The Gender Debate

[RuMoore]

10 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

The fact is the victim had known Miller for years, so why she considered the driver unthreatening is entirely open to speculation. You can't say for certain it was purely because a 'lady' was driving, but that will be the suggestion from Cherry and her ilk.

Do you personally know the victims family?

I have local knowledge of the story and i would be surprised that they've known Miller for years tbh. Sure everyone knows of a trans butcher but I don't know why a child would know this adult man/woman unless the family's were friends or something which definitely doesn't seem to be the case. I don't see why the reporting would be false here. 

Edited May 19, 2023 by RuMoore

[f_c_dundee]

2 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

It doesn't actually matter either way in terms of gender recognition.

Even without GR, Miller would still have done what he did.

A beast is going to beast no matter the law.

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. 

Edited May 19, 2023 by f_c_dundee

[DeeTillEhDeh]

8 hours ago, virginton said:

Lol wut

Might as well throw out enhanced disclosure, legally required safeguarding and all other preventive measures - as Nothing Can Possibly Be Done to minimise the risk of harm to vulnerable groups. 

That's not what I said though - but as ever you quote out of context and ignored the rest of the post.

A rapist isn't going to need a piece of paper to rape.

GRA is a complete red herring in this situation.

And since when did you need a PVG to drive your own car?

Edited May 19, 2023 by DeeTillEhDeh

[StellarHibee]

6 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

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. 

How does a piece of paper "make it easier"? Are there security guards outside every female changing room asking suspected transsexuals to hand over their GRA?

What a load of BS.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

3 minutes ago, StellarHibee said:

How does a piece of paper "make it easier"? Are there security guards outside every female changing room asking suspected transsexuals to hand over their GRA?

What a load of BS.

Which is what the Sage of Inverclyde conveniently forgets.

[f_c_dundee]

14 hours ago, StellarHibee said:

How does a piece of paper "make it easier"? Are there security guards outside every female changing room asking suspected transsexuals to hand over their GRA?

What a load of BS.

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. 

[vikingTON]

15 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

That's not what I said though - but as ever you quote out of context and ignored the rest of the post.

It is exactly what you said: that's how a quote works. 

Quote

A rapist isn't going to need a piece of paper to rape.

Nobody said that they did. It didn't take long (about 0.2 seconds) for you to flip from demanding context for your own posts, to constructing this ludicrous straw man argument for others. 

Quote

GRA is a complete red herring in this situation.

GRR on the other hand is not a complete red herring - that involves a much wider establishment of norms than just the 'piece of paper' you're referring to.

Quote

And since when did you need a PVG to drive your own car?

See 'ludicrous straw man arguments' from you, above. 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

16 minutes ago, virginton said:

It is exactly what you said: that's how a quote works. 

Nobody said that they did. It didn't take long (about 0.2 seconds) for you to flip from demanding context for your own posts, to constructing this ludicrous straw man argument for others. 

GRR on the other hand is not a complete red herring - that involves a much wider establishment of norms than just the 'piece of paper' you're referring to.

See 'ludicrous straw man arguments' from you, above. 

Lolwut?

You are the one who talked about disclosure which had the square root of f**k all to do with this.  You are the one who said that I said there shouldn't be any safeguards when I said no such thing.

You are the one who added in your own straw fucking man argument.

None of the existing safeguards would have prevented this from happening nor would GR have enabled this.

The man was already dressing up as woman quite legally without GR being in place.

If there is any issue with GR it isn't the case itself but where the offender will be housed within prison system.  But as you yourself have said, the safeguard there is the existing risk assessments.

What concerns me beyond this is the continual linking of trans with sex offender.  Apart from the obvious tarring of the whole trans community (as it is clearly intended to do) it ignores the reality that most sexual predators are known to the victim - it just reinforces the stranger danger myth.  

The whole issue is complex but it's not helped by GC arseholes deliberately muddying the waters.

 

[vikingTON]

30 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Lolwut?

You are the one who talked about disclosure which had the square root of f**k all to do with this.  You are the one who said that I said there shouldn't be any safeguards when I said no such thing.

You are the one who added in your own straw fucking man argument.

That's the entire premise of your 'a beast is going to beast regardless of the law' argument. That the law has no impact on minimising the risk of harm to vulnerable groups caused by the tiny minority of seriously warped pieces of work out there in society. But the law does reduce that risk all the time. 

Quote

 

None of the existing safeguards would have prevented this from happening nor would GR have enabled this.

The man was already dressing up as woman quite legally without GR being in place.

 

You seem to be doing a Sturgeon here and once misgendering someone as soon as they turn out to be a wrong 'un. 

Quote

If there is any issue with GR it isn't the case itself but where the offender will be housed within prison system.  But as you yourself have said, the safeguard there is the existing risk assessments.

Unless the SG and the prison system have swiftly learned the lessons of the Isla Bryson fiasco then there's no reason to assume that the safeguards will be in place there.

That's the issue with GRR - it is not just what the law says but rather how the starting assumptions of institutions and society as a whole are warped by its ultra advocates beyond legal application. Because hell mend the institution that gets on the wrong side of unimpeachable self-ID as a principle. 

Quote

 

What concerns me beyond this is the continual linking of trans with sex offender.  Apart from the obvious tarring of the whole trans community (as it is clearly intended to do) it ignores the reality that most sexual predators are known to the victim - it just reinforces the stranger danger myth.  

The whole issue is complex but it's not helped by GC arseholes deliberately muddying the waters.

 

I agree with all of this and it is really not a good look for JC to be jumping on such a grisly episode. 

On the other hand though, it is not a good look for advocates of GRR to deploy a version of the 'no true Scotsman', based on number of years since transition or simply misgendering wrong uns after conviction to avoid dealing with the handful of people who can and will use a self-ID context to further their own warped agenda.  That is part of the complexity of resolving the problem too. 

[Leith Green]

36 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

None of the existing safeguards would have prevented this from happening nor would GR have enabled this.

The man was already dressing up as woman quite legally without GR being in place.

If there is any issue with GR it isn't the case itself but where the offender will be housed within prison system.  But as you yourself have said, the safeguard there is the existing risk assessments.

Yep, this is why the media portrayal of this case and the Isla Bryson one are irritating.

These offences (and numerous others in England and Wales) were committed under the law as it stands. 

The suggestion that other sex offenders, preparing to commit these sort of crimes, are - in some way - restraining themselves until they are allowed to Self ID under the GRR law is tinfoil hat pish.

Its also not exactly a new idea that a tiny %age of sex offenders - when caught and looking at jail time - have claimed to be female and attempted to be housed in a womens prison for supposed "easier time".

The important thing is to ensure that ALL prisoners are risk assessed regardless of what they consider themselves to be - and iirc, this is exactly how the system now works.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

2 hours ago, virginton said:

That's the entire premise of your 'a beast is going to beast regardless of the law' argument. That the law has no impact on minimising the risk of harm to vulnerable groups caused by the tiny minority of seriously warped pieces of work out there in society. 1. But the law does reduce that risk all the time. 

You seem to be doing a Sturgeon here and once 2. misgendering someone as soon as they turn out to be a wrong 'un. 

3. Unless the SG and the prison system have swiftly learned the lessons of the Isla Bryson fiasco then there's no reason to assume that the safeguards will be in place there.

That's the issue with GRR - it is not just what the law says but rather how the starting assumptions of institutions and society as a whole are warped by its ultra advocates beyond legal application. Because hell mend the institution that gets on the wrong side of unimpeachable self-ID as a principle. 

I agree with all of this and it is really not a good look for JC to be jumping on such a grisly episode. 

On the other hand though, it is not a good look for advocates of GRR to deploy a version of the 'no true Scotsman', based on number of years since transition or simply misgendering wrong uns after conviction to avoid dealing with the 4. handful of people who can and will use a self-ID context to further their own warped agenda.  That is part of the complexity of resolving the problem too. 

1. I don't disagree but the most extreme sex offenders will do what they will irrespective of the law - the point I was making was that despite existing laws this still happened.

2. No deliberate misgendering - as reports have stated:

'The court heard that Miller, who owned a butcher shop, is in the process of transitioning to female but confirmed before his interview with the police that he wished to be addressed as Andrew Miller using “he"'

My pronouns are correct - in any case whether Andrew/Amy Miller is trans is irrelevant - any sex offender could dress up as female and the exsting law would have zero impact.

3. You know my opinion of the Scottish Government's handling of the Bryson case - I still believe the existing risk assessments should have just happened - by stepping in as they did they completely undermined their own safeguards. You'll also know that I don't agree with the strategy of pursuing a legal challenge to Section 35 - it really should have been punted back to HM Government.

4. Again I don't disagree but  deception to gender was included within the Act - at a UK level - it's also part of the proposed revision to CPS legal guidance.

And if we are being honest, the fake concerns of the GC lobby (supported by others with their own own insidious culture wars agenda) masks the reality that they don't support trans rights full stop. 

Edited May 20, 2023 by DeeTillEhDeh

[f_c_dundee]

2 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

I still believe the existing risk assessments should have just happened - by stepping in as they did they completely undermined their own safeguards.

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?  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 20, 2023 by f_c_dundee

[TxRover]

4 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

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?  

 

 

 

 

 

So, does this also mean that no prison staff should be male in a female prison? And, likewise, since there are men who have been abused by women, that no prison staff in male prisons should be female? It seems the logical result of this argument you are making. But then what about males that have been abused by males…or females by females?

[DeeTillEhDeh]

18 minutes ago, TxRover said:

So, does this also mean that no prison staff should be male in a female prison? And, likewise, since there are men who have been abused by women, that no prison staff in male prisons should be female? It seems the logical result of this argument you are making. But then what about males that have been abused by males…or females by females?

Both of these types of abuse are a far bigger concern - any concerns with GR are out of all proportion to the reality - and it's absolutely deliberate.

[f_c_dundee]

8 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Both of these types of abuse are a far bigger concern - any concerns with GR are out of all proportion to the reality - and it's absolutely deliberate.

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.

[f_c_dundee]

9 hours ago, TxRover said:

So, does this also mean that no prison staff should be male in a female prison? And, likewise, since there are men who have been abused by women, that no prison staff in male prisons should be female? It seems the logical result of this argument you are making. But then what about males that have been abused by males…or females by females?

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.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

6 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

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.

I was referring to sexual assaults by other prisoners.

Assaults by other prisoners of the same sex are far more more of an issue.

 

Edited May 21, 2023 by DeeTillEhDeh

[f_c_dundee]

2 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

I was referring to sexual assaults by other prisoners.

Assaults by other prisoners of the same sex are far more more of an issue.

 

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.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

7 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

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.

The point I'm making is that there is a completely disprortionate attention on a tiny minority of trans women compared to other violent prisoners of the same sex.

 

[Thorongil]

Question: if gender dysphoria isn’t a medical or mental health illness or condition (stated by the World Health Organisation) then why is there a demand for  “healthcare”, including drugs and surgeries? 

Edited May 21, 2023 by Thorongil