vikingTON Posted January 27, 2023 Share Posted January 27, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Boo Khaki said: @virginton I get your point, although I think you're getting a bit hung up on semantics when the reality is that transpeople are still just a tiny, tiny proportion of the population, so it is perfectly possible to work on a case-by-case basis and apply the law differently depending on circumstance. It's really not possible though. Let's take an example of a male who gets convicted for a sexual offence at the age of 16. The conviction gets spent, the rehabilitated person uses their fully legitimate right to identify as a different gender, but then gets thrown into jail for a totally unrelated offence decades later e.g. theft. Which of the multiple salient facts gets priority in deciding which gendered prison they go to? Should they be exposed to the very real risk of abuse in a men's prison, in order to prevent any risk of harm in a prison of their now fully accepted gender of choice? There's no obvious legal way of determining that. The 'but prisoners don't count though' loophole has been quite rightly demolished by legal challenge after legal challenge in recent decades. Prisoners might be incarcerated, but they still have the same human rights as anyone else in society. A society that recognises self-ID outside of prisons will ultimately have to do so inside that system as well: it only takes a legitimate edge case to confirm that. The actual risk to female prisoners is of course hugely exaggerated, but the argument that the prison system can magically sort out the wrong 'uns without legal challenge is also wrong and it is insincere for the government to claim that it will. NS genderising the issue of sexual predation only further undermines that case - unless she is planning now on personally judging which changes of gender are legitimate and which are just the work of predatory men. You can fairly argue that the GRA system is much better than the alternative - and also argue that the SG has done better by approaching the problem rather than ignoring it for 5 years like Westminster has done - but there just isn't a credible get-out clause from self-ID when it suits the Scottish Government. Tl;Dr - It's an enormous can of worms that we are nowhere close to dealing with properly as a society, because state bureaucracy has categorised people by 'objective' characteristics for centuries. These issues are not just being concocted out of nothing by bigots - they're an inherent part of working out where the line will have to be drawn in any democratic society. Edited January 27, 2023 by vikingTON 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 27, 2023 Share Posted January 27, 2023 1 hour ago, Savage Henry said: This… …. Plus this… … Should really be enough to put the entire “debate” to bed. It won’t be, because the bishop of bath and his oddball followers and formerly grown adults have had their brains turned to turnip by Trump era Twitter. There’s absolutely no “controversy” here at all. And yet, here we are. Complete and utter drivel. There are absolutely issues to be resolved by debate in Scottish, UK and Western society involving gender self-ID and just because a shower of Tories have descended on it does not invalidate that reality. The influence that you seem to grant a weirdo Bath blogger on the internet for formenting opposition shows just how out of touch you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sophia Posted January 27, 2023 Share Posted January 27, 2023 11 minutes ago, virginton said: Complete and utter drivel. There are absolutely issues to be resolved by debate in Scottish, UK and Western society involving gender self-ID and just because a shower of Tories have descended on it does not invalidate that reality. The influence that you seem to grant a weirdo Bath blogger on the internet for formenting opposition shows just how out of touch you are. Did you mean fomenting or are you on the home brew? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted January 27, 2023 Share Posted January 27, 2023 @virginton It is perfectly possible, because it's exactly what happens with Scottish prisons right now. In the hypothetical you present the only salient facts are how does the inmate currently identify, and do they pose an unacceptable and unmanageable risk to other inmates should they be housed in a prison of their identifying gender. SPS does currently work on the basis of Self-ID, so unless there is any qualifying reason why a prisoner should not be housed alongside other inmates of their acquired gender, that is what happens. If your thief identifies as a woman and wishes to be housed with other women, that is where they will go, unless they are considered such a risk due to their prior sexual offending that they can't been safely incarcerated with other women. The risk factors of having a hypothetical transwoman in the company of female prisoners, versus the risk to the transwoman from male prisoners, and the management thereof, is part of what determines where the prisoner ultimately ends up, but there is no hard and fast rule that is adhered to regardless of circumstance precisely because there are associated risks no matter the ultimate decision. I agree with you that at some point it is likely to meet some form of legal challenge from an inmate who has been denied their choice, but then in order to win that case they would have to convince the law courts that their 'human right' to be housed with other prisoners of their acquired gender trumps the right of the other prisoners to be protected by the exemption in the EA, or that the authorities have erred in judging them such a risk that they can not be adequately managed. In essence, your assertion that 'self-ID isn't recognised inside prisons' is false, it currently is, but with the caveat that the EA exemption is in play, so therefore it is currently entirely legal for SPS to discriminate on the basis of risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 27, 2023 Share Posted January 27, 2023 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said: @virginton It is perfectly possible, because it's exactly what happens with Scottish prisons right now. In the hypothetical you present the only salient facts are how does the inmate currently identify, and do they pose an unacceptable and unmanageable risk to other inmates should they be housed in a prison of their identifying gender. SPS does currently work on the basis of Self-ID, so unless there is any qualifying reason why a prisoner should not be housed alongside other inmates of their acquired gender, that is what happens. If your thief identifies as a woman and wishes to be housed with other women, that is where they will go, unless they are considered such a risk due to their prior sexual offending that they can't been safely incarcerated with other women. The risk factors of having a hypothetical transwoman in the company of female prisoners, versus the risk to the transwoman from male prisoners, and the management thereof, is part of what determines where the prisoner ultimately ends up, but there is no hard and fast rule that is adhered to regardless of circumstance precisely because there are associated risks no matter the ultimate decision. I agree with you that at some point it is likely to meet some form of legal challenge from an inmate who has been denied their choice, but then in order to win that case they would have to convince the law courts that their 'human right' to be housed with other prisoners of their acquired gender trumps the right of the other prisoners to be protected by the exemption in the EA, or that the authorities have erred in judging them such a risk that they can not be adequately managed. A challenge that they will under most reasonable circumstances win, because 'no hard and fast rule - the prison authorities just subjectively decide' is not and never has been a lasting defence against a prisoner asserting their human rights. And quite rightly so. Quote In essence, your assertion that 'self-ID isn't recognised inside prisons' is false, it currently is, but with the caveat that the EA exemption is in play, so therefore it is currently entirely legal for SPS to discriminate on the basis of risk. It may be recognised in theory but not in practice, because the fundamental principle of self-ID of a prisoner's gender will trump EA exemptions as soon as a credible test case is provided. The Equality Act was not carved into stone by Moses - there's no inherent reason why a 2010 act takes precedent over a more fundamental verdict on human rights passed barely a decade later. It's entirely legitimate to argue that's still a better outcome than the alternative, but to pretend that the EA is a magic shield that will stop prisons or any other setting from dealing with the full implications of self-ID is just wrong. Edited January 27, 2023 by vikingTON Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 27, 2023 Share Posted January 27, 2023 (edited) 13 minutes ago, approximately dave said: What gets missed here is where the real risk comes from in the case of Bryson, maybe not from Bryson herself but when you introduce a known rapist into a woman's prison its not if but when Bryson ends up in either the prison infirmary or the morgue that should be considered even before the idea of risk assessing a transwoman being introduced into the company of female prisoners. Rapists are right up there with child killers on many a shit list. In which gendered prison setting is Bryson or a similar offender more at risk of ending in a morgue? The risk of harm to a prisoner - whether because of their crimes or being the 'wrong' gender in a brutalised setting - is absolutely going to be a case for the defence and not in favour of Sturgeon's bizarre 'predatory men are the only risk, that we'll magically protect you from' legal take. You can't abandon self-ID principles just because the alternative is uncomfortable to deal with. The inherent logic of the law will either play out across all settings or the law will have to be amended. Edited January 27, 2023 by vikingTON 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alta-pete Posted January 27, 2023 Share Posted January 27, 2023 3 hours ago, Boo Khaki said: @virginton I get your point, although I think you're getting a bit hung up on semantics when the reality is that transpeople are still just a tiny, tiny proportion of the population, so it is perfectly possible to work on a case-by-case basis and apply the law differently depending on circumstance. The situation with Scottish prisons is that there are, at last count, 16 inmates who are trans, 12 transwomen, 4 transmen, so I can only assume that the logic behind who goes where largely lies in the fact that it must surely be easier to monitor 1 or 2 people who potentially are a risk to hundreds, rather than monitor hundreds who are potentially a risk two one or two specific individuals. I'm not sure that anyone who attempted to imply that people who complete a full transition must surely inherit the proclivities and risks associated with their acquired gender, and/or lose those of their old, would stand up to scrutiny either. I think it's fine to say that 'men' are the risk to women given that they commit the overwhelming bulk of sex crimes perpetrated against women, as that's a behaviour that clearly comes with being born male, but if you are going to contend that anyone who transitions away from being male surely stops being a risk, then it seems to be that you are contending that they have ceased to be a biological male. I concede that some people who do ascribe to TWAW/TMAM do, in fact, contend that a completed transition does indeed change your biological sex, but I personally think you can accept and acknowledge that TWAW and TMAM and still perfectly reasonably state that their chromosomal sex has not changed, and therefore they must still be regarded as carrying the same risks as any individual of their natal sex. It's a fact that transwomen commit sexual offences at the same rate as untransitioned males, so it appears that any idea that a male sex-offender who transitioned and acquired a GRC would cease to pose the same risk wouldn't stand up anyway. I get that is not a point you are personally making, and I accept that it is a situation that appears to be ripe for some legal challenge, but as things stand the law is quite clear that the EA regards 'sex' to be a legal status, but it does not imply that an individual who has legally changed sex has actually changed their chromosomes, so I think any case brought on that basis wouldn't fly as it appears more to be a semantic/pedantic argument about the word 'men/women' when the law is only really concerned with the legal definition. Even the screeds furiously written in the 3hrs since this, never mind the legislative time allocated over the previous months to get there and then the subsequent seethe after the s.35 from WM - why is so much time and resource being devoted to such a marginal issue when there are so many more fundamental issues requiring attention in this country? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Khaki Posted January 28, 2023 Share Posted January 28, 2023 45 minutes ago, alta-pete said: Even the screeds furiously written in the 3hrs since this, never mind the legislative time allocated over the previous months to get there and then the subsequent seethe after the s.35 from WM - why is so much time and resource being devoted to such a marginal issue when there are so many more fundamental issues requiring attention in this country? GRC reform has been a commitment since 2016. The mechanism of actually getting it through Holyrood was, like so many others, delayed by Covid and the SG dealing with the pandemic. They spent 3 days before xmas debating then passing the bill, I don't see how that is in any way disproportionate use of parliamentary time when you take into account it's a piece of legislation that has been in the pipeline for nearly 7 years. With regard to it being a marginal issue - I would agree with you that the attention it has generated in the media is completely out of proportion to the actual number of Scots who will seek a GRC after the reform bill, but there are those with a vested interest in turning the entire culture war over gender into a totally overblown moral panic, and their chums in the media seem perfectly happy to aid and abet this. For all the media histrionics about this being a topic that has most of Scotland in a seething mess, it doesn't appear to be impacting the pro-reform parties come polling time, so I suspect that the reality is it's actually a tiny number of people on either side where this is a deal-breaker issue, and that for the vast majority it's something they don't really pay more than passing attention to. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RH33 Posted January 28, 2023 Share Posted January 28, 2023 For the eejits at the back who don't seem to get it........ a predatory man is already able to walk into changing rooms and toilets and if determined to cause harm, will not be particularly bothered about getting a GRC. I say this as a woman and as a survivor of crimes like Bryson has been charged with. 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Saintee Posted January 28, 2023 Share Posted January 28, 2023 (edited) Nobody gave a f**k about these female prisoners...some of the "most vulnerable" in society until now. How about actually supporting these women and providing them with rehabilitation before sending them back to their lives. Instead they will just be used in the media and social media to try and score points. And not once has anyone mentioned the victims/survivors of this rapist. Who right now can't turn on the TV, radio or social media without being reminded of their attacker. Edited January 28, 2023 by The Saintee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abdul_Latif Posted January 28, 2023 Share Posted January 28, 2023 20 minutes ago, The Saintee said: Nobody gave a f**k about these female prisoners...some of the "most vulnerable" in society until now. At the risk of playing devils advocate, many may not have been aware at all of the situation as it didn’t get much coverage. They can’t be blamed for not being aware of an issue they didn't even know of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Saintee Posted January 28, 2023 Share Posted January 28, 2023 5 minutes ago, Abdul_Latif said: At the risk of playing devils advocate, many may not have been aware at all of the situation as it didn’t get much coverage. They can’t be blamed for not being aware of an issue they didn't even know of. People aren't aware of womens prisons? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawson Park Boy Posted January 28, 2023 Share Posted January 28, 2023 3 minutes ago, The Saintee said: People aren't aware of womens prisons? In this age of equality, women in prisons are criminals, just like men. What’s the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Saintee Posted January 28, 2023 Share Posted January 28, 2023 9 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said: In this age of equality, women in prisons are criminals, just like men. What’s the difference? Absolutely. And the standard of rehabilitation is dreadful in both. But you've never heard about these women being "some of the most vulnerable in our society" until this situation arose. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abdul_Latif Posted January 28, 2023 Share Posted January 28, 2023 2 hours ago, The Saintee said: People aren't aware of womens prisons? People were possibly not aware violent sex offenders, whose offences were towards women, were being housed in women’s prisons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted January 28, 2023 Share Posted January 28, 2023 5 hours ago, Abdul_Latif said: At the risk of playing devils advocate, many may not have been aware at all of the situation as it didn’t get much coverage. They can’t be blamed for not being aware of an issue they didn't even know of. This is abject pish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abdul_Latif Posted January 28, 2023 Share Posted January 28, 2023 7 minutes ago, Benjamin_Nevis said: This is abject pish I’m not defending it. Simply stating that till it is raised to a certain level, many are absolutely oblivious to what is going on it politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 28, 2023 Share Posted January 28, 2023 22 hours ago, virginton said: You can't abandon self-ID principles just because the alternative is uncomfortable to deal with. The inherent logic of the law will either play out across all settings or the law will have to be amended. Except 'self-ID principles' are complete nonsense. The best thing to do is abandon them. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawson Park Boy Posted January 29, 2023 Share Posted January 29, 2023 11 hours ago, The_Kincardine said: Except 'self-ID principles' are complete nonsense. The best thing to do is abandon them. Absolutely Angus McNeill MP now wants them dumped. The whole thing is falling apart. -3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted January 29, 2023 Share Posted January 29, 2023 ‘No to self-ID’ and ‘My team: Rangers’ in the one go is quite the take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts