The Gender Debate

[vikingTON]

17 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Essentially they can do exactly that, as the EA 2010 contains provisions for ignoring self-ID and excluding people on the basis of natal sex where and when it's necessary and reasonable. This is why, even under current legislation, I believe prisons would be perfectly legally able to rule that fully transitioned people who have committed sex offences, even those with ownership of a GRC, can be held in prisons of their own birth sex if it's believed they pose a risk to persons of the opposite sex. They are not just self-ID'ing, but legally someone of their acquired gender, and even then the exception can still be applied.

That's where it falls down though. The FM has identified predatory men as the threat towards women - perhaps she meant 'predatory birth men' which would be an even weirder a statement than the original. There's no inherent reason why birth sex is less salient than self-identified gender as a marker of risk. 

If you view the issue through such a gendered perspective then it makes absolutely no logical sense to abandon it in certain circumstances because reasons. Once there is a suitable edge case, there will inevitably be a legal challenge that will place the inherent and understandable logic of the GRA (plus human rights, which aren't actually forfeited by criminals) against the get-out clauses provided in the Equality Act. Why should a trans person be confined in a prison of a different gender than their own identified one - with all the exposure to harm that entails - just because a state authority hasn't found an ideal solution yet? That's just not going to fly in the long-term IMHO. 

If Sturgeon had identified predatory individuals regardless of gender as the issue and prioritised safeguarding risk, then she'd have been on much firmer ground. But that statement underlines the faulty logic at work with the SG's handling of the issue. 

Edited January 27, 2023 by vikingTON

[Brother Blades]

The correct judgement has been made, anyone trying to batter the SG for that decision was gonna batter the SG anyway. 

[Boo Khaki]

@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.

[Savage Henry]

10 hours ago, Honest Saints Fan said:

People keep saying they are protecting women's rights. As a woman I have absolutely no issue with those who have changed their gender wanting to access toilets or whatever space they feel is appropriate to them. Sexual predators can get into these spaces no matter what. 

In regards to Isla Bryson, she has been risk assessed and deemed to not be suitable to be in a female prison. This has absolutely nothing to do with the bill that was passed in Parliament. Like all prisoners are risk assessed and moved to the most appropriate place for them and their fellow prisoners.

This…

8 hours ago, Rugster said:

Russell Findlay, tory msp, continually referred to her as "him" and "he" on the John Beattie show on Radio Scotland the other night. Beattie challenged him a number of times about not using the correct pronouns and he spluttered something about "sticking to the timeline of him being a man when charged" but he kept doing it. Beattie eventually said you don't accept this person is a woman do you, and Findlay eventually said fine I'll just refer to the person as the rapist from now on.

Tories gonna tory.

…. 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.   

See if you fix your Twitter settings to mute anyone who hasn’t authorised their email, or number (i.e trolls and bots), Wings and his like’s Tweets are just insane ramblings into the great inter web, which somehow get echoed to appear to be a wide range of opinions.   We aren’t going to get droves deserting the SNP and voting Tory, because half the folk who say they will barely know how to breathe, let alone put a cross on a ballot paper.

Edited January 27, 2023 by Savage Henry

[vikingTON]

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

[vikingTON]

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. 

[sophia]

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?

[Boo Khaki]

@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.

[vikingTON]

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

[vikingTON]

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

[alta-pete]

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? 

[Boo Khaki]

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.

[RH33]

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. 

[The Saintee]

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

[Abdul_Latif]

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.

 

[The Saintee]

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?

[Dawson Park Boy]

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?

[The Saintee]

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.

[Abdul_Latif]

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.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

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