The Gender Debate

[vikingTON]

16 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

The GRR wouldn't change anything about this, risk assessment would still take place on a case to case basis. I don't get why anyone would think a blanket rule would be better.

Except that risk of harm is not and cannot be an objectively measured fact. It is an ultimately subjective balancing of different potential harms within the prison system. GRA shifts the wider social context in which those calculations take place (just as it does in schools, hospitals or any other institutional setting). But crucially, the principle of self-ID also establishes in practice a fundamental human right that stomps all over any such risk assessment.

Why - on the basis of the GRA - should a female be wrongly consigned to a men's prison and be exposed to a very high risk of personal harm, because a so-called 'risk assessment' backed by another back of a fag packet SG decision says so? An individual does not deserve to have their fundamental rights deprived and to be vilely abused in prison even if it might reduce the harm to a thousand other inmates by a fraction of a percent. 

The risk assessment/Equality Act fallback is quite simply bollocks. You either acknowledge and accept that real but very low risk of misuse as an acceptable cost, or you do not support the change. There is no magical get-out clause for difficult cases. 

Edited February 4, 2023 by vikingTON

[The_Kincardine]

3 minutes ago, virginton said:

the principle of self-ID also establishes in practice a fundamental human right that stomps all over any such risk assessment.

There is no 'fundamental human right' that forces one to accept up is down or shite tastes like sugar.

This is nonsense posting from you.

[vikingTON]

3 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

There is no 'fundamental human right' that forces one to accept up is down or shite tastes like sugar.

This is nonsense posting from you.

Nothing confirms fact-based analysis quite like your gin-addled disapproval. Thanks for playing anyway chump.

[welshbairn]

There are no binary rules for releasing prisoners on probation, a risk assessment has to be taken on a case by case basis. Categorical rules on where there's a gender question about where convicts should serve their sentence would just be silly.

[The_Kincardine]

6 minutes ago, virginton said:

Nothing confirms fact-based analysis quite like your gin-addled disapproval. Thanks for playing anyway chump.

Your usual 'opinion-based shite' now being passed off  as 'fact-based analysis'?  

You're becoming  a parody of yourself.

[vikingTON]

23 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

There are no binary rules for releasing prisoners on probation, a risk assessment has to be taken on a case by case basis. 

Not relevant, nor does it address the obvious flaws in the 'risk assessment' magic wand already identified.

Quote

Categorical rules on where there's a gender question about where convicts should serve their sentence would just be silly

No, what's silly is the SG responding to daft tabloid headlines to shunt transgender inmates from one institution to another on a near daily basis. 

The principle of self-ID ultimately creates just such a categorical rule. An inmate's fundamental human right to identify themselves by a gender of their choice - recognised through a legal process - will not in practice be overridden by 'risk assessment' or 'case by case basis'. The alternative after all is to incarcerate self-identifying females in a men's prison at severe risk of abuse, just because it saves the SG embarrassment. 

What's striking here is just how quickly so many people have abandoned the cause of the most vulnerable transgender group in society by some distance - prison inmates - in order to circle the wagons around the wider, abstractly progressive principle of the GRA. At least have the courage to exercise your conviction FFS. 

Edited February 4, 2023 by vikingTON

[welshbairn]

It's all daft anyway, because a trans woman doesn't need a gender recognition certificate to be entered into a female prison, anyone can request it, and have their suitability assessed. Nothing changes.

[The_Kincardine]

12 minutes ago, virginton said:

An inmate's fundamental human right to identify themselves by a gender of their choice - recognised through a legal process - will not in practice be overridden by 'risk assessment' or 'case by case basis'.

Weasel words  from you. Again.

World of difference between 'self identify' and, 'identify themselves'.

The latter have gone through a robust proctors - to  their credit.

[vikingTON]

4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

It's all daft anyway, because a trans woman doesn't need a gender recognition certificate to be entered into a female prison, anyone can request it, and have their suitability assessed. Nothing changes.

That's simply not true. 

1) The societal context for any suitability assessment changes following the GRA (indeed I'd assume that's one of the broader purpose of the act - to shift the starting point towards accounting for transgender rights in all settings). 

2) The legal basis to challenge the outcome of a suitability/risk assessment etc. in prison is fundamentally altered by the outside society accepting the principle of self-ID of gender. Because that's a fundamental human right that cannot be magically denied to prison inmates for reasons.

It's also utterly laughable to pretend that a transgender inmate can fairly claim recognition under the existing system, when the SG has just been busy punting transgender inmates from one institution to another based on protecting themselves from the tabloid press rather than any consistent assessment of the inmate's needs. 

[welshbairn]

 

7 minutes ago, virginton said:

Because that's a fundamental human right that cannot be magically denied to prison inmates for reasons.

And that concludes my argument your honour. 

Edited February 4, 2023 by welshbairn

[The_Kincardine]

3 minutes ago, virginton said:

It's also utterly laughable to pretend that a transgender inmate can fairly claim recognition under the existing system, when the SG has just been busy punting transgender inmates from one institution to another based on protecting themselves from the tabloid press rather than any consistent assessment of the inmate's needs. 

The SG- the most idiotic regional administration known to man -  don't even  recognise  their own act.

Nippy and Gilruth - in their cack-handed way -  both demonstrated the idiocy of Self-ID

[Benjamin_Nevis]

25 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

The SG- the most idiotic regional administration known to man -  don't even  recognise  their own act.

Nippy and Gilruth - in their cack-handed way -  both demonstrated the idiocy of Self-ID

Maybe try a wee bit harder to get VT's attention. Three totally rubbered posts in a row obviously isn't going to cut it. 

[The_Kincardine]

I see that the previously banned Jupe - the fannies' fanny- is trying to make himself relevant.  Again.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

30 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

I see that the previously banned Jupe - the fannies' fanny- is trying to make himself relevant.  Again.

Good to see the previously banned Kinc yet again providing the easiest bite on the forum. Fabulous. 

 

[Bairnardo]

Kincardine accusing someone of becoming a parody of themselves is......

 

 

 

Well its quite something really. 

 

 

 

 

[Arch Stanton]

 

 

[Leith Green]

I note that the Welsh Government is proposing to make it easier to change gender in that country.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64548844

Their intention is to trigger a request to the UK government to devolve the ability to make this change to the Welsh parliament - sadly, I think we all know what the answer will be.

England is looking like even more of an outlier now that Wales is looking to take a similar path to Scotland.

[Dunning1874]

On 03/02/2023 at 18:41, Suspect Device said:

Which is why I question the FM's motives bringing forward a divisive issue like this when we are allegedly trying to get a referendum this year.

It was in their manifesto in 2016 and the bill was first introduced in 2017. They'd already spent far too many years delaying to pander to legitimate concerns, and had they not done so it would have been passed before a culture war had been whipped up to the extent it has.

Failing to deliver legislation you believe is right which you've had as a manifesto commitment when winning elections twice because it's divisive would be total cowardice, particularly if the rationale for doing so is "the rights of a vulnerable minority are trumped by constitutional politics."

[DeeTillEhDeh]

43 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

It was in their manifesto in 2016 and the bill was first introduced in 2017. They'd already spent far too many years delaying to pander to legitimate concerns, and had they not done so it would have been passed before a culture war had been whipped up to the extent it has.

Failing to deliver legislation you believe is right which you've had as a manifesto commitment when winning elections twice because it's divisive would be total cowardice, particularly if the rationale for doing so is "the rights of a vulnerable minority are trumped by constitutional politics."

It was also Tory Party policy under May - that's why it's a bullshit argument regards the Scottish Government looking for a grievance.

 

If anyone is indulging in grievance politics it's the current Tory leadership and the assorted genital inspectors.

[Goomba]

KJK is one annoying nyaff, but she's building some movement here.

Scots don't want this.