Transgender rapist to be moved from women's prison

[king canary 7,681]

11 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

I have to disagree Ricardo. To be clear, I don’t disagree with a lot of the content but the big problem is the way this debate is generally conducted. I understand that the author is angry, and I understand why. But telling everyone they disagree with to go f*ck themselves just perpetuates the them and us, you’re either with us or against us nature of the debate.

I personally have felt uncomfortable with the place my views have put me. To be frank, I have often wondered whether I have become the modern equivalent of the racist grandad who used to sit in the corner muttering about w*** and p****. In other words, have my opinions become out of date and I’m incapable of recognising that society has moved on? I frequently find myself in opposition to those whose political views I generally agree with and allied with those those who I have stood against all my life. So I try to examine and test my beliefs but they persist. I would like to have a reasoned, rational debate but the inflamed nature of much of the dialogue, as with the article you linked to, makes that difficult.

The only way we’re going to move this debate onwards is by listening to each other and trying to understand differing points of view.

 

This is a really interesting post because the part in bold is exactly where I've found myself on this particular issue.

I'm a dyed in the wool lefty who should by rights be on the 'trans women are women' bandwagon. All my highly political left wing friends are and I find myself at odds regularly with people I trust, respect and usually agree with. This means I'm constantly examining my own view as I feel like I've ended up in the wrong church so to speak. 

Yet the more I dive in the more I'm convinced I'm correct on this. There is stuff that seems so mind meltingly obvious that I can't understand why otherwise sensible people can't see it. Male rapists don't belong in women's prisons, biological sex is real and not a social construct, lesbians aren't bigots for not wanting to sleep with people with penises and allowing trans-women to compete in female sports is obviously unfair on women. I genuinely can't see how any of this is controversial yet apparently to quite a few people it is.

I'd also say that the tenor of the debate has moved so far past the 'lets all be reasonable' stage and I don't know how it comes back. It was truly eye opening to me to read the reactions to JK Rowling's essay about why she held her views on sex and gender. To me the essay was sympathetic, well written and showed genuine concern for the rights and lives of trans people but those who disagreed were claiming she was anything from a hateful bigot to actively advocating genocide. It is completely unhinged at times.

[TheGunnShow 6,027]

18 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

We're supposed to believe there's widespread support for this in society? I have friends heavily involved in LGBTQ topics that draw back from the way JK Rowling and others have been roundly abused for championing the arguments against taking things to these extremes.

There are massive contradictions in the whole ideology over changing norms on gender. On the one hand, gender is pushed as distinct from physical sex and should be accepted as such (no problem with that), but on the other hand if a prepubescent child gets the idea that maybe they should be the other sex (how do we know whether the idea originates with them or with someone planting the idea in them?) then they're put on a conveyor belt of puberty blockers, potentially followed by hormone treatment and major surgery to replace their functional sexual organs with the best fake, unfunctional clits, tackle, and boobs that money can buy.

There are children who have had this done and regret it, but have no way of undoing the damage done to them by medical professionals for the sake of the ideas of a radical group pushing an idea that I've not seen much evidence that all of even transgender people support, let alone wider society.

Transgender people should enjoy the same protections from harm and harrassment as anyone else and be treated with respect as individuals. That should go without saying. I question the idea whether these ideas are significantly reducing any 'suffering' of trans people while also creating a lot of wider upset.

I wonder where this idea actually originated, because its actually really easy to plant any ridiculous idea and have someone latch onto it and push it hard with massive negative social consequences. Indeed, trans people, a tiny minority of society, were of little interest to anyone before this whole controversy was whipped up; who's to say that the whipping up of crazy ideas like this in the first place isn't the culture war baiting stoking up social division and actually promoting the persecution of LGBT people in the West? I can think of one malevolent influence just East of Ukraine with a record of persecuting LGBTQ people that might encourage that sort of thing.

 

What proportion of kids regret this? And if you want cases of children/adolescents doing things they regret, I suspect having kids will also be a similar source of regret. Literally everything you said there about potential influence could be said about the nuclear family set-up.

Do girls naturally want to be mothers, or does someone plant that idea in them? Do boys naturally want to be providers, or does someone plant that idea in them too? I'm pretty certain that's caused infinitely more damage over the last fifty years.

Edited February 1, 2023 by TheGunnShow

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

7 minutes ago, king canary said:

This is a really interesting post because the part in bold is exactly where I've found myself on this particular issue.

I'm a dyed in the wool lefty who should by rights be on the 'trans women are women' bandwagon. All my highly political left wing friends are and I find myself at odds regularly with people I trust, respect and usually agree with. This means I'm constantly examining my own view as I feel like I've ended up in the wrong church so to speak. 

Yet the more I dive in the more I'm convinced I'm correct on this. There is stuff that seems so mind meltingly obvious that I can't understand why otherwise sensible people can't see it. Male rapists don't belong in women's prisons, biological sex is real and not a social construct, lesbians aren't bigots for not wanting to sleep with people with penises and allowing trans-women to compete in female sports is obviously unfair on women. I genuinely can't see how any of this is controversial yet apparently to quite a few people it is.

I'd also say that the tenor of the debate has moved so far past the 'lets all be reasonable' stage and I don't know how it comes back. It was truly eye opening to me to read the reactions to JK Rowling's essay about why she held her views on sex and gender. To me the essay was sympathetic, well written and showed genuine concern for the rights and lives of trans people but those who disagreed were claiming she was anything from a hateful bigot to actively advocating genocide. It is completely unhinged at times.

Younger minds are by nature more open to suggestion than older minds and therefore open to accepting many ideas unquestioningly. That doesn't mean every new idea they're subjected to is good. Just look at some of the prepubescent soldiers carrying Kalashnikovs in various wars in Africa.

Yours and Nuff said's views are totally legitimate and reasonable; you support principles of no harm and raise legitimate problems with the new ideas being pushed. That makes the people who attacked JK Rowling and others who support her view the bigots. Their intent is to make reasonable people doubt their own judgement, which you are doing.

[king canary 7,681]

2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

What proportion of kids regret this? And if you want cases of children/adolescents doing things they regret, I suspect having kids will also be a similar source of regret. Literally everything you said there about potential influence could be said about the nuclear family set-up.

Do girls naturally want to be mothers, or does someone plant that idea in them? Do boys naturally want to be providers, or does someone plant that idea in them too? I'm pretty certain that's caused infinitely more damage over the last fifty years.

Your ability to crowbar this issue into every possible discussion is almost impressive.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

What proportion of kids regret this? And if you want cases of children/adolescents doing things they regret, I suspect having kids will also be a similar source of regret. Literally everything you said there about potential influence could be said about the nuclear family set-up.

Do girls naturally want to be mothers, or does someone plant that idea in them? Do boys naturally want to be providers, or does someone plant that idea in them too?

Even one child that regrets it makes it a case of the medical profession having conducted elective surgery that has caused permanent harm, psychological and physical, which ethically should rule it out. And it's more than one who have had issues with what they've had done to them afterwards.

Yes, most girls naturally want to be mothers. It's literally driven by hormones and chemicals in the brain put there by evolution to encourage procreation. That's not to say there's anything wrong with those that don't.

 

[TheGunnShow 6,027]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Even one child that regrets it makes it a case of the medical profession having conducted elective surgery that has caused permanent harm, psychological and physical, which ethically should rule it out. And it's more than one who have had issues with what they've had done to them afterwards.

Yes, most girls naturally want to be mothers. It's literally driven by hormones and chemicals in the brain put there by evolution to encourage procreation. That's not to say there's anything wrong with those that don't.

 

Then we can start being much more stringent on teenage pregnancies then. I don't dispute that some transitioners regret it and have permanent harm resulting from it. There's still, as you'd expect from a nascent field, a lack of consistency in studies and the statistics arising from them. However, if you're going to use that as a major criterion then teenage / young pregnancies will have been an infinitely larger source of permanent psychological and physical harm.

I'll accept the ethical argument here in essence, but I'd like to see consistency.

[king canary 7,681]

8 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Then we can start being much more stringent on teenage pregnancies then. I don't dispute that some transitioners regret it and have permanent harm resulting from it. There's still, as you'd expect from a nascent field, a lack of consistency in studies and the statistics arising from them. However, if you're going to use that as a major criterion then teenage / young pregnancies will have been an infinitely larger source of permanent psychological and physical harm.

I'll accept the ethical argument here in essence, but I'd like to see consistency.

What in the world does 'more stringent on teenage pregnancies' mean? Enforced terminations? How are these issues remotely equivalent? 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

18 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Then we can start being much more stringent on teenage pregnancies then. I don't dispute that some transitioners regret it and have permanent harm resulting from it. There's still, as you'd expect from a nascent field, a lack of consistency in studies and the statistics arising from them. However, if you're going to use that as a major criterion then teenage / young pregnancies will have been an infinitely larger source of permanent psychological and physical harm.

I'll accept the ethical argument here in essence, but I'd like to see consistency.

How does society do that? Prevent kids of different sexes mixing? Force all girls to have a chaperone? Forced chemical castration? Compulsory abortion? Strikes me as a lot of intervention going on there worthy of debate as to what extent it infringes civil liberties. What we do already is the best thing: Try and educate kids, including boys, about the risks to their future of getting pregnant too early. Teenage pregnancy comes down to individual choices; gender reassignment surgery comes down to medical professionals making a decision to intervene based on the feelings of a child. If an adult chooses gender reassignment then that should be their right, but in the case of child the responsibility lies with those around them.

It's a nascent field and an unnecessary field to boot. This sort of plastic surgery has no value other than a supposed psychological value and a demonstrable physical harm. Additionally, the claimed necessity for purely psychological needs of the subject goes completely against the idea that gender should be unbundled from sex in society.

Edited February 1, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 6,027]

6 minutes ago, king canary said:

What in the world does 'more stringent on teenage pregnancies' mean? Enforced terminations? How are these issues remotely equivalent? 

We're talking about physical and psychological harm caused. If you're going to understandably question transitions/transgender affairs on this basis, then why not look at all sources of such harm? And that's what I mean by being "more stringent on teenage pregnancies". There seems to be more heat on transgender matters in public discussion, even though I'll guarantee you teenage pregnancies cause far more of the harm in question.

 

7 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

How does society do that? Prevent kids of different sexes mixing? Force all girls to have a male chaperone? Forced chemical castration? Compulsory abortion? Strikes me as a lot of intervention going on there worthy of debate as to what extent it infringes civil liberties. What we do already is the best thing: Try and educate kids, including boys, about the risks to their future of getting pregnant too early. Teenage pregnancy comes down to individual choices; gender reassignment surgery comes down to medical professionals making a decision to intervene based on the feelings of a child. If an adult chooses gender reassignment then that should be their right, but in the case of child the responsibility lies with those around them.

It's a nascent field and an unnecessary field to boot. This sort of plastic surgery has no value other than a supposed psychological value and a demonstrable physical harm. Additionally, the claimed necessity for purely psychological needs of the subject goes completely against the idea that gender should be unbundled from sex in society.

Agree that there's too much scope for intervention but re. the bit in bold, I'll argue we probably need to go full Dutch here and start sex education very early - our sex education has lagged well behind the rest of Western Europe for years, and if the Dutch are any guide, it might even considerably lower the number of abortions that take place so you'd think that might get a fair bit of more conservative buy-in.

Why The Netherlands' Sex Ed System Works - ATTN:

Also agree that doing this surgery on a child is the line in the sand where even I think "hmmm, I think that goes a bit too far as kids are still discovering their personalities".

[king canary 7,681]

18 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

If you're going to understandably question transitions/transgender affairs on this basis, then why not look at all sources of such harm?

Because different sources of harm often require different actions and strategies to combat? 'If you're discussing this then you should also be discussing this' is basically just whataboutery at this point. You've clearly got your personal hobby horses and while they may be interesting they are also largely unrelated to the topic at hand.

[TheGunnShow 6,027]

4 minutes ago, king canary said:

Because different sources of harm often require different actions and strategies to combat? 'If you're discussing this then you should also be discussing this' is basically just whataboutery at this point. You've clearly got your personal hobby horses and while they may be interesting they are also largely unrelated to the topic at hand.

Sure, but if the topic at hand is a miniscule source of such pain and issues and avoidance of such is a basis of discussion, why not point out far more prolific sources of such too? I agree that different actions and strategies - may - be needed, but by definition when you're talking about actions and strategies you're looking at responses to a stimulus.

I'm simply saying, let's see if there's an underlying cause first that eases matters for many more than just that small group.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

38 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Sure, but if the topic at hand is a miniscule source of such pain and issues and avoidance of such is a basis of discussion, why not point out far more prolific sources of such too? I agree that different actions and strategies - may - be needed, but by definition when you're talking about actions and strategies you're looking at responses to a stimulus.

I'm simply saying, let's see if there's an underlying cause first that eases matters for many more than just that small group.

How many people affected shouldn't be relevant here. What proportion of society is transgender? Why is it such a huge issue that all of society must be pushed to change its perception of sex and gender to accomodate a tiny minority by accepting men who say they're now women into the changing rooms and toilets with women without question?

https://www.persuasion.community/p/keira-bell-my-story

This was the person I was talking about and her personal account concerning her gender reassignment to male. Do take the time to read it because it's very thought-provoking and brings up all of the questions that people should be thinking about before endorsing this sort of surgery. It's really interesting to read her own personal story (she identifies as female now after the surgery to become physically male), which amounts to having mostly socialised with boys when she was a prepubescent girl and having a lot of confusion over the fact that puberty was isolating him from his normal social group. This case has left Keira irreparably damaged in her own eyes and left the NHS liable for the costs of operating, the costs of after-surgery care, the costs of lawyers defending the case against them, and probably the costs of trying to revert her to a physical female as best they can; this has happened in a period where we've long had concerns about the NHS' ability to provide life-saving surgery, screening and so on.

We agree this should be a line in the sand, but this happened, and it happened with a small group of interested parties deciding this sort of approach was the right thing without anyone in wider society being encouraged to offer any thoughts on it in terms of the general ethics. As far as this sort of surgery on adults is concerned, I respect people's right to go down this path if they want, but I reject there's any valid need for it and reject the notion that the NHS should be providing it.

Generally, the gender roles that are habit stem from the basic need to survive and procreate as animals. The changes in our behaviour as a result of technological advance make the necessity of these roles anachronistic, which makes it fair enough for these roles to be questioned and abandoned in society by the people that want to and for people of both sexes to be free to live their lives as they wish and dress as they wish without being harassed or persecuted for it.

However, we are fundamentally animals and our birth sex is an intrinsic part of us as individuals who are also animals evolved to procreate and largely hard-wired to want to procreate. For children, sex and gender identity is not an issue because the hormones behind our sex drives haven't come into play yet. In my personal opinion, major surgery should never be the automatic answer to a psychological disturbance. We don't prescribe breaking people's backs to people who have a belief they deserve to be in a wheelchair because their friend was paralysed in an accident where they were driving, nor should we be prescribing major cosmetic surgery that irrevocably damages someone's sexual functions because of psychological confusion over their sex.

 

Edited February 1, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 6,027]

12 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

How many people affected shouldn't be relevant here. What proportion of society is transgender? Why is it such a huge issue that all of society must be pushed to change its perception of sex and gender to accomodate a tiny minority by accepting men who say they're now women into the changing rooms and toilets with women without question?

https://www.persuasion.community/p/keira-bell-my-story

This was the person I was talking about and her personal account concerning her gender reassignment to male. Do take the time to read it because it's very thought-provoking and brings up all of the questions that people should be thinking about before endorsing this sort of surgery. It's really interesting to read her own personal story (she identifies as female now after the surgery to become physically male), which amounts to having mostly socialised with boys when she was a prepubescent girl and having a lot of confusion over the fact that puberty was isolating him from his normal social group. This case has left Keira irreparably damaged in her own eyes and left the NHS liable for the costs of operating, the costs of after-surgery care, the costs of lawyers defending the case against them, and probably the costs of trying to revert her to a physical female as best they can; this has happened in a period where we've long had concerns about the NHS' ability to provide life-saving surgery, screening and so on.

We agree this should be a line in the sand, but this happened, and it happened with a small group of interested parties deciding this sort of approach was the right thing without anyone in wider society being encouraged to offer any thoughts on it in terms of the general ethics. As far as this sort of surgery on adults is concerned, I respect people's right to go down this path if they want, but I reject there's any valid need for it and reject the notion that the NHS should be providing it.

Generally, the gender roles that are habit stem from the basic need to survive and procreate as animals. The changes in our behaviour as a result of technological advance make the necessity of these roles anachronistic, which makes it fair enough for these roles to be questioned and abandoned in society by the people that want to and for people of both sexes to be free to live their lives as they wish and dress as they wish without being harassed or persecuted for it.

However, we are fundamentally animals and our birth sex is an intrinsic part of us as individuals who are also animals evolved to procreate and largely hard-wired to want to procreate. For children, sex and gender identity is not an issue because the hormones behind our sex drives haven't come into play yet. In my personal opinion, major surgery should never be the automatic answer to a psychological disturbance. We don't prescribe breaking people's backs to people who have a belief they deserve to be in a wheelchair because their friend was paralysed in an accident where they were driving, nor should we be prescribing major cosmetic surgery that irrevocably damages someone's sexual functions because of psychological confusion over their sex.

 

Thanks for the link, I will point out that I already knew the Bell case as that was what made me state my previous opinion that surgery on children is where I have that red line so in that regard, we are in agreement. In fact, it is also a minor contributory reason to why I would place much more store on sex education from an early age. Make boys and girls aware from an early age that they will have bodily changes / erections / periods etc. and reassure them that these are perfectly common. Use the correct terminology. Don't sweep it under the carpet. Tell them from an early age that there is nothing wrong with same-sex relationships. She's openly said she was unnerved at the bodily changes she underwent as part of puberty, correctly mentioned that loads of girls suffer at this point in their development, and openly said she had no positive experience of the notion of a lesbian relationship so has stated these were contributory factors in her initially thinking she wanted to transition.

Furthermore, even though we don't know the ages of her parents, it's fair to say her background was messy and at this point I will always pose the increasingly uncomfortable question about the responsibility - or indeed potential lack of it - of her parents in the decision to procreate. But I disagree completely with your comment that the number of people being affected is irrelevant if we're talking about pain. If you're using pain avoidance as a perfectly sound basis for ethics then I think going off the numbers affected is reasonable. Especially in the context of socialised healthcare where they will presumably come back to it.

The more I mull her background over though, the more I actually think those recollections are making a stronger argument for more comprehensive sex education than anything else as in her case, they may have resolved some of her issues at source. We'd need to see far more individual cases though.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

7 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Thanks for the link, I will point out that I already knew the Bell case as that was what made me state my previous opinion that surgery on children is where I have that red line so in that regard, we are in agreement. In fact, it is also a minor contributory reason to why I would place much more store on sex education from an early age. Make boys and girls aware from an early age that they will have bodily changes / erections / periods etc. and reassure them that these are perfectly common. Use the correct terminology. Don't sweep it under the carpet. Tell them from an early age that there is nothing wrong with same-sex relationships. She's openly said she was unnerved at the bodily changes she underwent as part of puberty, correctly mentioned that loads of girls suffer at this point in their development, and openly said she had no positive experience of the notion of a lesbian relationship so has stated these were contributory factors in her initially thinking she wanted to transition.

Furthermore, even though we don't know the ages of her parents, it's fair to say her background was messy and at this point I will always pose the increasingly uncomfortable question about the responsibility - or indeed potential lack of it - of her parents in the decision to procreate. But I disagree completely with your comment that the number of people being affected is irrelevant if we're talking about pain. If you're using pain avoidance as a perfectly sound basis for ethics then I think going off the numbers affected is reasonable. Especially in the context of socialised healthcare where they will presumably come back to it.

The more I mull her background over though, the more I actually think those recollections are making a stronger argument for more comprehensive sex education than anything else as in her case, they may have resolved some of her issues at source. We'd need to see far more individual cases though.

If you disagree with that then there's no basis for any concern over the proportion of people caused pain by these interventions either; you can't have it both ways. Pain avoidance in ethics is very different when discussing causes of pain through the lack of intervention and the causes of pain through active intervention; active intervention puts a burden on those intervening, which is the case with these medical professionals.

She was a troubled child for many obvious reasons. The failure of the professionals involved in the case underlines that they were unfit to make a judgement on her behalf, in spite of being professionals dedicating their lives to the subject. If they're not fit, then nobody can safely be considered fit, in which case it should never happen.

Edited February 1, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 6,027]

13 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

If you disagree with that then there's no basis for any concern over the proportion of people caused pain by these interventions either; you can't have it both ways. Pain avoidance in ethics is very different when discussing causes of pain through the lack of intervention and the causes of pain through active intervention; active intervention puts a burden on those intervening, which is the case with these medical professionals.

If we're talking pain from teenage/young pregnancies then where's the lack of intervention? How is that "having it both ways?"

It does look like some seriously irresponsible parenting has also cropped up and contributed to this mess. Which may potentially bring us back to sex-ed.

Edited February 1, 2023 by TheGunnShow

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

15 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

If we're talking pain from teenage/young pregnancies then where's the lack of intervention? How is that "having it both ways?"

It does look like some seriously irresponsible parenting has also cropped up and contributed to this mess. Which may potentially brings us back to sex-ed.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. We don't intervene to take any pain from teenagers who get pregnant young other than with counselling and/or abortions if they wish it. All we do is provide them with information and free contraception if they want it.

In Keira's case her mum was a single mother and an alcoholic, so yes, her whole background was a mess. She has been massively let down by the medical profession, both psychiatric and surgical.

Edit: Thinking about sex education, promoting the notion that your physical sex is unimportant to your wishes regarding your own role in society either for raising children, your job, or who you sleep with, sounds like a sound basis for weakening the prevalence of this form of body dysphoria in the first place, thus negating the supposed need for such drastic irreversible surgery down the line, either as children or adults.

Edited February 1, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 6,027]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. We don't take any pain from teenagers who get pregnant young other than with counselling and/or abortions if they wish it. All we do is provide them with information and free contraception if they want it.

In Keira's case her mum was a single mother and an alcoholic, so yes, her whole background was a mess. She has been massively let down by the medical profession, both psychiatric and surgical.

She's been massively let down throughout, the medical profession was just the most visible part/culmination of the whole sorry affair. I'm inclined to say she's been let down by her parents just as much, and she even admitted she contributed, which I thought possibly the most admirable part of the whole article.

I don't understand your question though. There's plenty of evidence that teenage/young parents are particularly psychologically vulnerable and often jeopardise their future prospects as a result, not to mention have a kid in tow in the process who may not develop quite as well depending on the resources (and indeed extended family) available to it.

Mental health in young mothers, single mothers and their children | BMC Psychiatry | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

3 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

She's been massively let down throughout, the medical profession was just the most visible part/culmination of the whole sorry affair. I'm inclined to say she's been let down by her parents just as much, and she even admitted she contributed, which I thought possibly the most admirable part of the whole article.

I don't understand your question though. There's plenty of evidence that teenage/young parents are particularly psychologically vulnerable and often jeopardise their future prospects as a result, not to mention have a kid in tow in the process who may not develop quite as well depending on the resources (and indeed extended family) available to it.

Mental health in young mothers, single mothers and their children | BMC Psychiatry | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)

Yes, agreed. We've been over the potential interventions to tackle this and agreed that none of them are appropriate in a liberal society since they infringe the rights of the individual. Instead, we look to passive interventions such as education and free contraception to mitigate the risk of the individuals concerned putting themselves in that position in the first place.

Edited February 1, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Nuff Said 5,181]

3 hours ago, king canary said:

This is a really interesting post because the part in bold is exactly where I've found myself on this particular issue.

I'm a dyed in the wool lefty who should by rights be on the 'trans women are women' bandwagon. All my highly political left wing friends are and I find myself at odds regularly with people I trust, respect and usually agree with. This means I'm constantly examining my own view as I feel like I've ended up in the wrong church so to speak. 

Yet the more I dive in the more I'm convinced I'm correct on this. There is stuff that seems so mind meltingly obvious that I can't understand why otherwise sensible people can't see it. Male rapists don't belong in women's prisons, biological sex is real and not a social construct, lesbians aren't bigots for not wanting to sleep with people with penises and allowing trans-women to compete in female sports is obviously unfair on women. I genuinely can't see how any of this is controversial yet apparently to quite a few people it is.

I'd also say that the tenor of the debate has moved so far past the 'lets all be reasonable' stage and I don't know how it comes back. It was truly eye opening to me to read the reactions to JK Rowling's essay about why she held her views on sex and gender. To me the essay was sympathetic, well written and showed genuine concern for the rights and lives of trans people but those who disagreed were claiming she was anything from a hateful bigot to actively advocating genocide. It is completely unhinged at times.

These are the things that I come back to, and that demonstrate to me that trans/non-binary rights must be a spectrum. That is, there are those who believe that lesbians who won’t have sex with trans women who have a penis are transphobic, but they are a small minority of those who support “trans rights”. There are more who believe trans women should be able to compete unfettered in women’s sports and more who believe trans women guilty of sexual crimes should probably be housed in womens’ prisons given the right procedures and security. Then on the other side there are those who believe people shouldn’t even be allowed to express a desire to change gender, more who think they should keep themselves to themselves and stay behind closed doors and so on. I like to think I sit somewhere in the middle. But to see trans activists response to opinions like mine, I am a Terf who probably would like to wipe out all trans people. 
 

If we are to balance the rights of women (who are BTW massively in the majority, which ought to count for something) against those of trans people, we probably need to come to a balanced position where some things trans activists would like are not possible, but they are given as many rights as sensibly possible. Like most of life, a compromise.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Nuff Said

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

I think in this subject we actually need careful not knee jerk thought. Prison should be a safe place for anybody.

I'll add one little thought however to the pot as it may cause some to think. Should we keep murderers in prison with other prisoners (of any sex)?

[king canary 7,681]

6 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

These are the things that I come back to, and that demonstrate to me that trans/non-binary rights must be a spectrum. That is, there are those who believe that lesbians who won’t have sex with trans women who have a penis are transphobic, but they are a small minority of those who support “trans rights”. There are more who believe trans women should be able to compete unfettered in women’s sports and more who believe trans women guilty of sexual crimes should probably be housed in womens’ prisons given the right procedures and security. Then on the other side there are those who believe people shouldn’t even be allowed to express a desire to change gender, more who think they should keep themselves to themselves and stay behind closed doors and so on. I like to think I sit somewhere in the middle. But to see trans activists response to opinions like mine, I am a Terf who probably would like to wipe out all trans people. 
 

If we are to balance the rights of women (who are BTW massively in the majority, which ought to count for something) against those of trans people, we probably need to come to a balanced position where some things trans activists would like are not possible, but they are given as many rights as sensibly possible. Like most of life, a compromise.

I feel we're very much in the same boat.

There are definitely horrific transphobes out there (I'd say the person in Foxy's example earlier fits that definition). But there seems to be a sense that if you're not 100% on board with every demand then you're a transphobe. 

[TheGunnShow 6,027]

13 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I think in this subject we actually need careful not knee jerk thought. Prison should be a safe place for anybody.

I'll add one little thought however to the pot as it may cause some to think. Should we keep murderers in prison with other prisoners (of any sex)?

Agreed, and I'd say we put people in prison for silly things too. Furthermore, I'd say women are disproportionately likely to be hit with that. I really cannot see any sensible reason why truancy/non-payment of Council Tax/TV licences should result in a jail sentence. Taking away liberty makes more sense for those who are physical threats.

Women in Prison - Justice Committee (parliament.uk)

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

26 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I think in this subject we actually need careful not knee jerk thought. Prison should be a safe place for anybody.

I'll add one little thought however to the pot as it may cause some to think. Should we keep murderers in prison with other prisoners (of any sex)?

I agree that knee jerk reaction is never welcome, but there's not much evidence of that on this thread. It's clear to me a number of people have put a lot of thought into the subject of gender ideology and have actually been intimidated into not expressing their thoughts and concerns by a fear of being branded extremists for challenging the direction political thinking on this subject has been going. This fear has been created by a handful of extremists who have made victims of the likes of JK Rowling for expressing her views.

Both Nuff said and KC clearly take pride in trying to be open-minded, tolerant, and even questioning their own thinking and tolerance where they're in a position where they're challenging a new idea themselves. It's this temperament that is being exploited by the gaslighting of those that do raise legitimate concerns such as JK Rowling, someone who is otherwise recognised as someone of a generally progressive disposition.

Regarding murderers, as with all of it, it's a question of mitigation of risk. Unless you support the death penalty then murderers have to be kept somewhere. If you keep them segregated at all times then you have a responsibility in considering their human rights as to whether its justified to completely isolate them. Some dangerous criminals are permanently segregated because of their behaviour.

Additionally, rape and sexual assault is much easier to cover up than murder.

 

 

Edited February 1, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Before we do anything else we have to finally establish the difference between punishment and rehabilitation.

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

1 hour ago, Nuff Said said:

These are the things that I come back to, and that demonstrate to me that trans/non-binary rights must be a spectrum. That is, there are those who believe that lesbians who won’t have sex with trans women who have a penis are transphobic, but they are a small minority of those who support “trans rights”. There are more who believe trans women should be able to compete unfettered in women’s sports and more who believe trans women guilty of sexual crimes should probably be housed in womens’ prisons given the right procedures and security. Then on the other side there are those who believe people shouldn’t even be allowed to express a desire to change gender, more who think they should keep themselves to themselves and stay behind closed doors and so on. I like to think I sit somewhere in the middle. But to see trans activists response to opinions like mine, I am a Terf who probably would like to wipe out all trans people. 
 

If we are to balance the rights of women (who are BTW massively in the majority, which ought to count for something) against those of trans people, we probably need to come to a balanced position where some things trans activists would like are not possible, but they are given as many rights as sensibly possible. Like most of life, a compromise.

Yup agreed.

I think on a purely practical basis the real question is does the prison have communal showers, facilities etc. This in reality then determines for me how we should gender the prisoner simply by their physical attributes (whatever their own internal orientation). However, I'm far from convinced that actually makes the prison any safer!

 

[SwindonCanary 455]

untill he/she has had the  operation to change him to a woman he should remain in a mens prison 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

Before we do anything else we have to finally establish the difference between punishment and rehabilitation.

For me, the crime and punishment element of this story is secondary to the fact that the story highlights in a very concrete way how this new thinking on gender has been steamrollered into governance with far-reaching consequences with little regard to legitimate public concerns. In fact, people who have raised concerns regardless of how delicate they have been about it, have been made into a pariah.

I mean, let's take this in a new direction. If gender should now be truly meaningless and everyone's gender is purely a matter of their own perception of themselves, what do people think about all people just giving up on it and sharing changing rooms and toilets? Why not make all prisons mixed? Why not just make all sport mixed gender?

Edited February 1, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

43 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yup agreed.

I think on a purely practical basis the real question is does the prison have communal showers, facilities etc. This in reality then determines for me how we should gender the prisoner simply by their physical attributes (whatever their own internal orientation). However, I'm far from convinced that actually makes the prison any safer!

 

 

23 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

untill he/she has had the  operation to change him to a woman he should remain in a mens prison 

Agreed. To put it another way, government forcing everybody to accept someone's own stated idea of their gender with no reservation and no consideration of their actual physical sex is not really supportable.

[Nuff Said 5,181]

34 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

For me, the crime and punishment element of this story is secondary to the fact that the story highlights in a very concrete way how this new thinking on gender has been steamrollered into governance with far-reaching consequences with little regard to legitimate public concerns. In fact, people who have raised concerns regardless of how delicate they have been about it, have been made into a pariah.

I mean, let's take this in a new direction. If gender should now be truly meaningless and everyone's gender is purely a matter of their own perception of themselves, what do people think about all people just giving up on it and sharing changing rooms and toilets? Why not make all prisons mixed? Why not just make all sport mixed gender?

The issue is that the problem - as I see it - is actually two things. 1) Predatory men and 2) the patriarchy. It’s predatory men who make putting trans women into women’s prisons difficult and it’s the patriarchy that means everyone is very much not equal regardless of gender, whether assigned at birth or chosen later. Until we fix those, ignoring gender, while a laudable aim, just isn’t going to work in practice. (Biology also plays a part of course, but that’s even harder to fix)

I do think it’s ironic that some people who are born as men seem to be the ones who think they are entitled to behave exactly as they like i.e. as a woman. Despite wanting to be treated like a woman they appear to have very little understanding of the idea of sisterhood and standing with their “fellow” women. Precisely because they have benefitted from growing up as a man, they have no experience of the challenges that simply being female creates. Those who have always been women (and those who listen to the experiences of women) understand why there is a need for truly single sex spaces, and separate categories for women in things like music awards (are you listening Sam Smith?). Why don’t we hear protests from trans men? Partly because they are joining a privileged group, so gaining. Trans activists protest when they come up against women who don’t want to lose a few hard won protections but don’t acknowledge why those protections are in place.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

59 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

The issue is that the problem - as I see it - is actually two things. 1) Predatory men and 2) the patriarchy. It’s predatory men who make putting trans women into women’s prisons difficult and it’s the patriarchy that means everyone is very much not equal regardless of gender, whether assigned at birth or chosen later. Until we fix those, ignoring gender, while a laudable aim, just isn’t going to work in practice. (Biology also plays a part of course, but that’s even harder to fix)

I do think it’s ironic that some people who are born as men seem to be the ones who think they are entitled to behave exactly as they like i.e. as a woman. Despite wanting to be treated like a woman they appear to have very little understanding of the idea of sisterhood and standing with their “fellow” women. Precisely because they have benefitted from growing up as a man, they have no experience of the challenges that simply being female creates. Those who have always been women (and those who listen to the experiences of women) understand why there is a need for truly single sex spaces, and separate categories for women in things like music awards (are you listening Sam Smith?). Why don’t we hear protests from trans men? Partly because they are joining a privileged group, so gaining. Trans activists protest when they come up against women who don’t want to lose a few hard won protections but don’t acknowledge why those protections are in place.

On the subject of trans men, in some respects I think they're losing in that they're giving up some of the protections from men that women have won. You don't hear many stories of trans men fighting for the right to participate in men's sport or and pushback over it.

I definitely don't think any male prisoner would be remotely concerned about a trans man going into a male prison. I don't think there would be any disagreement either that there would be serious worries about the safety of a trans man in a man's prison, especially if they hadn't undergone gender reassignment surgery.