this on these threads?)
In other spaces if you want to segregate them you would need some other method unless you propose that everyone carries personal identity papers at all times, Something I would certainly oppose.
As I have said the law is there if as GRCFs allege lots of women are worried then mobilise and use it.
Personally I think most people know it's a load of cobblers and won't bother.

Er we have that's why the census recording was changed for example. I would think the changes in prisons are to do with the organised campaigning, oh along side those in the prison system saying 'have you lost your mind'. Its not whether lots of women are worried really it's about applying the law that already exists.

Way to go trisher!
Another convoluted post from you with no answer to my question.
The problem with sex and gender, is that for me, adult human females are women. So when I say woman, that is an adult human female. They may choose to be called women, they may say they’ve changed gender, but that doesn’t make them an adult human female. Ergo there is no confusion between sex and gender on my part and that doesn’t change if a TW is a ‘real’ TW or one of GJ’s pretend TW, or even if it’s a TW who because of doing something disgusting, you think should not be able to claim he’s a TW.
Since you posted On 31.12.21 @22:39 that you consider woman means anyone “*who wishes to be called a women*”
(problems with plurals dear?), unless that person does something disgusting with animals in which case you say that person can’t be a woman.
No wonder I’m confused.
Now, back to my question. If a TW who harms a dog should go in a male prison, do you think a TW who is convicted of harming women, should also go in a male prison?
A simple yes or no answer will do, but I’ve explained what I will understand by your answer to make it easier for you to choose.
Yes= you think TW who harm females should *NOT go in female prisons, but into male prisons unless transgender prisons are available.*
No= you think it’s right that TW convicted of harming females should go into female prisons unless transgender prisons are available.
No answer=Same as replying No
Please don’t waffle on about wanting people to be safe. It’s been pointed out on myriad occasions that some females (real women) don’t feel safe in close contact with males, especially those males who have been convicted of abuse, rape or other harm of females.

Correction on line 6 ‘They may choose’ should have read TW may choose.

Mollygo I choose not to enter into a dialogue with anyone who criticises anyones grammar/punctuation/spelling on these threads. It is (as I think you graphically illustrated) so easy to make a slip or typo and there are also people who are dyslexic or for whom English is not their natural language. Choosing to highlight these things only shows how desperate some people get.

Galaxy

Er we have that's why the census recording was changed for example. I would think the changes in prisons are to do with the organised campaigning, oh along side those in the prison system saying 'have you lost your mind'. Its not whether lots of women are worried really it's about applying the law that already exists.

So things are being dealt with under the present law Galaxy the question remains what else do you want

Some are being dealt with under the law only because of the campaigning. There are laws regarding rape the prosecution of which are woeful so women and others campaign to improve that. I am much clearer of how to proceed with regard to sex segregation than I am for example of improving the prosecution of rapes, nobody has all the answers to every issue.

Doodledog wouldn't it be nice if instead of picking holes in others statements and/or deliberately misunderstanding them those who advocate changing the law as it now stands say what they actually want
Do you mean me? If so, why not just say so?
I'm not deliberately misunderstanding - many of your posts are contradictory and wander odd into diversions.

It would also help if you stopped translating me stating clearly what I want, to dictating what you think. Try telling me what you think instead
I have 'translated' your words in the hope of better understanding them. Is that dictating what I think? If so, how does that differ from telling you what I think, which I (and others) have done many times. I don't understand how someone can dictate what they think, but I guess that's a relatively minor point?

As far as segregated spaces go there will be spaces where someone's personal circumstances will be examined before they are allowed in (it's called risk assessment) in those places a person with a GRC can be refused entry if it would stop other women using the facility. (How many times have I explained this on these threads?)
But that requires paperwork, which you oppose, and anyway, if someone is asked at the door if they have a GRC, all they have to do is say no. Unless you want it backed up with search warrants and so on (by which time the event would probably be over)?

In other spaces if you want to segregate them you would need some other method unless you propose that everyone carries personal identity papers at all times, Something I would certainly oppose.
See above. But this is entirely academic, as I am not arguing for segregation at events. The notion that so-called gender-critical feminists would want to mobilise to ban people from music festivals or whatever is bonkers, and exists only in your mind. Incidentally, I note that you have further added to your pigeon-holing of those who don't agree that TWAW by adding an 'R' - for 'Radical', I assume? I thought you were in favour of letting people define themselves? Or does this apply selectively?

*As I have said the law is there if as GRCFs allege lots of women are worried then mobilise and use it.
Personally I think most people know it's a load of cobblers and won't bother.*
Oh, it's a load of cobblers alright. As you know, there is confusion about the law. Yes, it exists, but unless enough people are aware of it, it may as well not do. As for exhortations to mobilisation - not everyone is up for a confrontation every time they feel uneasy, and that's ok. Anyway, as has been said over and over, there is no need. All that is necessary is an acceptance that transpeople are transpeople - no transubstantiation necessary. TPATP. As such, they are entitled to the same rights and respect as any citizen, but they are also expected to accept the same responsibilities as everyone else, and that includes respecting sex-based conventions and legalities. Persistent refusal to bugger off out of places where women are naked is illegal for non-transitioned men, so it should also be illegal for transitioned ones - that sort of thing. It's really not difficult.

As far as segregated spaces go there will be spaces where someone's personal circumstances will be examined before they are allowed in (it's called risk assessment) in those places a person with a GRC can be refused entry if it would stop other women using the facility. (How many times have I explained this on these threads?)
But that requires paperwork, which you oppose, and anyway, if someone is asked at the door if they have a GRC, all they have to do is say no. Unless you want it backed up with search warrants and so on (by which time the event would probably be over)?
Honestly Doodledofg do you and Molygo deliberately post misinformation because your cause is so obviously unfounded.
We had a long convoluted thread about women's refuges when I said that everyone entering was and had to be risk assessed and I trusted the staff to do it. And you told me you didn't trust the staff. How on earth is that being Opposed to paperwork ?

As I said before stop telling me what I think and post your own ideas.

Galaxy I agree entirely about rape but once again it isn't relevant to transwomen. It's a whole legal nightmare. I'm currentlylistening to a BBC podcast about N. Irish law and rape. It's called Assume Nothing^-^Rape Trial. harrowing listening but well worth it. Listening to how the woman involved was treated in court is horrific. (2018)

No I dont mean its linked to transwomen I just mean that women campaign about it even though laws are already in place to make rape illegal. So women campaign about sex segregated spaces because the implementation of the law is failing women in this area.

Doodledog I note that you have further added to your pigeon-holing of those who don't agree that TWAW by adding an 'R' - for 'Radical', I assume? Oh I assumed it stood for 'realist' or some other word with 'real' as it's root.

trisher have you listened to the Stephen Nolan podcast series on Stonewall? I know you didn't seem to be aware just how far-reaching their influence was, happily now waning to some degree.

I haven't listened to the podcast you mention but will add it to my list. Surely rape is also a concern for TW who can rape if they retain their penis or be raped whether or not they do.

Well trisher, that would save you answering my question if I hadn’t given you the option of no answer. I didn’t know you had claimed to be dyslexic or Chinese so if you are I’m truly sorry. I’m still glad you chose no answer.

there are also people who are dyslexic or for whom English is not their natural language.

Which is precisely why mangling the English language with phrases such as ‘chest-feeding’ and ‘cervix/prostate-havers’ is wrong. If anyone cares to look up the definition of havers, it means to talk foolishly or to vacillate about something.

maddyone

It doesn’t matter what she calls herself, in order to be female she must have two XX chromosomes. In order to be male there must be an X and a Y chromosomes. No one can change sex, but they can choose to live as the opposite sex. It’s a fact.

Given her crime, I think she should serve her time in a male prison.

Perfect. Simple, straight to the point. Exactly.

GagaJo

MerylStreep

Chewbacca

NOTHING to do with trans, whatever bile spews out of his mouth.

But how can that be so gagajo when, using your logic, anyone can be anything they say they are? And he says he's a woman. Ipso facto a transwoman. Your posts keep conflicting each other and are becoming illogical

As I said earlier: start pulling the threads and all starts to fall apart ?.

If you want to believe a person that rapes children and animals, your standards are somewhat different to mine.

gagajo
I’m afraid your somewhat confused by my post.
I was replying to Chewbacca who said
your posts keep conflicting and are becoming illogical
Hence my reply which meant your argument is falling apart.

It seems the only arguments presented by those on this hread are your argument isn't valid or you said which to my mind shows the absolute vacuum whichis at the heartof all this "transpeople can't be" nonsense. That actually no one knows what they want they just want to criticise others.

Mollygo I don't need to be dyslexic or Chinese to support those who have problems with the written language. Part of that support is never to accept criticism like yours. If you only support issues which affect you personally you have my sympathy, being so narrow minded must be dreadful.

Galaxy I have no problem with women campaigning about issues providing they do so without demonising or accusing any specific group of people. So when advocating change in rape law I wouldn't expect to be told "All men are rapists"
And when advocating change in the transgender laws "All transwomen are dangerous"

Doodledog

trisher

Doodledog None of it is theory Betty Cook is there and she has written a book, Many of the papers are with the LSE. It's called evidence. I still don't understand why you think it wasn't feminist. Of course every woman wasn't but the movement was.
Apparently it's rude of me to question your level of involvement but OK for you to call me not very bright. Mmm double standards?
Who is judging what is detrimental to women? I think Margaret Thatcher set the cause of feminism back, but many think her being the first woman PM was a victory for women.

If I wrote a book about my own experiences would it be evidence?

It is rude of you to say that I didn't understand (ie don't agree with you) about what was going on when I was there and you weren't, and the number of times I have had to say that not everything feminists do is feminist, when other posters completely understand, doesn't suggest that you are grasping what I am saying. You are not simply disagreeing with me, you are saying that I don't know what I am talking about, which is rude, yes. It would only be double standards if we were behaving like for like, which is not the case.

Spell it out for me? 'Of course every woman wasn't feminist', and the 'movement' was in support of men who were losing their jobs? Is the only thing that made it a feminist movement the fact that someone at LSE has written a paper about it? Or is it because you see it as A Good Thing, and all good things are feminist by definition?

I know that you basically 'fire' women from the feminist movement if they disagree with you (or you give them an historical title that someone else has coined), so was MT feminist? She certainly changed some of the dynamics in old mining communities. Many of the men never worked again. Their wives became breadwinners, and their daughters didn't grow up thinking that a man would provide for them. That is arguably a boost to feminism. Or is it that MT wasn't a feminist, but one of the results of her policies was?

I don't see feminism as something that happens to us. It is a way of thinking that foregrounds women, or at least sees them as equal to men. Some people live their own lives by that philosophy, and others push for rights to be afforded to others. The things that people have fought for over the years have changed in line with what has been achieved, and with societal developments, but the thinking remains the same.

What you describe is more like philanthropy - people of both sexes working to make life better for everyone. A laudable aim, and one from which women can benefit, but not feminism.

I’m with you, and I admire your perseverance. ?

I have, over a lot of years, supported many causes, which I believed in, but I’m certainly not a flag waving feminist.

I think that people should be treated equally, or fairly, but enforcing one set of rights should not involve trampling all over other people’s rights.

As for the pervert at the start of this thread, s/he could have protected themselves against being in the wrong sort of prison - just by not sexually assaulting dogs or downloading child pornography..

Just as an aside, and or a deviation and I know some people really like those, today at 12.39 I’m sure I read that someone doesn’t choose to enter a dialogue with me.
I’m therefore puzzled to find my name from this poster in her posts further down.
Does ‘not choosing to enter a dialogue with someone’ mean you can say what you like about someone and not have to worry about their responses?