Woman found guilty of raping two women. Remanded in custody for sentence end February

Thursday 18.41.36

Good post Doodledog

Galaxy Fri 03-Feb-23 08:19:04
Was I on the right side of history with puberty blockers and the tavistock then? Am I on the right side of history with male rapists in womens jails or is it perhaps more complex than slogans.

Doodledog Fri 03-Feb-23 10:04:37 No, and when people are being accused of not seeing complexity it is particularly ironic.

I’ll assume you are talking to Galaxy there, then Doodledog? The one that first brought up the idea that the complexity wasn’t being appreciated.

How ironic.

The figures for violent sexual assault are the last time I looked 97 % Male, of course some women bully etc, why would this mean we allow males into women spaces.

Hi Doodledog I think that the knotty resource question is actually central to many things we discuss here.

For example, although we will never budge those who choose to be totally hateful and aggressive in their case, I suspect there are a large group who, if they had had access to discussions, support, and so on, would feel happier about their individual paths and consequently their political paths.

Well ideally for the younger group, (under 18's) you'd have a multi agency approach but at the decision making end it has to be one agency.

One of the reasons I support self ID as things stand, is because of resources. If there were proper, supportive resources for a two year GRC certificate then I would see it differently. One of the big failings of the political narrative is that we don't focus on resources.

And by resources, btw, I include resources for trans women who are in need of shelter to be accommodated safely within women's resources without "Taking away" or being perceived as "taking away" from provision. And no, I dont think any shelter resources of any kind can be open to those (whatever gender) who threaten or seek to exploit, encourage hatred. A natal born women who arrived at a shelter and behaved in such as way is subject to the law like every one of us. and it does happen in womens prisons, certainly. Women rape other women, attack, bully.

Volver
The Nicola Sturgeon thing? Twisting her words. But I'm sure you'll say you're not and she's no longer a "trans ally". Maybe I'll join in again when you stop all being so bl**dy superior. (This, from the expert!🤣🤣)

Right now, I'm sick fed up of the whole lot of you.
Och, you’re sounding a wee bit thrawn this morning Volver dear.

Which words did I twist? Where have I said NS is or isn’t a ‘trans ally’?
I did say that she didn’t want to answer a particular question, but I watched her avoiding giving an answer and trying to divert the question to something she wanted to answer. I didn’t read someone else’s version of the story.
How is that twisting?

I completely agreed with the Tory PM who introduced the legislation around gay marriage, whilst many of his own party objected, so what?

Galaxy

Everything is reduced to 'sides' now, not just in this debate. If you think this you must think that, I am sure I have done it myself but it doesnt help.

No, and when people are being accused of not seeing complexity it is particularly ironic.

I am not on the side of the Tories (although I would be within my rights if I were - they are not a proscribed party), but that doesn't mean that I automatically write off anything that is said by someone whose views on other things are not in line with my own. Few of us are completely balanced on topics like this, but I do aim to at least listen to different points of view, and not write them off if I agree with them.

I think that EW talked a lot of sense on this topic last night. That doesn't mean that I support her views on other things, nor that I 'need to examine my life choices' - an idea which sounds vaguely threatening and totalitarian.

I dont think it can be a simple process though, it appears that when we are talking about children with gender dysphoria you are frequently dealing with a number of other factors, childhood trauma, autism in some cases, and so on. That would require a range of support I suspect.

Wyllow3

I am struck by one really important issue - unless you can afford to go private, there is such a paucity of resources for people of all ages, but particularly the young, there is virtually no access without impossibly long waits for the sort of counselling that will enable those in need to really properly talk things through and work out what's truly "right" for them.

The legal decision to limit what the Tavistock could do I agree with, but the ruling clearly said that resources should be made available for good decision making both for the individuals and those giving treatment. This has not happened. Cut backs on Mental Health have impacted heavily on gender services as well as other MH areas.

Personally I'd take the services out of MH as I'd rather see them not medicalised as "Mental Health" in terms of decision making, but this is a pretty moot discussion as the resources aren't there every which way.

Wyllow, that is a good point, and I fear it will get lost on this thread - maybe start a new one?

Who should get to make decisions about individuals? I think that the law should be in the business of protecting everyone, so things like single sex spaces are the responsibility of the government, but there are so many people invested in the lives of individuals that it should maybe be streamlined? Teachers, social workers, MH services, GPs and so on - all coming from different perspectives, and there is a confused person stuck in the middle. Would it be a good idea to have a simpler process? Or would that put too much power in one lot of hands, and it's better to have different agencies with different outlooks?

I'm not being very coherent as I am thinking aloud whilst preparing for a meeting, so won't start a thread myself, but it's an interesting point for debate.

Everything is reduced to 'sides' now, not just in this debate. If you think this you must think that, I am sure I have done it myself but it doesnt help.

If you are on the side of the Tories and of Ella Whelan, you really need to examine your life choices.

Was that to me? Show me where I said I was 'on the side' of anyone? This is not a playground scuffle.

Oh sorry am I not responding to those I disagree with appropriately. Am I supposed to say I am sick fed up of the whole lot of you is that the appropriate internet etiquette.

Aye, that's right Galaxy.

It's all just one big laugh and an opportunity to poke fun at those who disagree with you.

What japes.

Doodledog

volver

Perhaps it is more complex than "Robert Winston says you can't change sex so that's the end of it". Perhaps it's more complex than "Trans women should be sent to men's prison." Perhaps it's more complex than "You're not a real feminist".

Perhaps it's more complex than a lot of things you think are obvious. Perhaps you'll tell me you've never said any of those things. Perhaps you'll tell me I'm a destroyer of women's rights. Perhaps you'll never see how wrong you all are. Perhaps we should all just give up and leave you to it.

That's probably the best course of action, for sanity's sake.

A whole post of cliches there - well done! And anaphora too, with a tricolon thrown in for good measure . No substance though. Have you anything at all to add to this discussion? What do you think of NS's behaviour throughout the Isla Bryson case? I've been wondering about that, and haven't see you post your views.

As for the accusations of people missing the complexities - it's definitely more complex than 'the wrong side of history', 'in the wrong body', or 'the most marginalised group in society'. What do any of those things mean? Genuine question - any of them? Yet they are trotted out as though they are deep and meaningful 'truths' that make those who parrot them 'kind' and caring.

For me, the complexity comes from the fact that there are people involved in this (for want of a better word 'genuine' transpeople) who have, for whatever reason, joined the trend of believing that they will be happier 'living as' the opposite sex. This is not a debate for them. Their lives are being damaged by the behaviour of extremists, (arguably they were already damaged before they decided to 'transition') and those people are not being helped by any of this. I don't want those people, or the mixed up kids who are being 'affirmed' as trans as they grapple with the confusions of growing up, to be hurt. Yet if we insist that male/female is a matter of choice and trample over the rights of women we will all be hurt, IMO.

The whole postmodern truth-twisting is terrifying, and Trumpian.

Question Time last night was heartening, as the audience was clearly (and vocally) sick of hearing questions dodged and side-stepped (eg do you see the rapist at the centre of the debate as a man or a woman?), so that some of the panel could shift the discussion to one that suited their narrative. It was good to see people being allowed to express gender-critical views for a change, and Ella Whelan made a clear and uninterrupted point about the danger of forcing people to deny the evidence of their eyes. If we have to say things like 'she raped two women with her penis' where does it stop?

The past few years have been like living in a dystopian novel.

Show off.

Yes, you are right I'm sure because I have no idea what you are talking about, so you must be right, because obviously you have extensive knowledge of this topic. Because, after all. I'm just basing my point of view on the fact that I don't try in my own head to conflate puberty blockers with self ID, which, unfortunately, is what we're seeing across all the media at the moment. Trying to leverage some people's concern about children with giving other people some rights.

The Nicola Sturgeon thing? Twisting her words. But I'm sure you'll say you're not and she's no longer a "trans ally". Maybe I'll join in again when you stop all being so bl**dy superior. Right now, I'm sick fed up of the whole lot of you.

Which one of you was it in the yellow dress last night on BBCQT? You know, the one who said "why should society change when there are so few of you?"

If you are on the side of the Tories and of Ella Whelan, you really need to examine your life choices.

I am struck by one really important issue - unless you can afford to go private, there is such a paucity of resources for people of all ages, but particularly the young, there is virtually no access without impossibly long waits for the sort of counselling that will enable those in need to really properly talk things through and work out what's truly "right" for them.

The legal decision to limit what the Tavistock could do I agree with, but the ruling clearly said that resources should be made available for good decision making both for the individuals and those giving treatment. This has not happened. Cut backs on Mental Health have impacted heavily on gender services as well as other MH areas.

Personally I'd take the services out of MH as I'd rather see them not medicalised as "Mental Health" in terms of decision making, but this is a pretty moot discussion as the resources aren't there every which way.

volver

Perhaps it is more complex than "Robert Winston says you can't change sex so that's the end of it". Perhaps it's more complex than "Trans women should be sent to men's prison." Perhaps it's more complex than "You're not a real feminist".

Perhaps it's more complex than a lot of things you think are obvious. Perhaps you'll tell me you've never said any of those things. Perhaps you'll tell me I'm a destroyer of women's rights. Perhaps you'll never see how wrong you all are. Perhaps we should all just give up and leave you to it.

That's probably the best course of action, for sanity's sake.

A whole post of cliches there - well done! And anaphora too, with a tricolon thrown in for good measure . No substance though. Have you anything at all to add to this discussion? What do you think of NS's behaviour throughout the Isla Bryson case? I've been wondering about that, and haven't see you post your views.

As for the accusations of people missing the complexities - it's definitely more complex than 'the wrong side of history', 'in the wrong body', or 'the most marginalised group in society'. What do any of those things mean? Genuine question - any of them? Yet they are trotted out as though they are deep and meaningful 'truths' that make those who parrot them 'kind' and caring.

For me, the complexity comes from the fact that there are people involved in this (for want of a better word 'genuine' transpeople) who have, for whatever reason, joined the trend of believing that they will be happier 'living as' the opposite sex. This is not a debate for them. Their lives are being damaged by the behaviour of extremists, (arguably they were already damaged before they decided to 'transition') and those people are not being helped by any of this. I don't want those people, or the mixed up kids who are being 'affirmed' as trans as they grapple with the confusions of growing up, to be hurt. Yet if we insist that male/female is a matter of choice and trample over the rights of women we will all be hurt, IMO.

The whole postmodern truth-twisting is terrifying, and Trumpian.

Question Time last night was heartening, as the audience was clearly (and vocally) sick of hearing questions dodged and side-stepped (eg do you see the rapist at the centre of the debate as a man or a woman?), so that some of the panel could shift the discussion to one that suited their narrative. It was good to see people being allowed to express gender-critical views for a change, and Ella Whelan made a clear and uninterrupted point about the danger of forcing people to deny the evidence of their eyes. If we have to say things like 'she raped two women with her penis' where does it stop?

The past few years have been like living in a dystopian novel.

Now Rosie, (yesterday 23:15:49) you know very well that I have not given that impression, because you will find no evidence from any post I've ever made here to give it.

It would be totally against my nature to do so as well!

I hear your anger and frustration. Of course I have every sympathy for de-transitioners, why would I not?

Up to you volver obviously.

Perhaps it is more complex than "Robert Winston says you can't change sex so that's the end of it". Perhaps it's more complex than "Trans women should be sent to men's prison." Perhaps it's more complex than "You're not a real feminist".

Perhaps it's more complex than a lot of things you think are obvious. Perhaps you'll tell me you've never said any of those things. Perhaps you'll tell me I'm a destroyer of women's rights. Perhaps you'll never see how wrong you all are. Perhaps we should all just give up and leave you to it.

That's probably the best course of action, for sanity's sake.

Was I on the right side of history with puberty blockers and the tavistock then? Am I on the right side of history with male rapists in womens jails or is it perhaps more complex than slogans.

There seemed to be an implication that if we knew some transpeople that we would therefore change our views, but transpeople hold a range of views on this subject.
The wrong side of history, it just doesnt really look that way, many countries are backing away from social affirmation for children for example, so yes we will see.

Well nobody's said that, have they Galaxy? But like many other things in this debate you (plural) leap on a comment, twist it around and play the more thoughtful person, when what you're actually doing is misrepresenting the original commenter.

You're all on the wrong side of history and one day soon we'll all know that. Whether you all do, remains to be seen.

I just think believing all trans people hold the same view is quite weird.

Ah, but at least nobody's told you that you are on the side of the rapists yet. But they will, if you hang around for a while. Such a measured debate, this is...