f_c_dundee

I just see massive levels of cognitive dissonance to hold all that stuff in your head and believe it's fine. I don't see anyone giving a reasoned argument to dispute what I'm saying. Repugnant, bigot, transphobe is just name calling. Makes it look like there's nothing coherent to say to me. No comments on the statement linked above? Crack on and ask everyone you meet if "think about what all this means in real life" is akin to the BNP, go ahead. No one is advocating treating trans people poorly or removing current protections in law. The wholesale adoption of self ID is not a neutral act though. The medical treatment of minors across the world for something which is also not a medical condition (?) has no research into long term outcomes. None. The numbers in distress after this treatment doesn't help them are now clearly increasing - how people can justify that risk is beyond me. The majority of clinics have high rates of "lost to follow up" patients and apparently zero fucks given to monitor those outcomes. Making plenty in the USA for doctors and surgeons though I guess. There are indeed Christian groups (in the USA especially) and frothing bigots making hay with shouting about this situation. No one has yet explained to me though, why they think a bunch of mainly left leaning women of all ages have got together with some people on the opposite side of the political spectrum to try to force discussion. Did we collectively lose our minds overnight? Or do you have a better explanation than the fact we all have real concerns? I ken just talking about Dundee having no manager and a team of 3 men and maybe a dog is depressing, but really - why would I be doing this to myself? Do you reckon I love being sneered at regularly?

Doesn't really matter though eh, automatically dismissed as a bigot. Seen it all the last few years. Good statement from the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls today though: https://t.co/ViNl8vGrPT Supporting the right to discuss these things properly. <Waits for post about why either the UN is bad or stuff Reem Alsalem has said that was wrong (or both?), but no discussion of the content of the statement or why it might be necessary.> Goodnight

Show me where I said GC people don't have a voice. Or was that yet another straw man? Yup. I said people on this forum may not be confident to say what they think, for fear of a ban. I'm sorry if you don't like 'trans -identifying' but clear language which identifies the sex of the people being discussed is vital, in many situations. If someone has ignored all the discussion the last umpteen years, they might be a member of the public who thinks that trans women are women who identify as men, or vice versa. That's still a common misconception. How would you prefer that trans people be referred to , in order to make their sex clear when it matters? I'm not talking about shouting on Twitter to deliberately insult people here - political discussion and legislation. I don't think we'd have got to where we are in this form of heated discussion, if debate was encouraged from the start. Rather than claiming that discussion was "debating trans people's existance" so not allowed. I know how many GRC there are vs trans people, you may have noticed from when it's already been discussed and I quoted the numbers myself. It's not a "trans people are a higher risk to women and children" thing, it's MEN. There is no data whatsoever to show the risk of offending for trans women is any different to your average man. None. So why do we have to always pretend that's not true? Why do we no longer need the single sex spaces that we pushed for, but should organise by self identified gender? Why do many charities working abroad have 'creating single sex facilities for women and girls protection' as one of their highest priorities, but in the US or UK for example, we just bin that and get rid of ours? All I'm asking is why? There is no logic to any of this. Is that why you refuse to discuss what people actually say, rather than invent stuff or twist things completely? (Or reference a random person on Twitter which has no relevance to the post you're replying to...)

It tells me that a lot of people are scared to admit what they think, because they value their membership and ability to post here. It's not as easy as it was to shut down discussion on this topic with "shut up bigot/transphobe" and nor should it be. As I said before - if you define transphobia as saying that you don't believe that a declared gender should supercede the sex of the person in many situations, that's most average people's opinion. If you ask vague survey questions about supporting trans rights, yeah you'll get lots of people thinking sure, that sounds nice and progressive. If you spell out though, that you're not talking about self ID for a tiny minority of transsexuals with a medical diagnosis, but for anyone who will sign a sworn declaration - the results take a marked drop. Sure there are rabid homophobic nutballs who are using this whol debate as an excuse to be a dick to trans identifying people as well, that's true. However that's surely no excuse to not examine carefully the intended and unintended consequences of these changes to the way society functions. Posters are on at me for more evidence all the time. You accept that there *are* cases where this is a problem, but then dismiss it as hardly ever happening, or oh it's only in prison etc. To me the stakes are high enough that we shouldn't be ignoring potential risks to anyone. That's not good law making. These are the cases occurring before self ID law is in place - do you think it would become less of a problem with the 'bits of paper' on the go? Why? Won't people be even more reluctant to point out any risky situation they observe? make it make sense!?

No too small to matter. None should die. They need support and can be protected. But not in women's hospital wards or prisons or shelters. Are you telling us we must affirm everyone as they declare or people will die? Even though no data supports this. Currently the correlation with poor mental health is looking more like people who are already troubled are more likely to identify as trans, rather than lack of affirmation causing the poor mental health. Again you ignore my actual points about people with DSDs... I am not anti-trans, just because I don't agree with you. I don't follow a religion, but I am not anti-Christians or anyone else.

1) No, there are still 2 sexes. The existence of differences in development for a miniscule minority of individuals is not a reason to pretend there are not. Again, those with DSDs have repeatedly asked not to be used as a gotcha like you are doing - try studying yourself. These are males and females with conditions which are specific to males or females. (it may be difficult to determine in a handful of babies due to mosaicism or other vanishingly rare conditions - but still nothing to do with being trans) 2) I am not minimising it, just stating that again, you have to see how changes will affect everyone - you are the ones telling me that it is a tiny number ffs! 3) Also No. I should just C&P here really. "People unhappy in their bodies, adult or child deserve support and they deserve to be protected from discrimination, as they are in the UK by law. We don't have to all pretend we have a gender identity too though, or accept every single person as the sex they declare, in every situation, no matter what. That's not a human right, that's a demand." I also care deeply about detransitioners, whom you choose to minimise. The brutal and non-reversible things that have been done to mainly young people is heart-breaking. The fact that the young people or their parents were told that they were a high suicide risk based on inflated stats is also awful. They should be given psychological support to feel better about themselves as a first line, not medication IMO. Sorry but you are very confused. People with differences/disorders in sexual development are not what we are talking about. This is indeed very distressing, but is nothing to do with the vast majority of trans people - see above - many of these individuals do not want always to be dragged into this. Not that many people with DSDs even identify as trans - in fact from the DSD families uk website: "There are currently no meaningful studies on this but experts tell us, that of the estimated 130 babies that are born in the UK each year with genitals that look different, 1/130 or 1/260 (one per year/ one every two years) might experience the feeling that they have been given the wrong gender." Dysphoria is the *feeling* that you are uncomfortable or distressed. Gender dysphoria being *distress about your sexed body*. "Intersex" has been added in to LGBTQIA etc to make it all look more scientific, really. Although some people still use the term intersex or identify as trans and have a DSD, they are not the majority. See also the image from when this was discussed in relation to the census and Scotland's DSD group asked not to be included:

My whole entire argument is that men cannot become women, gender is feelings, sex is reality. I'm not conflating them, they are different things - it's trans rights activism that has attempted to conflate them and replace sex in legislation and policies with the meaningless gender word. (Thus also ignoring the feelings of gay and lesbian people who define themselves as same sex attracted.) Only a very small proportion of people believe they have a separate sex and a gender 'identity' like a soul. Most just go about being men and women, that's not bigoted. It is in fact I believe an opinion which is worthy of respect in a democratic society No matter how you feel and how much cross sex hormone treatment and plastic surgery you have, it really doesn't move you into the opposite sex category. On a day to day basis people can crack on and express themselves and live as whoever they wish, but allowing anyone to self ID as the opposite sex on a much larger scale that was ever imagined by the people drafting the ill thought out GRA bill in 2004, is not a neutral act. Words have meanings and unforeseen effects on safeguarding in various situations cannot be ignored because 'it hardly ever happens'. People have been trying to be kind, because they were told it was just like supporting same sex marriage rights. A load of them didn't want to look like massive homophobes and maybe make themselves look better after past lack of support. Another load just spent no time at all listening to women or indeed doing any research of their own at all when it was all fed to them. I don't get what you mean about at 1% it becomes irrelevant? I just posted the crime stats to show that the disproportionate risk to women had to be considered. My threshold for men in women's prisons or anywhere else where sex matters is 0, really.

Do you disagree? Do you think it's fine for even 1 man to be in a women's prison? No matter how often it occurs, there need to be clear rules and procedures. It's not obsessive to ask you to answer the actual points we make, instead of just swerving it as it's not important. (To you). It is important no matter how many or how small a % it looks like. I'm not dismissing you with name calling etc. No one seems hysterical or obsessed to me. I don't agree with you but I'm not going about going telling you to wheesht and calling you, actually I dunno, I don't really do pointless insults. You believe what you believe, others don't and are trying to explain why not. You can't have a rule of "no men except those ones" if you have no way to classify ", those ones" as it's all subjective and easily faked. Even if I did agree on any males being there, surely this is obvious?

Some women abuse men. No one ever said that they didn't. Straw man again. The vast vast vast majority of men are stronger. None of them should ever be in a women's prison, no matter how they identify. They deserve protection in a separate wing as with any other vulnerable man. But there's never a justification to house them in the female estate. Ever. It's not even about strength, it's the privacy and dignity aspect - why should women share facilities with them, whether it's washing facilities or a cell. I don't believe you can justify men being housed with women, that's why there's no direct answer to the points in trying to make. Always seems to be a straw man diversion or "but it's remotely possible a woman is stronger so what if" etc etc. Or accuse people of being right wing. That's not how it is in the UK. I come from discussing this with feminists I guess. "Living as woman" is a meaningless statement, unless you are one. We're not the US republicans who want to enforce gender norms and have women back in the kitchen and real men out at work. We are the wee girls that played football and had short hair and got called tomboys. We know there is a lot of ways to be a girl or a boy and a man or a woman. But sex is the important factor in many situations where your gender beliefs are irrelevant. I know it's maybe hard to hear the way I talk and you might call it misgendering. I believe that accurate language is needed to describe the problem. Not handwaving it all away as fake concern. Outlying cases of abusive women or of men or women with rare DSD do not remove the facts. I don't know how else to say it. *FYI the dubious numbers are directly from MOJ data and it's 99% or thereabouts if it's scotland, UK or even European figures you want to look up.

Are they? Just because it happens more often due to the normal demographic in a single sex prison? How does that relate to putting men in women's prison, where they have a massive physical advantage (even if not violent/a sex offender) and the risk is therefore increased by this deliberate choice? *All* attacks in prison are a problem. That doesn't mean it's fine to also put men in with women.

Seeing as 99% of sex related crimes are committed by men and 88% of the victims of said crimes are women, there's a wee pattern giving a clue to the biggest risks in these scenarios. My sincerest apologies for forgetting to multi quote on this occasion.

Really? A prison officer who has been vetted will obviously be more of a concern than an already convicted fkin offender. Vetting and PVG not foolproof clearly, but the fact a guy has been done for sexual offences mean it's a crap idea, surely? Come the fk on boys you're having a laugh. At the expense of men and women who have been assaulted. Hilarious. It probably would be better to have female prison officers to work with women, yes. Not always possible though: https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/creation-mixed-sex-prisons-stealth And vice versa for the male estate. Then at least female prison officers wouldn't be asked to do searches on 'females' in the male prison as well.

The existing risk assessment might just as likely have said it was fine. It is primarily directed at the safety of the prisoner, not the safety of the others who might be affected. Like the above mentioned Equality Impact Assessment, there has hardly been any consideration of how it might affect vulnerable women prisoners to be locked in with any men. Not just risk of assault, even the psychological effects - a large proportion of these women have already been victims of abuse and are then forced to live with these men and try to remember and call them women ffs. Collateral damage for the affirmation of men as women. No men should ever be housed with the women, there is already provision for vulnerable male prisoners. Or have a separate wing in male prisons. Plenty of options. What's given you the idea that these are fake concerns?

I feel like I'm repeating myself, but... It's not the piece of paper. It's everything that's gone before it and that comes with it. We all know that Stonewall and various other organisations in favour of Self ID have spent a considerable amount of time (and a lot of government funding) encouraging organisations to put self ID based policies in place over the last 5-10 years. I'm not the only one to have shared info on the Denton's document on this thread as an example of the tactics used. For example the 2014 Scottish Prison Service policy on trans prisoners and the equality impact assessment for that policy were essentially written by the Scottish Trans Alliance. It was a deliberate aim to get self ID into an organisation, then hope that was replicated elsewhere. As stated by James Morton of the STA : ‘We strategized that by working intensively with the Scottish Prison Service to support them to include trans women as women on a self-declaration basis within very challenging circumstances, we would be able to ensure that all other public services should be able to do likewise’. In writing the above mentioned documents, no women's groups were consulted about the blindingly obvious possible impact of housing men in with women, only trans groups were listed as being talked to. The Equality Impact Assessment did not even mention the possible effects on women as a group, in fact it stated there should be no impact on any other protected characteristic or vulnerable group. *This* is what changed. Policy was being written by employers and organisations as if self ID was already law, no piece of paper required.

That sounds like whatever SNP idiot MSPs like to say that "women will get raped anyway". So why not make it easier? Do you accept that even if "just a few" wronguns will use the law and/or the culture of "you must accept men as women", to do shit things to even "a few" women or children - it's still wrong? If we're teaching kids that they need to be kind and accept men who believe (or say they believe) that they're women, that's weakening the overall safeguards. With the most recent statistics showing that 99% of sexual offences were committed by men and 88% of those offended against were women, I don't think it's unreasonable to say it should be given more consideration.

Are you actually mentioning John Money on purpose? Anyone who has read what he did to those boys would surely want fk all to do with his opinions and invented concepts. His theory that you could give a child (who had been given a botched circumcision ) a female "gender identity" by raising them as a girl quite clearly *did not work*. That's not even mentioning the detail of what he did with the boys in "therapy" FFS. Sex and gender are clearly different words. Sex is what is relevant in quite a lot of cases. It's not assigned at birth, it's observed at birth, or in many cases before birth. This applies to the vast majority of humans born, a miniscule minority may have ambiguous genitalia due to a DSD, but almost every one of those are male or female. DSDs are almost all specific to males or females. There is no 3rd sex. People unhappy in their bodies, adult or child deserve support and they deserve to be protected from discrimination, as they are in the UK by law. We don't have to all pretend we have a gender identity too though, or accept every single person as the sex they declare, in every situation, no matter what. That's not a human right, that's a demand. PS - I bet you did see the fact the that the guy with the 'weapon' was rolling up an extendable flag pole, it was pictured a few tweets down. And didn't mention that harmonica boy was right up in women's faces with his tuneless protest. Yes the speeches are brutal, some women have taken their teenagers along. I've not seen any little kids there though.

Mon the Jags

Cue 7 year old bouncing round the living room like a nutter Hope she's not *too* optimistic though...

Bowyer escorting Owen Coyle to safety Dundee!!

Holy shitballs it's Byrne

Kent it would be Thomas though as soon as Robinson went off Kind of predictable.

Claim to fame - I think I've met the boy on the left hand ladder cos he went to school with my Mum He seemed a nice chap. Is it too early to shout for McMullan on? Mebbe get more than 10 or 15 minutes this week...?