Wings fined by electoral commission

[Ad Lib]

Calling me something when you believe it is entirely different from calling me something which is provable.

No, it is provable that you are a bigot. You think we should treat male-born women differently from female-born women. There are zero circumstances in which the Prison Service would contemplate putting a female-born woman in a male jail. Zero. You are imposing an additional burden on trans people that puts their safety, mental wellbeing and autonomy at greater peril than the prison population as a whole.

The referral to a male establishment is absolutely, and incontrovertibly, relevant to the question of risk to others. To deny this is to demolish your entire theoretical argument.

No it isn't. It wouldn't be a relevant consideration if she were a female born woman, so it should't be a relevant consideration given that she is a male-born woman.

As for the answer to your "look at all the big words I know" question, the answer is actually "yes, assuming that sufficiently thorough checks have been made as to the veracity of her claim and that the relevant risk assessments have been carried out."

No. The only checks that are legitimate in deciding whether she should be in a women's or a men's prison is "is she a woman". Whether or not she poses a threat to women prisoners is an irrelevant consideration to that question. That issue is relevant only to the type of women's prison and the extent of further restriction on her liberty within that prison.

She may well pose a risk to other female prisoners - you will no doubt find some way of finding a bigoted angle to my pointing out she was sent to jail for assaulting a man.

No I don't care who she assaulted. The fact that she'd be a risk to other women prisoners is, however, irrelevant to whether she should be in a women's or a men's prison. Again, if she were born female we wouldn't even be asking this question. That's where the transphobic discrimination comes in.

The assessment would decide whether she posed a risk to others. Get that? "to others". I would hazard a guess the answer to that, very simple, question would be a simple " yes ".

As a violent individual she poses a threat to others irrespective of whether or not she is in a women's or a men's prison. It's not relevant as to whether she should be sent to one or the other.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

You casually dismissed this as something worthy of a response. Right there.

Yes it fucking is in the same ballpark, and it's not for you to decide that this suffering is insignificant or unimportant because of how you, as a male born man, don't think it's serious enough. The point is Tara is being treated differently than a woman who was born female would have been had they behaved in the same way. That's plainly discriminatory.

If a female born woman committed the crimes Tara committed, there is absolutely no suggestion that she would have been placed in a male prison. None at all. Because it is recognised that women, however violent and unpleasant they may be, are systematically at greater risk of abuse, harassment and violence in prisons where there are lots of (violent) men. To impose an additional burden on her, to take into account her violent past as a reason not to respect her gender identity and the risk factors associated with it, is transphobic discrimination.

I've personally suffered sexual harassment. I've personally suffered physical violence, "potting", and the fear of infection from a bite. Believe me, I know of what I speak. I'd take the unwelcome advances on a daily basis for the rest of my life over having to wait months to find out if the guy whose life if helped to save had handed me a life sentence.

The more you post, the more you expose your intolerance and unwillingness to accept that your latest hobby horse is not the be all and end all. Life just isn't like that, sonny.

[Menzel]

Just because you have had some horrific experience does not mean that others are not entitled to feel victimised, frightened or in pain because of something that you think isn't as bad. It's not all about you.

[Ad Lib]

Just because you have suffered from violent wrongs doesn't mean others should have to. This is like someone on death row saying that someone being denied the right to a fair trial in a reasonable time should suck it up.

[pandarilla]

The embedded intelligentsia have certainly displayed that they are cutting edge and for that and their shared knowledge I suggest that we should all be grateful.

As a bonus, we have learned that as well as lying, Ad Lib approves of bullying.

Bullying those who hold racist views has reduced the amount of racism in the West over the last 30 or so years (no evidence obvs, but I reckon it's the case). Bullying works in terms of shifting what is and what's not acceptable behaviour.

[Ad Lib]

Bullying those who hold racist views has reduced the amount of racism in the West over the last 30 or so years (no evidence obvs, but I reckon it's the case). Bullying works in terms of shifting what is and what's not acceptable behaviour.

Exactly. The civil rights movement wouldn't have made anything like the progress it did if it had relied on being polite and understanding of bigots. Equal marriage wasn't advanced by earnestly saying that we respect the homophobic Leviticus-citing zealots.

Bullying works. It's how privileged people secure and entrench their position of power in the first place. Not fighting back with that as an option in your armoury isn't just a pointless moral posture, it's pragmatically stupid.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Just because you have had some horrific experience does not mean that others are not entitled to feel victimised, frightened or in pain because of something that you think isn't as bad. It's not all about you.

Just because you have suffered from violent wrongs doesn't mean others should have to. This is like someone on death row saying that someone being denied the right to a fair trial in a reasonable time should suck it up.

If the pair of you could do me the respect of actually reading my posts, that would be nice. I clearly stated, and here do so again, that I have experienced sexual harassment as well as physical and psychological harm. If either of you can make a similar claim, please share. Otherwise you can, frankly, take your utopian ideals and shove them up your collective arses. Apologies for the crudity, but I'll take personal experience over theoretical idealism as a guide to what feels worse.

Menzel, just about every post you've made for the last few pages has been about me, so maybe you should take a look in the mirror. There's only one of us who has tried to widen the debate to include the rights and feelings of others involved in this case. Clue: it's not you.

Ad Lib, it's probably only fair to warn you that you're well on the way to a reducto ad absurdum cul de sac. You're obviously not as committed to this as you thought. Or you're not as bright as you thought. Either way, that last post was embarrassing.

[Menzel]

Why is it always about yourself, and why are you trying to portray yourself as some kind of victim here?

Going on about someone being a criminal is not widening a debate, all you are doing is showing yourself up as being firmly in the camp of people who think they're actually allowed to hold an opinion on trans rights.

[pandarilla]

If the pair of you could do me the respect of actually reading my posts, that would be nice. I clearly stated, and here do so again, that I have experienced sexual harassment as well as physical and psychological harm. If either of you can make a similar claim, please share. Otherwise you can, frankly, take your utopian ideals and shove them up your collective arses. Apologies for the crudity, but I'll take personal experience over theoretical idealism as a guide to what feels worse.

Menzel, just about every post you've made for the last few pages has been about me, so maybe you should take a look in the mirror. There's only one of us who has tried to widen the debate to include the rights and feelings of others involved in this case. Clue: it's not you.

Ad Lib, it's probably only fair to warn you that you're well on the way to a reducto ad absurdum cul de sac. You're obviously not as committed to this as you thought. Or you're not as bright as you thought. Either way, that last post was embarrassing.

You need to go back a page or so and look at post 306 by ad Lib. This is where all your arguments are clinically and methodically defeated.

You never replied to this post (I reckon because you were still replying to a previous ad Lib post). As it stands, you're now just shouting 'I've been abused. Listen to me'.

I've criticised ad Lib in the past before for dragging out debates to ridiculous lengths (maybe because of a lack of understanding on my behalf but I'll stand by my judgment that he can be a tedious c**t at times) but in post 306 he is clear and concise.

[strichener]

1. Explain how Tara's victim's rights, whether, human, civic, fundamental, contractual, statutory or moral, are even remotely engaged over the question whether Tara should be put in a women's or a men's prison. Go on.

2. Literally the whole point about human rights is that they are intrinsic to being a human being and not contingent on your conduct. This is why we prohibit the torture, and inhuman and degrading treatment of violent prisoners. It's why the death penalty is illegal. It's why prisoners are still entitled to confidential legal correspondence. It's why prisoners are allowed family visits, subject to their prospective risk rather than their history in isolation. It's why we don't feed them porridge 3 times a day. It's why we accept we shouldn't force them to live in cells that are too small. They might be serial killers or rapists but they're still human beings. They are entitled to a minimum level of respect even if they themselves wouldn't afford it or have history for not having done so.

I remember a thread where you were in favour of taking out foreign leaders. Going by this position I would suggest that you do think that a person's human rights are contingent on your conduct. I know this is slightly off topic but it does show that you own opinion differs from topic to topic.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Why is it always about yourself, and why are you trying to portray yourself as some kind of victim here?

Going on about someone being a criminal is not widening a debate, all you are doing is showing yourself up as being firmly in the camp of people who think they're actually allowed to hold an opinion on trans rights.

Oh, my deepest apologies. Please enlighten more as to which groups of people are "allowed" to hold an opinion.

Far from playing the victim - I think your mirror may come in handy here - I'm simply pointing out that my opinion is part formed by experience, rather than from some utopian idealism.

That's your journey completed - from "I know more about this than you", via "this is the most important thing in the world", to "you're not allowed to have an opinion."

Thanks for playing.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Bullying those who hold racist views has reduced the amount of racism in the West over the last 30 or so years (no evidence obvs, but I reckon it's the case). Bullying works in terms of shifting what is and what's not acceptable behaviour.

Exactly. The civil rights movement wouldn't have made anything like the progress it did if it had relied on being polite and understanding of bigots. Equal marriage wasn't advanced by earnestly saying that we respect the homophobic Leviticus-citing zealots.

Bullying works. It's how privileged people secure and entrench their position of power in the first place. Not fighting back with that as an option in your armoury isn't just a pointless moral posture, it's pragmatically stupid.

Dear Christ, the pair of you should get a room and discuss how right you both are. MLK was a bully, now. (sorry for the levity, but that is a fucking beauty.)

Societal change is effected by bullying, is it? And there was me thinking there was some element of destroying baseless arguments and tolerance of others' views. Take, as our expert from Paisley has, equal marriage. Simply ask the question "why not?", and there is nothing whatsoever to counter it. Job done.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

You need to go back a page or so and look at post 306 by ad Lib. This is where all your arguments are clinically and methodically defeated.

You never replied to this post (I reckon because you were still replying to a previous ad Lib post). As it stands, you're now just shouting 'I've been abused. Listen to me'.

I've criticised ad Lib in the past before for dragging out debates to ridiculous lengths (maybe because of a lack of understanding on my behalf but I'll stand by my judgment that he can be a tedious c**t at times) but in post 306 he is clear and concise.

You mean the post where he took over 250 words to say "I'm right. You're a bigot."?

Simple question - who decides whether someone is a woman or a man, and on what grounds?

[Todders]

If I decide one day that I want to be a woman, should I from then on be allowed to use female public toilets or changing areas?

Yes

.

Perverts all of over the country would be delighted that they can now just get their jollies by walking into a woman's changing room asking to be called Mildred.

f**k the rights of the women who have to put up with that, right?

[sophia]

Exactly. The civil rights movement wouldn't have made anything like the progress it did if it had relied on being polite and understanding of bigots. Equal marriage wasn't advanced by earnestly saying that we respect the homophobic Leviticus-citing zealots.

Bullying works. It's how privileged people secure and entrench their position of power in the first place. Not fighting back with that as an option in your armoury isn't just a pointless moral posture, it's pragmatically stupid.

I don't think what you are describing is bullying but if you want to be a bully, who am I to argue.

[Ad Lib]

I remember a thread where you were in favour of taking out foreign leaders. Going by this position I would suggest that you do think that a person's human rights are contingent on your conduct. I know this is slightly off topic but it does show that you own opinion differs from topic to topic.

Foreign leaders do not have a human right to be a tyrant.

We should of course not torture them, nor should we kill them outside of the laws of war.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Foreign leaders do not have a human right to be a tyrant.

We should of course not torture them, nor should we kill them outside of the laws of war.

How's your campaign to hold Bush Blair to account going, then? They didn't just ask Saddam to show them his tits, did they?

I've got absolutely no doubt you're also on Obama's case for his part in Osama's death. Then you can go back to the first two and ask some serious questions about Saddam's kids.

[Scary Bear]

I like Wings Over Scotland. The guy talks sense.

The National newspaper just seemed a bit too try hard. f**k the newspapers and their dinosaur readers who still actually buy reams of paper with 12-24 hour old 'news' with biased headlines. The Internet is where it's at for news. Long live WoS.

[Ad Lib]

How's your campaign to hold Bush Blair to account going, then? They didn't just ask Saddam to show them his tits, did they?

I've got absolutely no doubt you're also on Obama's case for his part in Osama's death. Then you can go back to the first two and ask some serious questions about Saddam's kids.

Saddam Hussein was killed by the Iraqi judicial system. Take it up with them.

I have stated, just like Jeremy Corbyn has, that I have concerns at the failure of Bin Laden to have been brought before a court of law to answer for his terrorism. What is clear though is that he plainly was not a civilian.

[NotThePars]

Perverts all of over the country would be delighted that they can now just get their jollies by walking into a woman's changing room asking to be called Mildred.

f**k the rights of the women who have to put up with that, right?

I think most of society, not you granted, would be able to tell the difference between a Trans woman and a chancing pervert. Fascinating insight into your thoughts on Trans issues there though.