May she rot

[cambridgeshire canary 6,742]

Not sure what it says about me that the thought of the cats death was more upsetting to me than the mans death, but either way good to see a correct sentence. Throw away the key please..

 

[Naturalcynic 632]

16 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Not sure what it says about me that the thought of the cats death was more upsetting to me than the mans death, but either way good to see a correct sentence. Throw away the key please..

 

For woman, read bloke.  Women don’t tend to behave in such a depraved manner.

Edited February 26 by Naturalcynic

[Fen Canary 834]

At least the sentence will be served in a male prison. Finally some common sense seems to be returning to proceedings 

[Herman 9,780]

After reading the story the gender/sex of this person is the least of my concerns. And so it should be.

[Naturalcynic 632]

29 minutes ago, Herman said:

After reading the story the gender/sex of this person is the least of my concerns. And so it should be.

But surely it’s of relevance.  I note that The Guardian has come in for criticism from one of its long-serving journalists for choosing not to mention it.

Edited February 27 by Naturalcynic

[Herman 9,780]

24 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

But surely it’s of relevance.  I note that The Guardian has come in for criticism from one of its long-serving journalists for choosing not to mention it.

Not really, no. It adds a bit of spice for the Daily Mail set.

[dylanisabaddog 4,932]

I do voluntary work for a dog charity and have done for years. I've seen cruelty beyond belief to dogs from both men and women. I don't know if there's any research but it has been pretty much even in my experience. 

[king canary 7,609]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

Not really, no. It adds a bit of spice for the Daily Mail set.

Have to disagree personally.

While the sex of the person isn't relevant to the crime they committed it is relevant to how they are treated afterwards (which prison they go to etc etc) and how crime statistics are recorded. 

The idea it is only the 'Daily Mail set' who are concerned about this sort of thing is a bit of a tired trope.

[DraytonBoy 155]

How can someone like this be 'rehabilitated' and is a prison the best place for them rather than some sort of mental health establishment? 

[Herman 9,780]

47 minutes ago, king canary said:

Have to disagree personally.

While the sex of the person isn't relevant to the crime they committed it is relevant to how they are treated afterwards (which prison they go to etc etc) and how crime statistics are recorded. 

The idea it is only the 'Daily Mail set' who are concerned about this sort of thing is a bit of a tired trope.

I'm more shocked when you agree with me to be honest. 

Have a look at who is pushing the trans angle of this horrific story, who it is aimed at and who is biting. The trope may be old but it's not tired. 

[king canary 7,609]

2 minutes ago, Herman said:

I'm more shocked when you agree with me to be honest. 

Have a look at who is pushing the trans angle of this horrific story, who it is aimed at and who is biting. The trope may be old but it's not tired. 

Well that seems a shame- I think we agree on quite a bit?

The reason the 'trans angle' gets pushed on this is because places like the Guardian neglect to mention it, thus opening themselves up for criticism.

Literally all is would take is for the reporting to refer to this person as what they are- a man. Personally I don't give two ****s about affirming the gender of murderers.

[Satriales 655]

16 hours ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Not sure what it says about me that the thought of the cats death was more upsetting to me than the mans death, but either way good to see a correct sentence. Throw away the key please..

It's a fair thought process. Animals are much better than people.

[hogesar 9,690]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

Well that seems a shame- I think we agree on quite a bit?

The reason the 'trans angle' gets pushed on this is because places like the Guardian neglect to mention it, thus opening themselves up for criticism.

Literally all is would take is for the reporting to refer to this person as what they are- a man. Personally I don't give two ****s about affirming the gender of murderers.

Yes. The article doesn't have to go down any sort of trans-rabbit-hole but just deciding not to mention it is going to open up far more conversation about it than if they'd just been straight to begin with. Ultimately it is good news that this individual will be serving time in a male prison, which I think is far more appropriate when you consider the context of everything.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,553]

Given the massive instances of other mental health problems among transgender people, in the case of gender dysphoria, I really do think the concept that it's their bodies that are wrong rather than their heads needs revisiting.

[Fen Canary 834]

@Bobzilla, which prison should this despicable human serve their time in, male or female? As somebody who believes that gender identity is more important than biological sex, would you be in favour of this animal being housed among vulnerable women? 

[canarydan23 4,060]

I've got to be honest, until I read this thread I didn't actually know that this scumbag was male. I tend not to read news like this, so just take in the headlines and just assumed that when people Sky News and The Guardian were putting headlines like "Woman jailed for...." they actually meant woman. This is a trans woman. A male. And it should be reported thus.

[Bobzilla 145]

13 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

@Bobzilla, which prison should this despicable human serve their time in, male or female? As somebody who believes that gender identity is more important than biological sex, would you be in favour of this animal being housed among vulnerable women? 

I don't have the information to perform a full risk assessment, but on the basis that their victims were first a feline and second a man, I wouldn't house them in an RSPCA shelter, and whichever estate they went to i would expect that both the risk of them harming others and the risk of them being harmed would be adequately considered before making any decision about their provision.

I would certainly hope that the views of a few guys on the Internet weren't taken into consideration in the carrying out of that risk assessment.

For the hard of thinking, the short version of that response is: I don't know, you sure as hell don't know, and it shouldn't actually matter what either of us think based solely on publicly available information and associated spin.

[Bobzilla 145]

13 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

I've got to be honest, until I read this thread I didn't actually know that this scumbag was male. I tend not to read news like this, so just take in the headlines and just assumed that when people Sky News and The Guardian were putting headlines like "Woman jailed for...." they actually meant woman. This is a trans woman. A male. And it should be reported thus.

I'm not actually sure why the hell gender or sex is relevant here at all.  Is a woman who murders cats and a person any more or less evil than a man that does it, or a trans man or woman? What's the relevance? Genuinely.

If they were gay, would that be relevant?

There is a really unhealthy obsession with this from some quarters.

[hogesar 9,690]

2 hours ago, Bobzilla said:

I'm not actually sure why the hell gender or sex is relevant here at all.  Is a woman who murders cats and a person any more or less evil than a man that does it, or a trans man or woman? What's the relevance? Genuinely.

If they were gay, would that be relevant?

There is a really unhealthy obsession with this from some quarters.

I think it's a bit sad that people are so happy to devalue women in favour of...something else.

To the point that a news article lies and reports a woman of committing these acts when it wasn't. I don't think that's fair on women in general. 

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

I think the only issue is a practical one as to what prison or institution holds her (based simply on expressed gender vs shared facilities). The rest of the umbridge seems simply misplaced small c conservatism unable to accept that quite a few people don't fit neatly into binary stereotypes. A sort of Mary Whitehouse attitude.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,553]

5 hours ago, Bobzilla said:

There is a really unhealthy obsession with this from some quarters.

We've had a small minority push new fads on gender and sex in the last decade or so to the point fire stations around Newcastle have to have gender neutral toilets at public expense, in spite of nobody in the fire service being non binary or trans, because the head of the fire service has suddenly got interested because his child has decided they're trans.

We're having conversations where what's being pushed as normal was literally Monty Python material within my lifetime.

 

 

Edited February 28 by littleyellowbirdie

[Mello Yello 2,296]

Gender Blender?....

[KiwiScot 1,450]

From the thread title I thought someone had dug up Maggie for a second there.

[A Load of Squit 5,172]

People who have grown up their entire lives in houses with gender neutral toilets think it's a 'new fad'.

Stupid.

[Fen Canary 834]

9 hours ago, Bobzilla said:

I'm not actually sure why the hell gender or sex is relevant here at all.  Is a woman who murders cats and a person any more or less evil than a man that does it, or a trans man or woman? What's the relevance? Genuinely.

If they were gay, would that be relevant?

There is a really unhealthy obsession with this from some quarters.

It wouldn’t have been an issue if it hadn’t been falsely reported that the crime was committed by a woman. The fact the journalists lied about the sex of the perpetrator is what made it a story worthy of debate.

Why did they feel the need to lie about the sex of the offender in the first place? Is it because people such as yourself would loudly complain if they didn’t call this monster by their “preferred pronouns”?

[Fen Canary 834]

9 hours ago, Bobzilla said:

I don't have the information to perform a full risk assessment, but on the basis that their victims were first a feline and second a man, I wouldn't house them in an RSPCA shelter, and whichever estate they went to i would expect that both the risk of them harming others and the risk of them being harmed would be adequately considered before making any decision about their provision.

I would certainly hope that the views of a few guys on the Internet weren't taken into consideration in the carrying out of that risk assessment.

For the hard of thinking, the short version of that response is: I don't know, you sure as hell don't know, and it shouldn't actually matter what either of us think based solely on publicly available information and associated spin.

You don’t know? You’re happy to place a biological man who is clearly extremely dangerous and physically strong enough to drown another fully grown man in a prison with vulnerable women? You’re willing to compromise the safety of women in prison simply to appease your ideology and avoid causing offence to a murderer? I must say I find that attitude despicable to be honest.

Women are simply collateral damage to you aren’t they? 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

Wasn't a cat in a blender, but this piece of comedy was as close as I could get.
 

 

[Fen Canary 834]

1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

People who have grown up their entire lives in houses with gender neutral toilets think it's a 'new fad'.

Stupid.

You never went in there while your mum or sister was showering or using the toilet though did you? 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

9 hours ago, Bobzilla said:

I'm not actually sure why the hell gender or sex is relevant here at all.  Is a woman who murders cats and a person any more or less evil than a man that does it, or a trans man or woman? What's the relevance? Genuinely.

If they were gay, would that be relevant?

There is a really unhealthy obsession with this from some quarters.

Increasingly I find myself happy with the idea of simply saying "person" or indeed "murderer" if you really want to call them what they are. I wouldn't even mention the names of the murderers. I think it was Ben Shapiro, who I rarely agree with, saying that mass shooters shouldn't be named/manifestos shouldn't be mentioned etc. and tbh, I'd be inclined to go a step further, apply this to all killers, and not name them at all. Don't give them the notoriety. 

[Naturalcynic 632]

23 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Increasingly I find myself happy with the idea of simply saying "person" or indeed "murderer" if you really want to call them what they are. I wouldn't even mention the names of the murderers. I think it was Ben Shapiro, who I rarely agree with, saying that mass shooters shouldn't be named/manifestos shouldn't be mentioned etc. and tbh, I'd be inclined to go a step further, apply this to all killers, and not name them at all. Don't give them the notoriety. 

Tomorrow’s headlines: “A person killed another person”.