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

Would be extremely beneficial to the Labour Party if Keir Starmer did so too, providing of course that he can say what a woman is.

Galaxy

I think lisa nandy will be reverse ferreting as fast as she can, that's from a previous case isnt it? both Yvette cooper and David blunkett have spoken out in the last couple of days.

Yep. I'll be interested to see if David Lammy suddenly remembers his biology lessons, too.

I think lisa nandy will be reverse ferreting as fast as she can, that's from a previous case isnt it? both Yvette cooper and David blunkett have spoken out in the last couple of days.

Heaven help women if Labour ever get into power GrannyGravy.

The issue being discussed on this thread is to do with a man found guilty of raping two women, initially being housed in woman's prison because he now self ID's as a woman. I can't see what criminals have(ing) the same rights as the rest of us has to do with it.

Especially when in this particular case, the criminal was asking for 'rights' that fly in the face of women to have their spaces, a woman's prison in this case, free of men as inmates.

VioletSky

That's not really shown out in discussion as a principle though

A large part of the issue is that criminals have the same rights as the rest of us

Whether that is right or wrong isn't the fault of trans people

If it were my choice I'd say violations of other humans remove human rights. How can it remove the right to literal freedom but not a whole host of other rights?

I think we are getting that wrong

Add in if all prisoners deserve the removal of other rights.. I can see how it's difficult

Thank goodness I'm not in charge of these things

This is pretty much what I was saying upthread, about drug addicts/acoholics who are forced to go without, people not having a sex life, and mothers who have to leave their babies etc. When I said it it was countered with 'whatever you want/need, doodledog', but then you say the same thing a bit later, as though it is something you've just considered.

It's not about point scoring, and of course there is no reason why we can't agree on anything; but what is so annoying is that you set yourself against the rest of us, saying that you are the one who has to tell us how ridiculous we are, and that you can't apologise on behalf of transpeople when nobody asked you to, and generally working from the assumption that you know more and are coming from a higher place than everyone else.

At no point do you appear to recognise that often you counter something in a fact-based post by using exactly the same reasoning, such as when we say that it is a worry that some men will fake being trans to get access to women. Can you really not see that when you argue against that by saying that anyone accessing women's spaces dishonestly is a fake transwoman, it is the same thing? And can you not see how annoying that is?

I have not got a political party representative of my views. Cannot vote for the Conservatives and whilst this is Labour’s stance never will they see my X next to them on the ballot paper.

Thank you Dickens for your answer. I would think that in a court case it would be essential to use the full legal name, otherwise it would be difficult to track previous history.
The news reports I have read do include this man's name and also his alias.

His estranged wife laughed herself silly and said it was just a sham. He also enrolled on a beauty course as a woman. The young women who were on that course now feel violated as they had to strip down to apply fake tan in front of his ogling.

This man has done genuine trans women a serious mis service.

OK Mollygo

VS
That's not really shown out in discussion as a principle though
What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Your last post seems to be another avoidance tactic VS,
though I appreciate and agree with your last sentence. 🤣🤣🤣

That's not really shown out in discussion as a principle though

A large part of the issue is that criminals have the same rights as the rest of us

Whether that is right or wrong isn't the fault of trans people

If it were my choice I'd say violations of other humans remove human rights. How can it remove the right to literal freedom but not a whole host of other rights?

I think we are getting that wrong

Add in if all prisoners deserve the removal of other rights.. I can see how it's difficult

Thank goodness I'm not in charge of these things

VS
If you want to put solution based discussion aside and simply discuss whether we accept trans women as women, I'd assume after all this time we know we aren't changing stance.

I accept that you realise you have no solution.

I’m happy to discuss whether we accept transwomen as females.

The appellation Women has been turned by some into a generalised word, like children, so saying a man can call himself a woman doesn’t really mean anything, except where it’s used to imply men can change sex or to perpetuate wrongdoing by males.

That’s my basis for an honest discussion.

Exactly

People ask me why I don't consider a rapist a genuine trans women and want explanations

I haven't got one that isn't feeling based

But maybe that's not the right question anyway

Do I see a rapist as a man or even a human?

No, I see them as more akin to animals

That's the core of the disagreement VS.

It's a discussion, this isn't a point scoring debate and I don't have all the answers

There are a lot of issues I agree are issues but my agreement is taken from me or ignored based on my accepting trans women are women

That's unfair

If you want to put solution based discussion aside and simply discuss whether we accept trans women as women, I'd assume after all this time we know we aren't changing stance

eazybee

Could someone please clarify if the man convicted of two rapes has changed his name legally from Adam Graham to Isla Bryson, by deed poll? I do not mean by use of the self-identification policy, 'because that is how he chooses to identify'. He has not legally changed gender, although he is seeking surgery for gender re-assignment.

I changed my name (a bit of it anyway) by Deed Poll, but was assured that it's not legally necessary by the Notary that did it. All you need do is inform the necessary authorities that you have chosen to be called xxx.

However, doing it by DP does make life easier - especially when applying for a passport - which is why I did it.

Maybe the Law has changed? I don't know - this was back in the 80s.

VS

I'm not requesting anything apart from honest respectful discussion

Any polite, respectful discussion which points this out (and there have been many instances of such points being raised) is dismissed by some posters as being anti ALL trans.
There cannot be a polite respectful discussion whilst that claim, which is a falsehood, is used as a shut down.

Please add to the honest, respectful discussion how you imagine, after all the damage done by the small group of ‘fake’ trans, that this is possible.

VS I'm sorry but I can't.

Exactly.

Always agree with all your posts on this subject Doodledog.
This person is a man because he is intact and has used his intact penis to violate women.

VioletSky

Why would I say I wouldn't expect you to apologise for or denounce hate speech against trans people otherwise doodledog?

I doubt you accept people like that as GC even should they call themselves that

Sorry but that doesn't make sense. I am just trying to see whether we do, in fact, agree in our approach to transpeople. I spelt out what I would like to see happen, and wondered what, if anything, you would object to.

I have nothing to apologise for - I have never issued death threats or hate speech.and neither have I asked you to apologise on behalf of transpeople. Did anyone, or have you taken that upon yourself?

And they should be recorded under his legal name.

Even if these crimes had been committed when he was identifying as a woman, they should be recorded accurately as a man's crime.

Sorry- meant to include this

This felon who violated two women with his penis, declares he's now a woman, and rocks up in a blond wig, a bit of 'lippy', wearing a pink puffer jacket and sporting a pink handbag. Is this whatwomanhood is reduced to ?

Not forgetting the very obvious "bits" in his leggings
I am reminded of this anecdote

When a male dancer in Coward's London revue Sigh No More forgot to wear the proper support, Noel said to the choreographer: "For God's sake, go and tell that young man to take that Rockingham tea service out of his tights "

Could someone please clarify if the man convicted of two rapes has changed his name legally from Adam Graham to Isla Bryson, by deed poll? I do not mean by use of the self-identification policy, 'because that is how he chooses to identify'. He has not legally changed gender, although he is seeking surgery for gender re-assignment.

Why would I say I wouldn't expect you to apologise for or denounce hate speech against trans people otherwise doodledog?

I doubt you accept people like that as GC even should they call themselves that