The law as it stands on sex, Part 2

Galaxy

Because we can stop rapes in prisons by men ahainst women, completely and easily. Why would you not do that for those wonen Look at the offending rate in those statistics.

That's why there is a transgender unit opened . It's being dealt with. It's easy to deal with. The hatred and abuse spread by those pretending it isn't remains.

The vast majority of men don’t commit rape, but all rapists are men. For this reason, as well as for any other reason that women don’t want to be amongst men, they should not be in women’s spaces.

As transwomen are male, they can commit rape. For this reason, as well as for any other reason that women don’t want to be amongst men, they should not be in women’s spaces.

Nobody is picking on transwomen.

Doodledog

The vast majority of men don’t commit rape, but all rapists are men. For this reason, as well as for any other reason that women don’t want to be amongst men, they should not be in women’s spaces.

As transwomen are male, they can commit rape. For this reason, as well as for any other reason that women don’t want to be amongst men, they should not be in women’s spaces.

Nobody is picking on transwomen.

But if the issue is protecting women and reducing rape figures Doodledog will this really have any effect?
Isn't this in fact just an attempt to justify transphobia by pretending transwomen have any real responsibility for the rape figures.

No. It is protecting women from men, in the same way as all female spaces do.

Its being dealt with because of the work of fair play for women. They were called bigots etc etc as well. They ignored those slurs which is what I do. A full account of what they have achieved so far in relation to prisons and the ongoing work they are doing (as its far from solved) is available on their website.

trisher

If you haven't worked it out this means that over 80% of rapes are by a man known to the woman. It leaves 19% committed by someone they don't know, who may or may not be a transwoman, Even if the majority of the 19% involves a transwoman (and that is highly unlikely so lets say half) that means this is focussing on about at the most 10% of rapes. So even if you could lock up, castrate or otherwise deal with rapes by transwomen there would be little fall in the numbers of rapes. So forgive me if I think you are focussing on the wrong perpetrators and really doing very little to help women whilst simultaneously causing harm to transwomen.

But that brings us right back to the idea that you think it’s OK not to do anything about trying to prevent TW from having opportunity to rape because only a small number of women would suffer that way, compared with those raped by males not pretending to be something else.
I say pretending, because if they rape, they are doing that as MALES.
Bringing in the or penetration argument is another attempt to skew figures so not acceptable, unless you’re saying TW do other sorts of penetration besides rape, which makes it worse.

Have people looked at the statistics that varian has posted. Percentage of prison population

Yup! Almost 60% of trans women who are in prison are there because they have committed sexual offences. And, despite trisher's assurances that this is easily dealt with by sending them to a specially built trans gender unit the reality is that the offender can demand to be housed with women prisoners upon his conviction, until such time as a place is found for him in the one solitary transgender prison in the UK.

It is lawful for transgender women to be housed in female jails in England and Wales, the High Court has ruled.

The MoJ argued the policy pursued a legitimate aim, including "facilitating the rights of transgender people to live in and as their acquired gender (and) protecting transgender people's mental and physical health".

In a judgement handed down via email, Lord Justice Holroyde accepted the statistical evidence showed the proportion of trans prisoners convicted of sexual offences was "substantially higher" than for non-transgender men and women prisoners.

The unconditional introduction of a transgender woman into the general population of a women's prison carries a statistically greater risk of sexual assault upon non-transgender prisoners than would be the case if a non-transgender woman were introduced.

So there we have it; it's been proven and accepted that vulnerable women prisoners will be at greater risk when a trans woman (male) is housed with them but.... so what? The physical and mental health of the male offender is the first consideration and f**k the women who are confirmed as being at risk.

Galaxy

Its being dealt with because of the work of fair play for women. They were called bigots etc etc as well. They ignored those slurs which is what I do. A full account of what they have achieved so far in relation to prisons and the ongoing work they are doing (as its far from solved) is available on their website.

Fair Play for women was established in 2017. The firt transgender wing opened in 2019. It had been planned for 16 months before hand. So unless FPW was able to influence things before it was founded its influence was minimal. Good try though.
And no explanation of how this will stop the 81% of rapes committed by men known to women.

Chewbacca

^Have people looked at the statistics that varian has posted. Percentage of prison population^

Yup! Almost 60% of trans women who are in prison are there because they have committed sexual offences. And, despite trisher's assurances that this is easily dealt with by sending them to a specially built trans gender unit the reality is that the offender can demand to be housed with women prisoners upon his conviction, until such time as a place is found for him in the one solitary transgender prison in the UK.

It is lawful for transgender women to be housed in female jails in England and Wales, the High Court has ruled.

The MoJ argued the policy pursued a legitimate aim, including "facilitating the rights of transgender people to live in and as their acquired gender (and) protecting transgender people's mental and physical health".

In a judgement handed down via email, Lord Justice Holroyde accepted the statistical evidence showed the proportion of trans prisoners convicted of sexual offences was "substantially higher" than for non-transgender men and women prisoners.

The unconditional introduction of a transgender woman into the general population of a women's prison carries a statistically greater risk of sexual assault upon non-transgender prisoners than would be the case if a non-transgender woman were introduced.

So there we have it; it's been proven and accepted that vulnerable women prisoners will be at greater risk when a trans woman (male) is housed with them but.... so what? The physical and mental health of the male offender is the first consideration and f**k the women who are confirmed as being at risk.

Ammendment by Lord Blencathra www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2022-01-10a.877.0H
He deals quite reasonably with the difficulties involved for both women and trans prisoners.

The work of fair play for women and its impact on prison policy in this area is available on their website. The last court case was unsuccessful so still a lot of work to do.

If there are no males in women’s spaces, women won’t be raped by them in those spaces. Transwomen are male, so if none of them are in women’s spaces no women will be raped in those spaces by them, either. So, women will be safe from rape in safe spaces.

It’s very simple really.

I see. We are not to do anything to ensure that women are safe from any trans women who, having opted to keep their genitalia complete and not modify the hormones that operate on those genitalia but say that they are women, are then legally permitted to mingle freely with said women, even in situations where males are banned.

The reason for exposing them at a minimum to embarrassment and lack of privacy, and at a maximum to sexual harassment or worse is that they could face all those things from men who still say that they are men.

That link doesn't work, Trisher but I found the reference and quote it below.

Lord Blencathra:

Moved by Lord Blencathra

97ZA: After Clause 164, insert the following new Clause—“Sex-specific incarceration for offenders(1) Where a person who has undergone gender reassignment is serving a custodial sentence, that person is to be ordinarily treated with respect to housing on the prison estate by reference to their sex registered at birth.(2) Where a person who has undergone gender reassignment is remanded in custody on suspicion of committing an offence, that person is to be ordinarily treated with respect to housing on the prison estate by reference to their sex registered at birth.(3) Where the case-by-case assessment of a prisoner who has undergone gender reassignment determines that the prisoner should not be accommodated with prisoners of the same sex as registered at birth, separate accommodation must be provided to ensure that there is no access to or association with prisoners of the opposite sex as registered at birth.(4) This section applies whether or not the person has a gender recognition certificate.(5) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must ensure accommodation is available for the purposes of this section.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would provide that all prisoners should live in accommodation provided in consideration of both their sex registered at birth and their gender identity. Prisoners with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment will ordinarily be housed according to their sex as registered at birth. On a case-by-case basis, prisoners may be allocated to a specialist transgender unit, with no contact with prisoners whose sex registered at birth was the opposite of their own.

And this is a longer speech by Lord , putting his amendment into context. He talks a lot of sense.
www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2022-01-10a.877.0#g877.1

Baroness Fox's reply is also worth reading. Among other things, she says "I thought this amendment was a nuanced and sensitive way of dealing with all the objections raised by the MoJ at that teach-in, so I am rather disappointed that the Government have not accepted the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which is a bespoke amendment that protects women’s single-sex spaces while sympathetically and practically managing any challenges faced by transwomen prisoners."

by Lord Blencathra

Just got in so haven't had time to read through all the posts but do need to address the following.

Ref. your post @ 21.03 trisher. I did not say that your post @ 16.24 was confusing, I said it didn't make sense. I am not confused because I'm simple minded, far from it. I know when something doesn't make sense and that post didn't.

Not being simple minded, I do understand what inference means and am waiting for you to answer my question which is where someone has accused you of saying that rape is OK. You didn't say it had been inferred, you said it had been said.

This thread is about sex in the context of trans gender. It isn't about equality between a first world and third world country when it comes to sport. A man from a third world country identifying as a woman, and competing against any woman in sport, will always have the advantage by virtue of being a man.

From the Times
The cartoonists who lampooned the suffragettes only had two jokes. Either they drew a female head in some cruel device which trapped her tongue — if only! — or women were depicted at rallies, while back home husbands burnt supper and babies wept.

“At the suffragette meetings,” reads a caption of a cartoon where attendees are wrinkled, cross-eyed and blotchy, “you can hear some plain things and see them too.” Another shows an imaginary pub populated only by women, drinking, smoking, talking together, with, outrageously, not a man in sight.

Loose-tongued, unnatural women, too old to please the male eye, carousing, plotting. A witches’ coven, a monstrous regiment. Even today, women-only gatherings are treated as suspicious and self-indulgent. What are these bitches up to?

When JK Rowling hosted a River Café lunch last week she invited women who’d fought lonely battles for their gender-critical beliefs. Some were ostracised at work, even fired: academic Kathleen Stock, tax expert Maya Forstater, journalist Suzanne Moore, barrister Allison Bailey, Labour MP Rosie Duffield. Others were lesbian heretics who won’t bow to the gender transubstantiation that women can have penises.

Rowling chose them because great wealth brings privilege but also isolation. Who could understand how it feels to be trashed at the Oscars, erased from your billion-dollar franchise, receive constant death threats? Women who on a smaller scale had suffered the same.

So she gathered the sisterhood, fed them posh pasta and fizz, then posed in their drunken embrace. Not as JK but Jo. The photos went viral and so inevitably did criticism: that the butch lesbians looked manly; that they were dining “in chic spaces quaffing expensive wines”, as ex-ambassador Craig Murray complained; that their bodies were old.

Never, ever underestimate women’s power to organise. This is the political lesson since Maria Miller’s 2017 inquiry recommended that anyone should be allowed to change legal sex via self-declaration. Although this had significant implications for women’s services, sports, prisons, safety, privacy, Miller didn’t consult a single women’s organisation. How could that be?

Back then concerned women turned to their trade unions, progressive political parties, human rights organisations such as Liberty, Amnesty or PEN, to sporting bodies, think tanks, even women’s charities like the Fawcett Society. And every one turned its back. When women spoke out, then were bullied or lost work, civic society let them hang.

Women have since relearnt an ancient lesson: if we don’t defend our rights, no one else will. A policy analyst told me she’d read that trans prisoners including rapists were housed in Scottish women’s jails and wondered idly if an impact assessment had been conducted into the effect on female inmates. She checked. There had not.*
Puzzlement turned to concern and anger. Then she got organised, helping form the feminist policy analysis collective MurrayBlackburnMackenzie.


Gradually women realised they’d been looking the other way while lobby groups, especially Stonewall, were secretly urging government bodies, charities or businesses to redefine womanhood and strip our rights. They were easy to persuade: the default expectation is we must consider others’ feelings even at our own cost. Women were astonished that, for example, Girl Guides allowed male teenagers to self-identify into female overnight accommodation. Who signed that off?

Yet women had nowhere to debate these extraordinary changes. Many flooded Mumsnet, where left-wing men delving into the forums emerged, like anti-suffragette cartoonists, aghast that mothers weren’t talking about nappy rash or recipes, but their own rights. Imagine!

Then Woman’s Place was founded by left-wing trade unionists with the central pledge “nothing about us without us”, followed by Fair Play for Women, which aims to protect female sports, and latterly Sex Matters, a feminist think tank run by formidably clever women including Maya Forstater.

These organisations began at kitchen tables, staffed by volunteers via £20 personal donations. Yet they are defamed as far-right-funded, Christian fundamentalist, anti-abortion, bigoted, hateful. Woman’s Place meetings on issues such as childbirth or male violence are still aggressively picketed, so their venues are only revealed on the night. The first ones felt electrifying, samizdat. You had to remind yourself they were doing nothing more radical than upholding the 2010 Equality Act.

ADVERTISEMENT

Middle-aged women’s bodies may sag, but their will is of granite. Tenacious, with high boredom thresholds and a talent for cutting through bull, if they lose one battle, they reconfigure, crowdfund and start again. This is an accidental movement of women who’d rather devote their lives to progress but find themselves fighting to stop a backwards slide of rights.

They have vowed never to be caught napping again, so nothing will get past them, and as a political force gender-critical organisations are here to stay. Already the “if you don’t respect my sex you won’t get my X” local election campaign has made Labour leaders tone down their biology-denial, sensing they have lost women’s trust and thus can’t rely on their votes.

Nothing about us without us.
No kidding. Just this week Camden council, which spent £10,000 painting trans flag road crossings (despite warnings they endanger the visually impaired), is refusing to repair gents’ public lavatories so women must now share theirs with men. Meanwhile a non-binary male has cancelled his £15,000 sponsorship for the Women’s CiCLE Classic because British Cycling won’t permit a trans rider, Emily Bridges to participate.*
Do you really think women will simply let their loos and cycle race be lost without a fight? Deeds not words, as the suffragettes used to say.

Sadly, some women are still too blinkered to accept what is happening to natal women is wrong.
Too intent on their pursuit of the cause for male rights to see what the outcome will be.

Too willing to be ‘unkind’ to the very sex that they claim to be because they say, only a small percentage of natal women are harmed by TW males compared with the number harmed by non-TW males as if that makes it OK.

Too old to suffer the impact on their grandchildren and their grandchildren’s grand children and too smug to care, because they won’t be around to see it happen or to accept the blame for their actions when natal women and girls are endangered and disenfranchised, not only by men appearing as men, but by men purporting to be ‘women’ to cause that danger and disenfranchisement.

DD...your paragraph below, sums it up perfectly. ?

"The women who are most vocal now are largely left-leaning, older feminists, who on the one hand were mostly likely to be caring and nurturing types because of their socialisation and disposition, but on the other are most likely to have no f*cks left to give, because of age and weary experience."

You are right, but, luckily, many of us have bought up our daughters to take no sort of crap from men, whether it's abuse, suppression, aggression, or whatever, regardless of whether those biological men are wearing trousers or a dress.

I'm at a time of life where there is nothing anyone can cancel or disrupt, simply because they don't agree with me about what a woman is. I'm retired, not dependent financially on playing the TW game, and past caring about what they want, if it adversely affects the majority of biological women.

To be honest, I thought a lot of the fights about women's rights, and men not dictating the terms, had already been fought a few decades ago...I didn't think we'd be having to do it again.?

Nor did I think other biological women would be ok to see some female rights eroded, just so we can "be kind" to all men, regardless of their motives, when they decide to start identifying as women.?

You said it for me too Diamond

The Green Party are being sued, for "institutional sexism" after some non-TW supporter members claim they have been purged and blocked by "TERF" warnings added to software.

One ex-official says she has been assaulted twice:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10725149/Green-Party-sued-ex-official-claims-leaders-purged-members-questioned-trans-policy.html

This doesn't surprise me one bit Diamond; they've been throwing their TRA weight around for too long. They have been heavily influential in Scotland's trans reforms and it was the Scottish Greens who supported Mridul Wadwha, CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre when the furore of "rape victims must reframe their trauma" hit the headlines. The Green Party do not have women's safety and rights as a part of their manifesto.

Chewbacca

This doesn't surprise me one bit Diamond; they've been throwing their TRA weight around for too long. They have been heavily influential in Scotland's trans reforms and it was the Scottish Greens who supported Mridul Wadwha, CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre when the furore of "rape victims must reframe their trauma" hit the headlines. The Green Party do not have women's safety and rights as a part of their manifesto.

No, well, I wouldn't vote for them anyway. I'm just surprised that a political party, so low, usually, in the voting league, chooses to alienate such a wide group of people, such as biological women or men, who don't agree with the TW activists.

I would have thought they need all the votes they can get..

No, well, I wouldn't vote for them anyway. I'm just surprised that a political party, so low, usually, in the voting league, chooses to alienate such a wide group of people, such as biological women or men, who don't agree with the TW activists.

I would have thought they need all the votes they can get..

I’m not surprised really. If you know you won’t win, why not take the opportunity to do more harm and support those who intend harm to females?
I can see for example, how it would appeal to some.

I suppose so, I hadn't looked at it that way. I think Caroline Lucas is the only Green MP - I wonder what this will do to her vote at the next election ?

This is from the Spectator, 2018 but, in view of the news of impending court action today, it would seem that this particular leopard hasn't changed their spots:

Lucas leads a party that is deeply devoted to the orthodoxy of transgenderism and the unquestionable mantra that “transwomen are women”. So keen are Greens to embrace the right of people born male to be considered women if they say they are women that they sometimes seem to want to remove the word “women” from their vocabulary: “non-men” is the term some Greens use.

Yet Lucas is now on the pyre, facing online chastisement for crimes against transgenderism. She’s a Terf! Burn her!

It’s about some truly horrible sexual offences and the Greens’ woeful mishandling of the questions that arise from them. And it’s a story that says a great deal, none of it good, about the politics of the transgender “debate”.

Aimee Challenor was a prominent Green activist. She was the party’s spokesperson on equalities issues and a candidate for the party’s deputy leadership. Aimee Challenor was a Green candidate in the 2017 general election and the 2018 local government elections. In both elections, her election agent was her father, David “Baloo” Challenor.

David Challenor was last month convicted of torturing and raping a ten-year old girl in the attic of the family home. He was charged with those crimes in 2016. So Aimee Challenor was nominated for public office for the Green Party by a man awaiting trial for the most serious sexual offences against a child. (Read more about this here, if you want to.) Aimee Challenor was aware of her father’s arrest at the time she accepted his nomination; at least some Green Party officials knew too.

This has raised all sorts of questions for the Green Party. An independent inquiry has been promised, ahead of which lots of Green types seem to be busily deleting tweets and other online records referring to Aimee Challenor.

To summarise, then, a politician stood for public office knowing her election agent was awaiting trial for the rape and torture of a young girl. The politician also advocated a policy that some people fear could make it easier for sexual predators to get access to girls. How did the politician’s party respond when these things came to light? Here is Lucas in the Guardian last week:

“That Aimee Challenor is a trans woman should not be relevant here yet others have tried to make a connection. While we can all agree that what her father did was monstrous, the transphobia unleashed against her on social media is absolutely unacceptable.”

Now, some people might feel that trying to suggest some level of moral equivalence between the rape-torture of a ten-year-old child and being nasty to someone online is a pretty grotesque thing for anyone to do, let alone the leader of a supposedly national political party.

I make no comment on that, instead inviting readers to reflect on the extent to which Lucas was prepared to defend Aimee Challenor in the midst of this godawful horror show. The Green Party machine too went to some lengths to be nice to Aimee Challenor, stressing that while she was suspended, it was on a “no-fault” basis and generally trying to avoid even the suggestion of criticism.