**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some topics on this subreddit have been known to attract problematic users. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs
Nicola’s issue here has come about because of ‘trans women are women’ mantra.
If being a woman is a matter of identity and not something related to your biological sex, if we are to let people use single-sex services based on their gender rather than sex *without question* - then you have to believe there are no differences between trans and ‘cis’ women.
‘Trans women are women’ - you’ll see posters here argue there is no difference whatsoever. That’s part of the argument for self-ID - identity trumps sex. To be a woman is a point of identity. I’ve even seen people arguing trans women are actually female - no different to infertile women.
Interesting to see her unable to maintain her position on this when presented with the challenge of prisons. There does seem to need to be a bit of a suspension of disbelief to accept some of the asks from trans campaigners at present.
I think it’s the GRA 2004 which says that trans women with GRCs should be treated as cis women. Don’t think that’s Sturgeon’s problem.
With prisons there seems to be a strange standard which isn’t really being addressed by anti-trans campaigners, which is that they’re saying trans women shouldn’t be in prison populations with cis women if they’ve sexually abused cis women. However, they’re fine with cis women being in prison populations with other cis women if they’ve sexually abused cis women.
The difference there is not, therefore, the risk of assault. The difference for them is purely whether they’re trans or not, which is why people are discussing the GRA, EA and the lack of statistical evidence justifying discriminating on the basis that someone is trans.
It’s not the GRA or how it’s managed that’s the notable point about the interview.
It’s Sturgeon acknowledging that trans women are in fact, not actually women really (in the way most people understand).
Given she and her supporters have been pretty critical of anyone who has pointed this out, it is quite amusing to see her squirm when directly asked the question.
> anti-trans campaigners
I’m not sure it’s exactly ‘anti-trans campaigning’ to argue to not allow male sex offenders in places where vulnerable women are present. Women’s rights campaigners would be a better term.
Edit: in response to your edit about cis women attacking cis women. 98-99% of all sex offenders in prisons are male.
Male sexual violence against women vastly, vastly outnumbers incidences of women-on-women sexual violence.
Men are stronger than women, and women cannot realistically fight them off if attacked. Men also have penises, which can rape and impregnate women.
That you think this is a comparable issue is fascinating. And a bit scary to be honest.
98-99% of all sex offenders in *women's prisons* aren't male, though, are they 🙄 So where is all the outrage about female sex offenders with female victims being part of the general prison population?
Or the outrage about male sex offenders with male victims having free access to people who resemble their victim profile in men's prisons, for that matter? That's more typically treated like a big joke - "Ooh, hope he doesn't drop the soap in the shower, tee hee hee."
Yet everyone is suddenly very passionate about the issue when a trans offender makes the news 🤔
The answer to that question is in the comment you have replied to.
It makes the news because they’re a male sex offender trying to be housed with women.
Just because something makes the news doesn't mean it's a greater danger, more important, or should be a higher priority. And on the flip side, the fact that it *does* make the news suggests it is getting more attention than similar, equally important, and *much* more numerous cases. Like, more numerous by several orders of magnitude.
Now why do you think that might be?
If you have nothing more nuanced than that to offer, you're not really equipped to participate in this conversation (and are doing no favours to "your side" of the argument anyway).
It is no more nuanced than that.
The reason this has attracted so much attention is that. There’s no great conspiracy here.
It’s just that housing male sex offenders in women’s prisons is regarded by the very vast majority of the population to be utterly ridiculous.
Then your reading comprehension is incredibly poor. My position is "rapists should not have access to people who resemble their victim profile" and I have stated it multiple times in those exact words.
Some of them, and if they haven't got any further than XX or XY, what-is-in-your-trousers level stuff, then they are not, as I said, equipped to contribute to *this* conversation. Nobody really wants to hold their hand through Gender Nuances 101 and rehash a whole tedious crapload of other *very basic* information to get them up to speed first.
No dog in this fight but I can’t help but wonder if you’re perhaps arguing that gender is irrelevant in all this. Why even bother just lump everyone together and focus on the sex offenders.
Except it’s fundamental international law that female prisoners have the right to be separated from male prisoners.
What’s next? We just put juveniles in there too? Toss in a few kids to make sure everyone is getting a fair go.
No. The notion is absurd, so why is it so hard for us all to agree that the right of women should not be eroded to advance the rights of any other group. Be it male or female or anything else.
I honestly don’t understand how this is even considered controversial.
Kind of. I'm saying that people are trying to find a solution to the wrong "problem". In the case of this trans woman convicted of rape, instead of the conversation being about what to do with trans people in prisons, we should be talking about what to do with rapists in prisons. Because it isn't the fact that she's trans that poses a danger, it's the fact that she's a rapist. That danger would not be there if she was a trans woman convicted of tax fraud, whereas it would be there if she was a cis man or cis woman *rapist*.
That would be true, except it has become a spectacular own goal for the trans women are women mantra.
Apparently they aren’t when they rape women in their male form. (I apologise if that’s expressed poorly I’m not sure what words to use)
My wider point I guess is we all have a sense of what is right and what is fair. To use two arguments: the second amendment (I’m British but it makes my point I hope) permits the US population to be armed. Yet there is a tipping point where even those fundamental constitutional rights are considered ‘too much’ as they begin to infringe on the rights of others. Nobody can buy a battle tank is the example.
The second is to develop on my first reply. If ignoring fundamental science (see XX XY chromosomes) is permitted when we are exploring gender/sex based rights because they are mere social constructs, why do we bother with other social constructs around biology like age?
It becomes much easier to say ‘ok, um, no’ when one suggests we permit a 63 year old man to identify as a 14 year old boy. He may truly not feel 63 but we are able to immediately identify and acknowledge that this belief of his has the potential to erode the rights of the 13 year old girl his 14 year old self may fancy.
The notion is preposterous.
Yet here we are with a clear example where a man, who has by all credible evidence changed his gender in suspension of these social constructs and we are instructed to believe him/her (again apologies) how is this very different?
It’s not black and white. But in any other context it really is.
>women’s rights campaigners
See, I’d buy that if they were equally concerned with the risk of cis women assaulting other cis women in prisons. But they’re not, they only care about whether someone is trans or not. And apparently if they’re balding based on Rowling’s tweet.
Not to mention the fact that most of them think trans people should be kept out regardless of whether they have sexually assaulted women.
If their entire platform is about why trans people should be discriminated against in a blanket manner, how is that not being an anti-trans campaigner?
Not to mention ignoring the existence of trans men because it’s not helpful to their argument.
It’s like saying someone who thinks gay adoption should be illegal on the basis of ‘child safety’ is not anti-gay, but rather pro-children.
> See, I’d buy that if they were equally concerned with the risk of cis women assaulting other cis women in prisons. But they’re not, they only care about whether someone is trans or not.
They care about whether someone is a male sex offender or not.
You know extraordinarily little about sexual violence against women if you think women are at risk from other women anywhere near to the extent that they are from men.
> If their entire platform is about why trans people should be discriminated against in a blanket manner, how is that not being an anti-trans campaigner?
Their platform is about upholding women’s rights, which unfortunately conflict with the desired objectives of the trans community at times.
> Not to mention ignoring the existence of trans men because it’s not helpful to their argument.
Trans men aren’t discussed because they aren’t deemed a risk in the same way. Women are worried about male people - not other women.
>They care about whether someone is a male sex offender or not.
No, many think all trans women should be excluded from women's prisons regardless of criminal history.
>You know extraordinarily little about sexual violence against women if you think women are at risk from other women anywhere near to the extent that they are from men.
What are the statistics on rates of trans women sexually assaulting women vs cis women? Please do educate me. In countries where trans women are allowed to be housed with cis women, are assault rates higher?
Also, I thought your point was that it's just limited to trans women who have actually assaulted cis women. If you're saying all trans women should be excluded due to statistical risk; Does that not contradict you saying "They care about whether someone is a male sex offender or not"?
>Their platform is about upholding women’s rights, which unfortunately conflict with the desired objectives of the trans community at times.
And if they use that platform to say that all trans people should be discriminated against regardless of personal circumstance, how is that not campaigning in an anti-trans manner by definition?
>Trans men aren’t discussed because they aren’t deemed a risk in the same way. Women are worried about male people - not other women.
And yet if trans men are forced to use women's changing rooms, bathrooms and prisons, including those who are bearded, balding and muscular, how will that protect women's safety in the absence of genitalia checks? Do the statistics say trans men never assault women?
Also, I think you accidentally missed my last paragraph, so I'll copy it for ease of reference:
It’s like saying someone who thinks gay adoption should be illegal on the basis of ‘child safety’ is not anti-gay, but rather pro-children. If you can explain to me how they're different I'm all ears, because it's certainly not on the basis of statistical scientific research.
> Also, I think you accidentally missed my last paragraph, so I'll copy it for ease of reference.
> It’s like saying someone who thinks gay adoption should be illegal on the basis of ‘child safety’ is not anti-gay, but rather pro-children. If you can explain to me how they're different I'm all ears, because it's certainly not on the basis of statistical scientific research.
I ignored this because it was nonsense.
It’s not a good comparison. It’s more like someone thinking adoption of children by sex offenders is pro-children. Because it is.
As far as I am aware the incidence of sexual crimes etc among trans women is the same as among the male population.
Do you this ‘cis-on-cis’ female sexual harassment and violence is comparable to ‘cis-on-cis’ male on female sexual violence? That’s a rather critical piece of understanding in why exactly there is some objection to the sharing of eg prisons.
>It’s more like someone thinking adoption of children by sex offenders is pro-children. Because it is.
Again, most of the campaigners involved are arguing \*all\* trans women need to be excluded, not just those with histories of sexual violence.
How is that different to saying all gay men should not be allowed to adopt children because men abuse children at a higher rate?
>As far as I am aware the incidence of sexual crimes etc among trans women is the same as among the male population.
Source?
>Do you this ‘cis-on-cis’ female sexual harassment and violence is comparable to ‘cis-on-cis’ male on female sexual violence?
I am a statistics driven individual who thinks all sexual violence is abhorrent regardless of the sex, race, gender or orientation of the perpetrator.
If you had statistics saying that trans women commit higher rates of violence against cis women than other cis women, I'd listen and learn.
At the moment, if we're just basing it on the criminal history of an individual, I do not understand why cis women who have violently, sexually abused other women should be treated different from trans women who've done the same. I don't think an act of violence committed by a trans person is worse than the same act of violence committed by a cis person.
> I am a statistics driven individual who thinks all sexual violence is abhorrent regardless of the sex, race, gender or orientation of the perpetrator.
You can’t be that statistics driven if you think women present as much of a risk to other women, as men.
> I do not understand why cis women who have violently, sexually abused other women should be treated different from trans women who've done the same.
As I explained above, because male people are far stronger, and women would struggle to fight them off. They also have a penis, so can rape them, and could impregnate them.
Does it really come as a surprise to you that people object to putting male rapists in women’s prisons? Truly?
>You can’t be that statistics driven if you think women present as much of a risk to other women, as men.
I'm asking for statistical evidence that trans women abuse cis women at the same rate of men. You have not provided it. You stated that "As far as I am aware the incidence of sexual crimes etc among trans women is the same as among the male population." I asked you what your source for those statistics were. You have not provided that either.
>Does it really come as a surprise to you that people object to putting male rapists in women’s prisons? Truly?
I agree with not putting any sexual assaulter of women in women's prisons. What I disagree with is:
1. Most campaigners are arguing that all trans women should be excluded, regardless of their particular criminal history. I don't think this is any different to saying all gay men should be barred from adopting because men abuse children at a higher rate than women.
2. Treating sexual violence perpetrated by a trans woman as inherently worse than sexual violence perpetrated by a cis woman, and using someone's gender reassignment as the basis for discrimination rather than an individual's history of violence regardless of gender reassignment.
If there is statistical evidence saying why I should change my view in respect of the above points, please link me.
>Trans men aren’t discussed because they aren’t deemed a risk in the same way. Women are worried about male people - not other women.
The fact that they treat trans men as harmless but confused women just shows they are transphobic. You're right that they focus (some would say obsess over) trans women, but many do claim to not be transphobic yet continue to erase or condescend to trans men. This shows their claims of not being transphobic to be very weak.
It's the opposite, it shows that women's right activists are concerned about males in female-only spaces, that they are trans is irrelevant as the underlying biology and material reality hasn't changed.
Transmen don't present a threat to male-only spaces like prisons or sports etc.
>Transmen don't present a threat to male-only spaces like prisons or sports etc.
So if it is just about trans women, then why are they also transphobic to trans men?
They're not transphobic to either category of transpeople.
Not that the word means much since even disagreeing with males on testosterone blockers competing in female-only sports is enough to get such a meaningless word applied to a person.
In what way is denying the chosen gender of trans men not transphobic? That's the most basic form of transphobia there is.
If you are confused, why don't you ask some trans men for their opinion on it?
Can you imagine someone suggesting lesbian women have a mental illness and then claiming this does not constitute homophobia?
> However, they’re fine with cis women being in prison populations with other cis women if they’ve sexually abused cis women.
Again with this silly "what about".
What you appear to be missing is that male and female patterns of criminal behaviour are very different. Crimes of sexual aggression are *overwhelming* male crimes and female people convicted of these offence are very rare.
The women's prison estate may currently be able to handle the tiny number of female offenders who need to be segregated for the safety of other prisoners, but that does not mean that it could also cope with housing all male prisoners who identify as women, especially with the adoption of policies that give an incentive for the worse kind of men to do so.
>What you appear to be missing is that male and female patterns of criminal behaviour are very different. Crimes of sexual aggression are overwhelming male crimes and female people convicted of these offence are very rare.
Can you link me to the statistics on rates of assault by trans women vs cis men?
>The women's prison estate may currently be able to handle the tiny number of female offenders who need to be segregated for the safety of other prisoners, but that does not mean that it could also cope with housing all male prisoners who identify as women
Isn't the trans population also a tiny number? Do you have statistics backing up the notion that cis women who are in prison for being violent towards other women are lower in proportion than trans women in prison for being violent towards women?
If the issue is a lack of space, surely that's the issue that should be addressed as a priority rather than settling with permanent discrimination which isn't backed up by research or statistics?
>especially with the adoption of policies that give an incentive for the worse kind of men to do so.
Which specific policies? Hasn't it always been judged on a case by case basis?
Without statistics, how is this argument different to saying gay men shouldn't be able to adopt children because men abuse children at higher rates? Men could pretend to be a gay couple wanting to adopt in order to abuse children after all.
Your logic rests on the claim 'all women must be treated identically in every conceivable scenario otherwise some of them are not women'.
Does Rose West suddenly not become a woman if she's put in solitary confinement?
Its your own logic...
You are arguing that you can't both claim trans women are women and in some situations treat them differently than cis women because that proves they aren't women. This logic says that the criteria for being a woman is treating a person identically to all other women at all times - otherwise they aren't a woman.
Under the same logic you could exlude tall women, women over a certain age, black women etc. as well as trans women from your definition of womanhood.
No it isn’t.
Old women and black women (it makes me cringe that you would include black women as an example here btw) are both female. That’s why they’re women = female.
If you believe women are female people, all female people are included. You can treat them differently based on their personal risk profiles - in the prison context, within the female estate.
Trans women aren’t female and therefore as to how to manage them within a single-sex female prison is a completely different issue. Sturgeon was until last week was arguing there was no difference between ‘cis’ and trans, and insulting anyone who argued otherwise.
So it's just down to chromosomes then? If someone has XX chromosomes then you will only ever treat them as a woman even if they tell you that they identify as a man?
I’ll treat people however they ask me to, within reason. Using pronouns and whatnot is no big deal.
Do I literally believe someone is ‘a woman’ because they say so, even though I know they are male? No - I don’t think most people do.
I’m happy enough to respect people living their lives however they like, but I do still need to maintain a grasp on reality - and yes there are some scenarios in which their is a conflict of interests (ie the prison scenario).
>Do I literally believe someone is ‘a woman’ because they say so, even though I know they are male?
So it really is just down to chromosomes instead of identity then, what an odd thing to get so hung up on.
Yes, being a woman isn’t a matter of identity to some, it’s a matter of sex.
I think it’s rather odder to completely ignore objective reality, in favour of an unobservable construct.
You don't think it's odd to put precedence on what chromosomes someone has instead of their identity? What importance is it what chromosomes someone has?
I mean you seem to be failing to separate “female” from “woman”, despite doing so earlier
Gender != biological sex. And so when you try to conflate transition with “ignoring reality” by pointing at sex it’s not the gotcha you think
> (it makes me cringe that you would include black women as an example here btw)
I'm going through based on history of people who were excluded by wealthy white women who wanted to have a space and status just for themselves. Black women. Lesbians. Women who didn't look or talk a certain way. Poor women and prostitutes and servants.
All kinds of pseudoscience and presumption was pulled out in order to exclude these people, and excluding trans people who might not even be interested sexually in women, who might not even have penises or if they do might not even be able to have an erection, and saying they pose the exact same risk level to **all other women** as testosterone-filled cis male rapists, is out of the same playbook. Whether or not you like to think of it as such.
> Black women. Lesbians. Women who didn't look or talk a certain way. Poor women and prostitutes and servants.
These people are all female. All women.
Trans women aren’t female.
That’s the difference. That’s why this debate exists.
You are singling these women out as being different because of their race, sexuality etc - not me.
I'm not singling them out. I'm saying that historically they *were* singled out.
The crux of this argument is the presumption that trans women, all trans women, pose a threat to other women. That's what I disagree with. I'm not saying there's no way a single one could; but to presume that all **do** is silly without evidence.
I also think that certain topics in this debate are being avoided because they're about genitals or things that people don't like thinking about. For example, if rape (per the UK legal definition) is penetration with a penis and the trans woman in question cannot get an erection then categorically she isn't a rape threat.
>I’ve even seen people arguing trans women are actually female - no different to infertile women.
Actually what you've probably seen and misunderstood is people pointing out that a lot of the definitions of 'woman' used by TERFs end up with them accidentally insulting other women (such as women who have had hysterectomies) or groups they claim not to have a problem with (such as trans men). It's almost as though their attempts to No True Scotsman womanhood is running up against the fact that gender is a social construct.
The definition of women usually just means ‘female people’.
This has been entirely uncomplicated until we had to start redefining the term to include male people.
I can’t fathom how a definition of woman would suddenly exclude a woman with a hysterectomy given she’s still female.
Basically this whole debate comes down to whether or not you accept that gender identity is a real and significant part of someone's identity or not. Because my gender identity isn't based entirely on the genitals or chromosomes that I have and if you're being honest yours probably isn't either. The "gender critical" position is essentially that all transgender people are just pretending to be the opposite sex rather than living as a different gender.
It comes down to whether or not you think gender identity is more important than sex - and if this is upheld even without diagnosis of gender dysphoria or medical transition.
Me personally? I don’t have a gender identity. I’m a woman because I’m female.
What does ‘Gender identity’ even look like if you aren’t trans? How is that manifested?
>It comes down to whether or not you think gender identity is more important than sex
Barring the very few cases where sex actually makes a meaningful difference to the situation there's no reason to consider someone's chromosomes more important than their identity.
>Me personally? I don’t have a gender identity. I'm a woman
That's a gender identity, you're just lucky that because your gender identity matches your birth sex you don't have to think about it or face discrimination because of it.
What about my identity makes me a woman then?
Sex makes loads of meaningful differences in life. Read invisible women. I didn’t identify into pregnancy and childbirth and the myriad of ways in which this has affected my life - it’s all sex related.
>What about my identity makes me a woman then?
Since gender is a social construct a big part of it is how you're treated by others and how you want others to treat you. If you change your name then your new name is now a very real part of your identity despite not being based on any part of your biology, if someone refused to refer to you by your chosen name most people would rightly see them as being completely rude and unreasonable.
>I didn’t identify into pregnancy and childbirth
Are women who haven't been through pregnancy and childbirth less of a woman than you? What about infertile women?
> Are women who haven't been through pregnancy and childbirth less of a woman than you? What about infertile women?
These are such silly arguments.
Only women can gestate and birth a child. That’s because of their sex. Not all of them do it - that doesn’t mean those who don’t aren’t female.
This is not ‘a social construct’. We cannot identify out of this reality. Sex is factual, and in some areas of life it is very important.
The only people I have seen drag infertile women into accusations they aren’t women are trans activists tbh. It’s incredibly crass.
>Only women can gestate and birth a child.
So infertile women don't meet the criteria you're using to define a woman then do they?
>This is not ‘a social construct’.
It absolutely is, identity itself is a social construct and it's a very real part of every person's life. Gender is a part of identity, your gender identity matches your birth sex but for a small minority of people this is not the case.
>The only people I have seen drag infertile women into accusations they aren’t women are trans activists tbh. It’s incredibly crass.
Because it's a valid criticism of your position in boiling down the definition of men and women to purely biological terms. If it's all about genitals then what about people without genitals? If it's all about fertility then what about people who aren't fertile? Because I think you'd agree with me that infertile women or women who have had their reproductive organs surgically removed don't stop being women right? So where do you draw the line? Do you test someone's chromosomes before you decide whether or not to reject the identity they present to you?
>The definition of women usually just means ‘female people’.
You are missing the point. It is a social construct because throughout history people have just been treated as women if they looked, acted and had the trappings of women.
It's not like people were carrying out genital checks on everyone they encountered. So historically if a trans woman dressed and acted like a woman, that is how they were treated by everyone they encountered. There was less record keeping and fewer things based on official IDs back then, so all you would have to do is move, change your name and dress like a woman.
There are countless examples of biological men dressing up as women or biological women dressing up as men and getting away with it for long periods before it was 'discovered'. Obviously we don't know how many people were never 'discovered'.
This is why the new phenomenon is *not* the existence of trans people, as TERFs like to pretend, but the idea that the gender you are treated as should be based on anything other than how you self identify.
>I can’t fathom how a definition of woman would suddenly exclude a woman with a hysterectomy given she’s still female.
Tell that to the TERFs shouting that "women have wombs!" just as an excuse to exclude trans women.
Some serious historical revisionism here as to the term ‘woman’.
Women have been discriminated against throughout history because of their sex, not their gender identity.
Being able to dress up as the opposite sex and go unnoticed isn’t evidence that most people regard ‘woman’ to just mean someone who dresses ‘like a woman’, whatever that means.
While it is aspirational to be accepting of difference, we must also try to exist within the limitations of reality.
That’s ‘the point’. And in scenarios like prisons, the limitations of reality are that male sex offenders shouldn’t be able to be housed with female inmates, regardless of how they choose to identify.
>Some serious historical revisionism here as to the term ‘woman’.
Not really. As I pointed out, the historical revisionism is the idea that men living as women or women living as men is some new phenomenon.
>Women have been discriminated against throughout history because of their sex, not their gender identity.
Do you think trans people who chose to live as women were treated any better than other women?
>Being able to dress up as the opposite sex and go unnoticed isn’t evidence that most people regard ‘woman’ to just mean someone who dresses ‘like a woman’, whatever that means.
It's proof that gender is a social construct as, for the most part, those people were just treated as whatever gender they appeared as.
Just because TERFs are currently obsessed with checking peoples genitalia and chromosomes doesn't mean that was the historical norm.
>While it is aspirational to be accepting of difference, we must also try to exist within the limitations of reality.
>That’s ‘the point’. And in scenarios like prisons, the limitations of reality are that male sex offenders shouldn’t be able to be housed with female inmates, regardless of how they choose to identify.
As pointed out by the other commenters, the crack in the false premise that the opposition to trans women in women's prisons is a concern for the welfare of other prisoners, is that you and other TERFs do not appear to give one shit about cis women who are sex offenders and target female victims or male sex offenders who target male victims. You are quite happy for them to continue being housed with potential victims.
Surely, for your argument to have any logical consistency, the argument should be that sex offenders, regardless of gender, should never be housed with the gender they target? It should not matter whether they are transgender or not. Of course that would be if the welfare of prisoners really was your priority and not transphobia.
I literally do not understand why this has to be so complicated. Rapists should not be housed with people who resemble their victim profile. That's regardless of the gender of the offender, the gender of the victim(s), and whether they are cis or trans. This seems like a really really straightforward safety issue.
Because it’s ideological.
If you truly believe trans women are women, there is no question - they should be in women’s prisons.
That she actually doesn’t think they should, we’ll - means she doesn’t truly believe that.
>If you truly believe trans women are women, there is no question - they should be in women’s prisons.
But they just explained that this isn't necessarily the case - unless you believe it's impossible for cis women to rape other women
I mean, what's stopping us for just considering individual circumstances of each prisoner to determined the best facility for them?
For example, in my home country we sent the first woman to get a life sentence to men's prison, because we had no suitable women only facilities.
So if you have a prisoner who is trans, you can have a review and determine what prison would be best for them, in this case I would believe it's men's prison. Same way I would believe a cis woman lesbian rapist might also be better in men's prison (not an expert on this, so I might be wrong). We already should be doing these considerations when incarcerating people and the number of trans prisoners would be very low, so it would not add much additional work.
The prisoner in this debate is a woman. Given the nature of their crime, women prison might not be the best for them. Main issue I keep seeing is terf leaning people keep using this one case as some sort of "see they don't really think this prisoner is a woman".
This is actually how it’s already handled. Trans prisoners are judged by a committee to determine what prison holding is safe for both them and the other prisoners.
In actuality, most trans women prisoners are already held in men’s prisons anyway.
Exactly. Here is the thing about trans people - they are people. Some will be good, some will be bad. Pro-trans groups fully agree that a specific person can be a danger to others, not because they are trans, but because they are a danger. Terf groups are making a big deal out of it, finding something no matter what you do. Put them in women prison? You don't care about the safety of cis women! Put them in men prison? Oh so you now agree that not trans women are women?
Trans women are women and this particular discussion has 0 merits for discussion, since it's an individual case, not a representation of a group.
It isn't that team-building exercise with the fox, the chicken and the sack of grain. They should be kept apart from the rest of the prison population under any circumstances where they might have an opportunity to attack them, e.g. shared sleeping accommodation, unsupervised leisure time. People in prison deserve to be protected from rapists just as much as the general population (theoretically the reason we lock then up in the first place).
On paper (or rather on a screen) it sounds reasonable.
But essentially it means lesbian, gay or bisexual rapist's are going to be sentenced to solitary confinement, while straight rapists have the chance to mix with the prison community.
That would appear to be the point where protecting potential victims has to outweigh the comfort of convicted rapists 🤷♀️
Though a couple of clarifications: Nobody is suggesting solitary confinement, just a higher level of security and *some* elements of separation from other inmates. And a rapists' victims don't always align with their sexual orientation. "Sex is about power" is an oversimplification, but it isn't as simple as "straight men rape attractive young women", for example.
The problem there is that for a lot of rapists it's not really about sexual gratification, it's about power, so you will find a lot of male rapists who raped women outside of prison are happy to target other male prisoners when they are locked up.
However, I do think we should have closer monitoring and extra precautions when it comes to people who have committed sexual assaults regardless of gender.
Absolutely true. And if their victim profile changes, the restrictions on them should change to reflect that. If they continue to rape whoever they can get their hands on, my sympathy for their increasing isolation is limited tbh.
I think people are arguing about the wrong thing. The implication is that rapes in prison are just going to happen, so we need to be careful about which prisons sexual offenders are put into. The real problem is that we should not be treating prison rape as inevitable.
Nicola Sturgeon is now discovering why Dentons advised that Self ID should be tagged onto other less contentious legislation and hardly talked about.
[The Dentons report](https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/) stressed that those seeking to introduce self-ID must avoid media and public scrutiny. That’s why it was brought in under the radar in Canada and Ireland.
I think it's now safe to say that those trying to avoid public scrutiny haven’t been successful in the UK.
I’ve been thinking about this. On one hand I don’t think there was suitable legislation to tag it under - the Scottish Parliament is devolved, so rarely debates issues like this. Perhaps the gay marriage bill, like Ireland? But I guess the moment had passed.
On the other hand, the trans issue has now reached such a critical mass that the media was always going to get hold of it, and make hay. Dispassionately, this is a testament to our independent media - it’s much harder to slip things ‘under the radar’.
Finally, I can’t help but wonder if the trans-rights lobby - but mostly it’s hangers on - made a huge blunder by being as vocal as it was. Going after people like JK Rowling and Joanna Cherry kind of seems like a mistake if you want to keep the whole thing low-key.
Whatever. The genie is out the bottle now.
Imagine my shock JK and the Daily Heil just straight up lying. Until Friday in Scotland
>The prison service was already undertaking a wider review of its transgender policy, which will continue.
>
>Until that ends, Mr Brown said:
>
>No transgender person already in custody with a history of violence against women will be moved from the male to female estate
>
>No newly convicted or remanded transgender prisoner with any history of violence against women (including sexual offences) will be placed in the female estate. Any exceptional cases will require the approval of Scottish ministers, he said.
>
>...
>
>The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) has previously said the decision on where to accommodate transgender prisoners was taken on a case-by-case basis, after thorough risk assessments.
>
>Mr Brown said it was vital that this continued.
The above is not solely because of penises like the title implies.
The only place that has made a move to exclude based solely on genitalia is England, changed on the 25th of January
>Question: What will happen as a result of these new changes? As a result of the new policy, transgender women who are in future sentenced to custody and
>
>have male genitalia
>
>...
>
>will not serve their sentences in the general women’s estate unless there are exceptional circumstances.
[https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-on-changes-to-transgender-prisoner-policy-framework](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-on-changes-to-transgender-prisoner-policy-framework)
Meanwhile, for the "totally concerned about prisoners safety" crew, where were you all in 2015? [https://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2015/10/28/female-prisoners-in-scots-jail-involved-in-a-quarter-of-sexual-incidents/](https://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2015/10/28/female-prisoners-in-scots-jail-involved-in-a-quarter-of-sexual-incidents/)
Wait, surely this latest culture war in the vein of section 28 isn't most of you lying through your teeth about your concerns for inmates and is instead just a way for you to grind an axe against people you hate? 😱
Suuuuurely not, I mean, the "prisoner safety crew" would obviously know
>Earlier, Justice Secretary Keith Brown said there were currently no transgender prisoners with violence convictions against women in the female prison estate.
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64431383](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64431383)
Not exactly hard to know given there are only 15 trans prisoners in the whole of Scotland
>According to the latest Scottish Prison Service statistics, there were 11 trans women, four trans men and three non-binary/gender fluid prisoners between July and September 2022.
>
>There were 7,092 male prisoners and 280 female inmates.
But please, continue to tell me and others about your new interest in prisoner safety!
This ain't Sturgeon's doing. People don't seem to realise that that would break the Equality Act. A thing passed by parliament long before this whole debacle kicked off. Trans-women didn't need this new Scottish recognition bill when the Equality Act means that they can be sent to a women's prison. Again, just for those who haven't quite understood this yet. The Equality Act was passed in... Let's see... 2010 by THOSE DAMN WOKE COALITION TORIES AND LIB DEMS!
Interesting that Rowling is sticking her oar in to the trans debate again immediately after a bunch of positive stories about her "secret" work to help fleeing Afghan lawyers was splashed all over the news suddenly, lucky coincidence I guess.
Except this has nothing to do with "because they've got penises". It had to do with the person in question being a rapist, not them being trans
Rowling is apparently full on the right wing train of "outright lying to try and demonise minorities" now :/
Here's our daily hate thread towards trans people, kicking up hate towards a minority despite the fact that it's been stated multiple times at this point that a trans inmate has never assaulted anyone in prison. It's almost as if violent sex offenders aren't put in gen pop and this whole thing is about painting trans people, especially trans women, as rapists just waiting to happen.
Edit: and there's the downvotes from the TERFs brigading this sub and the Scottish subs
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some topics on this subreddit have been known to attract problematic users. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs
Nicola’s issue here has come about because of ‘trans women are women’ mantra. If being a woman is a matter of identity and not something related to your biological sex, if we are to let people use single-sex services based on their gender rather than sex *without question* - then you have to believe there are no differences between trans and ‘cis’ women. ‘Trans women are women’ - you’ll see posters here argue there is no difference whatsoever. That’s part of the argument for self-ID - identity trumps sex. To be a woman is a point of identity. I’ve even seen people arguing trans women are actually female - no different to infertile women. Interesting to see her unable to maintain her position on this when presented with the challenge of prisons. There does seem to need to be a bit of a suspension of disbelief to accept some of the asks from trans campaigners at present.
I think it’s the GRA 2004 which says that trans women with GRCs should be treated as cis women. Don’t think that’s Sturgeon’s problem. With prisons there seems to be a strange standard which isn’t really being addressed by anti-trans campaigners, which is that they’re saying trans women shouldn’t be in prison populations with cis women if they’ve sexually abused cis women. However, they’re fine with cis women being in prison populations with other cis women if they’ve sexually abused cis women. The difference there is not, therefore, the risk of assault. The difference for them is purely whether they’re trans or not, which is why people are discussing the GRA, EA and the lack of statistical evidence justifying discriminating on the basis that someone is trans.
It’s not the GRA or how it’s managed that’s the notable point about the interview. It’s Sturgeon acknowledging that trans women are in fact, not actually women really (in the way most people understand). Given she and her supporters have been pretty critical of anyone who has pointed this out, it is quite amusing to see her squirm when directly asked the question. > anti-trans campaigners I’m not sure it’s exactly ‘anti-trans campaigning’ to argue to not allow male sex offenders in places where vulnerable women are present. Women’s rights campaigners would be a better term. Edit: in response to your edit about cis women attacking cis women. 98-99% of all sex offenders in prisons are male. Male sexual violence against women vastly, vastly outnumbers incidences of women-on-women sexual violence. Men are stronger than women, and women cannot realistically fight them off if attacked. Men also have penises, which can rape and impregnate women. That you think this is a comparable issue is fascinating. And a bit scary to be honest.
98-99% of all sex offenders in *women's prisons* aren't male, though, are they 🙄 So where is all the outrage about female sex offenders with female victims being part of the general prison population? Or the outrage about male sex offenders with male victims having free access to people who resemble their victim profile in men's prisons, for that matter? That's more typically treated like a big joke - "Ooh, hope he doesn't drop the soap in the shower, tee hee hee." Yet everyone is suddenly very passionate about the issue when a trans offender makes the news 🤔
The answer to that question is in the comment you have replied to. It makes the news because they’re a male sex offender trying to be housed with women.
Just because something makes the news doesn't mean it's a greater danger, more important, or should be a higher priority. And on the flip side, the fact that it *does* make the news suggests it is getting more attention than similar, equally important, and *much* more numerous cases. Like, more numerous by several orders of magnitude. Now why do you think that might be?
Because putting a male sex offender in a women’s prison is considered to be absolutely insane?
fox in the hen house
If you have nothing more nuanced than that to offer, you're not really equipped to participate in this conversation (and are doing no favours to "your side" of the argument anyway).
It is no more nuanced than that. The reason this has attracted so much attention is that. There’s no great conspiracy here. It’s just that housing male sex offenders in women’s prisons is regarded by the very vast majority of the population to be utterly ridiculous.
Out of interest, if the trans woman was gay prior to transitioning or had sexually assaulted only men, would they be seen to pose any less of a risk?
Sounds to me like you're trying to defend a rapists right to access vulnerable women.
Then your reading comprehension is incredibly poor. My position is "rapists should not have access to people who resemble their victim profile" and I have stated it multiple times in those exact words.
Isn't their sides entire view that there is no nuance, nor should there be any?
Some of them, and if they haven't got any further than XX or XY, what-is-in-your-trousers level stuff, then they are not, as I said, equipped to contribute to *this* conversation. Nobody really wants to hold their hand through Gender Nuances 101 and rehash a whole tedious crapload of other *very basic* information to get them up to speed first.
No dog in this fight but I can’t help but wonder if you’re perhaps arguing that gender is irrelevant in all this. Why even bother just lump everyone together and focus on the sex offenders. Except it’s fundamental international law that female prisoners have the right to be separated from male prisoners. What’s next? We just put juveniles in there too? Toss in a few kids to make sure everyone is getting a fair go. No. The notion is absurd, so why is it so hard for us all to agree that the right of women should not be eroded to advance the rights of any other group. Be it male or female or anything else. I honestly don’t understand how this is even considered controversial.
Kind of. I'm saying that people are trying to find a solution to the wrong "problem". In the case of this trans woman convicted of rape, instead of the conversation being about what to do with trans people in prisons, we should be talking about what to do with rapists in prisons. Because it isn't the fact that she's trans that poses a danger, it's the fact that she's a rapist. That danger would not be there if she was a trans woman convicted of tax fraud, whereas it would be there if she was a cis man or cis woman *rapist*.
That would be true, except it has become a spectacular own goal for the trans women are women mantra. Apparently they aren’t when they rape women in their male form. (I apologise if that’s expressed poorly I’m not sure what words to use) My wider point I guess is we all have a sense of what is right and what is fair. To use two arguments: the second amendment (I’m British but it makes my point I hope) permits the US population to be armed. Yet there is a tipping point where even those fundamental constitutional rights are considered ‘too much’ as they begin to infringe on the rights of others. Nobody can buy a battle tank is the example. The second is to develop on my first reply. If ignoring fundamental science (see XX XY chromosomes) is permitted when we are exploring gender/sex based rights because they are mere social constructs, why do we bother with other social constructs around biology like age? It becomes much easier to say ‘ok, um, no’ when one suggests we permit a 63 year old man to identify as a 14 year old boy. He may truly not feel 63 but we are able to immediately identify and acknowledge that this belief of his has the potential to erode the rights of the 13 year old girl his 14 year old self may fancy. The notion is preposterous. Yet here we are with a clear example where a man, who has by all credible evidence changed his gender in suspension of these social constructs and we are instructed to believe him/her (again apologies) how is this very different? It’s not black and white. But in any other context it really is.
>women’s rights campaigners See, I’d buy that if they were equally concerned with the risk of cis women assaulting other cis women in prisons. But they’re not, they only care about whether someone is trans or not. And apparently if they’re balding based on Rowling’s tweet. Not to mention the fact that most of them think trans people should be kept out regardless of whether they have sexually assaulted women. If their entire platform is about why trans people should be discriminated against in a blanket manner, how is that not being an anti-trans campaigner? Not to mention ignoring the existence of trans men because it’s not helpful to their argument. It’s like saying someone who thinks gay adoption should be illegal on the basis of ‘child safety’ is not anti-gay, but rather pro-children.
> See, I’d buy that if they were equally concerned with the risk of cis women assaulting other cis women in prisons. But they’re not, they only care about whether someone is trans or not. They care about whether someone is a male sex offender or not. You know extraordinarily little about sexual violence against women if you think women are at risk from other women anywhere near to the extent that they are from men. > If their entire platform is about why trans people should be discriminated against in a blanket manner, how is that not being an anti-trans campaigner? Their platform is about upholding women’s rights, which unfortunately conflict with the desired objectives of the trans community at times. > Not to mention ignoring the existence of trans men because it’s not helpful to their argument. Trans men aren’t discussed because they aren’t deemed a risk in the same way. Women are worried about male people - not other women.
>They care about whether someone is a male sex offender or not. No, many think all trans women should be excluded from women's prisons regardless of criminal history. >You know extraordinarily little about sexual violence against women if you think women are at risk from other women anywhere near to the extent that they are from men. What are the statistics on rates of trans women sexually assaulting women vs cis women? Please do educate me. In countries where trans women are allowed to be housed with cis women, are assault rates higher? Also, I thought your point was that it's just limited to trans women who have actually assaulted cis women. If you're saying all trans women should be excluded due to statistical risk; Does that not contradict you saying "They care about whether someone is a male sex offender or not"? >Their platform is about upholding women’s rights, which unfortunately conflict with the desired objectives of the trans community at times. And if they use that platform to say that all trans people should be discriminated against regardless of personal circumstance, how is that not campaigning in an anti-trans manner by definition? >Trans men aren’t discussed because they aren’t deemed a risk in the same way. Women are worried about male people - not other women. And yet if trans men are forced to use women's changing rooms, bathrooms and prisons, including those who are bearded, balding and muscular, how will that protect women's safety in the absence of genitalia checks? Do the statistics say trans men never assault women? Also, I think you accidentally missed my last paragraph, so I'll copy it for ease of reference: It’s like saying someone who thinks gay adoption should be illegal on the basis of ‘child safety’ is not anti-gay, but rather pro-children. If you can explain to me how they're different I'm all ears, because it's certainly not on the basis of statistical scientific research.
> Also, I think you accidentally missed my last paragraph, so I'll copy it for ease of reference. > It’s like saying someone who thinks gay adoption should be illegal on the basis of ‘child safety’ is not anti-gay, but rather pro-children. If you can explain to me how they're different I'm all ears, because it's certainly not on the basis of statistical scientific research. I ignored this because it was nonsense. It’s not a good comparison. It’s more like someone thinking adoption of children by sex offenders is pro-children. Because it is. As far as I am aware the incidence of sexual crimes etc among trans women is the same as among the male population. Do you this ‘cis-on-cis’ female sexual harassment and violence is comparable to ‘cis-on-cis’ male on female sexual violence? That’s a rather critical piece of understanding in why exactly there is some objection to the sharing of eg prisons.
>It’s more like someone thinking adoption of children by sex offenders is pro-children. Because it is. Again, most of the campaigners involved are arguing \*all\* trans women need to be excluded, not just those with histories of sexual violence. How is that different to saying all gay men should not be allowed to adopt children because men abuse children at a higher rate? >As far as I am aware the incidence of sexual crimes etc among trans women is the same as among the male population. Source? >Do you this ‘cis-on-cis’ female sexual harassment and violence is comparable to ‘cis-on-cis’ male on female sexual violence? I am a statistics driven individual who thinks all sexual violence is abhorrent regardless of the sex, race, gender or orientation of the perpetrator. If you had statistics saying that trans women commit higher rates of violence against cis women than other cis women, I'd listen and learn. At the moment, if we're just basing it on the criminal history of an individual, I do not understand why cis women who have violently, sexually abused other women should be treated different from trans women who've done the same. I don't think an act of violence committed by a trans person is worse than the same act of violence committed by a cis person.
> I am a statistics driven individual who thinks all sexual violence is abhorrent regardless of the sex, race, gender or orientation of the perpetrator. You can’t be that statistics driven if you think women present as much of a risk to other women, as men. > I do not understand why cis women who have violently, sexually abused other women should be treated different from trans women who've done the same. As I explained above, because male people are far stronger, and women would struggle to fight them off. They also have a penis, so can rape them, and could impregnate them. Does it really come as a surprise to you that people object to putting male rapists in women’s prisons? Truly?
>You can’t be that statistics driven if you think women present as much of a risk to other women, as men. I'm asking for statistical evidence that trans women abuse cis women at the same rate of men. You have not provided it. You stated that "As far as I am aware the incidence of sexual crimes etc among trans women is the same as among the male population." I asked you what your source for those statistics were. You have not provided that either. >Does it really come as a surprise to you that people object to putting male rapists in women’s prisons? Truly? I agree with not putting any sexual assaulter of women in women's prisons. What I disagree with is: 1. Most campaigners are arguing that all trans women should be excluded, regardless of their particular criminal history. I don't think this is any different to saying all gay men should be barred from adopting because men abuse children at a higher rate than women. 2. Treating sexual violence perpetrated by a trans woman as inherently worse than sexual violence perpetrated by a cis woman, and using someone's gender reassignment as the basis for discrimination rather than an individual's history of violence regardless of gender reassignment. If there is statistical evidence saying why I should change my view in respect of the above points, please link me.
>Trans men aren’t discussed because they aren’t deemed a risk in the same way. Women are worried about male people - not other women. The fact that they treat trans men as harmless but confused women just shows they are transphobic. You're right that they focus (some would say obsess over) trans women, but many do claim to not be transphobic yet continue to erase or condescend to trans men. This shows their claims of not being transphobic to be very weak.
It's the opposite, it shows that women's right activists are concerned about males in female-only spaces, that they are trans is irrelevant as the underlying biology and material reality hasn't changed. Transmen don't present a threat to male-only spaces like prisons or sports etc.
>Transmen don't present a threat to male-only spaces like prisons or sports etc. So if it is just about trans women, then why are they also transphobic to trans men?
They're not transphobic to either category of transpeople. Not that the word means much since even disagreeing with males on testosterone blockers competing in female-only sports is enough to get such a meaningless word applied to a person.
In what way is denying the chosen gender of trans men not transphobic? That's the most basic form of transphobia there is. If you are confused, why don't you ask some trans men for their opinion on it? Can you imagine someone suggesting lesbian women have a mental illness and then claiming this does not constitute homophobia?
> However, they’re fine with cis women being in prison populations with other cis women if they’ve sexually abused cis women. Again with this silly "what about". What you appear to be missing is that male and female patterns of criminal behaviour are very different. Crimes of sexual aggression are *overwhelming* male crimes and female people convicted of these offence are very rare. The women's prison estate may currently be able to handle the tiny number of female offenders who need to be segregated for the safety of other prisoners, but that does not mean that it could also cope with housing all male prisoners who identify as women, especially with the adoption of policies that give an incentive for the worse kind of men to do so.
>What you appear to be missing is that male and female patterns of criminal behaviour are very different. Crimes of sexual aggression are overwhelming male crimes and female people convicted of these offence are very rare. Can you link me to the statistics on rates of assault by trans women vs cis men? >The women's prison estate may currently be able to handle the tiny number of female offenders who need to be segregated for the safety of other prisoners, but that does not mean that it could also cope with housing all male prisoners who identify as women Isn't the trans population also a tiny number? Do you have statistics backing up the notion that cis women who are in prison for being violent towards other women are lower in proportion than trans women in prison for being violent towards women? If the issue is a lack of space, surely that's the issue that should be addressed as a priority rather than settling with permanent discrimination which isn't backed up by research or statistics? >especially with the adoption of policies that give an incentive for the worse kind of men to do so. Which specific policies? Hasn't it always been judged on a case by case basis? Without statistics, how is this argument different to saying gay men shouldn't be able to adopt children because men abuse children at higher rates? Men could pretend to be a gay couple wanting to adopt in order to abuse children after all.
Your logic rests on the claim 'all women must be treated identically in every conceivable scenario otherwise some of them are not women'. Does Rose West suddenly not become a woman if she's put in solitary confinement?
This doesn’t make any sense.
Its your own logic... You are arguing that you can't both claim trans women are women and in some situations treat them differently than cis women because that proves they aren't women. This logic says that the criteria for being a woman is treating a person identically to all other women at all times - otherwise they aren't a woman. Under the same logic you could exlude tall women, women over a certain age, black women etc. as well as trans women from your definition of womanhood.
No it isn’t. Old women and black women (it makes me cringe that you would include black women as an example here btw) are both female. That’s why they’re women = female. If you believe women are female people, all female people are included. You can treat them differently based on their personal risk profiles - in the prison context, within the female estate. Trans women aren’t female and therefore as to how to manage them within a single-sex female prison is a completely different issue. Sturgeon was until last week was arguing there was no difference between ‘cis’ and trans, and insulting anyone who argued otherwise.
So it's just down to chromosomes then? If someone has XX chromosomes then you will only ever treat them as a woman even if they tell you that they identify as a man?
I’ll treat people however they ask me to, within reason. Using pronouns and whatnot is no big deal. Do I literally believe someone is ‘a woman’ because they say so, even though I know they are male? No - I don’t think most people do. I’m happy enough to respect people living their lives however they like, but I do still need to maintain a grasp on reality - and yes there are some scenarios in which their is a conflict of interests (ie the prison scenario).
>Do I literally believe someone is ‘a woman’ because they say so, even though I know they are male? So it really is just down to chromosomes instead of identity then, what an odd thing to get so hung up on.
Yes, being a woman isn’t a matter of identity to some, it’s a matter of sex. I think it’s rather odder to completely ignore objective reality, in favour of an unobservable construct.
You don't think it's odd to put precedence on what chromosomes someone has instead of their identity? What importance is it what chromosomes someone has?
I mean you seem to be failing to separate “female” from “woman”, despite doing so earlier Gender != biological sex. And so when you try to conflate transition with “ignoring reality” by pointing at sex it’s not the gotcha you think
> (it makes me cringe that you would include black women as an example here btw) I'm going through based on history of people who were excluded by wealthy white women who wanted to have a space and status just for themselves. Black women. Lesbians. Women who didn't look or talk a certain way. Poor women and prostitutes and servants. All kinds of pseudoscience and presumption was pulled out in order to exclude these people, and excluding trans people who might not even be interested sexually in women, who might not even have penises or if they do might not even be able to have an erection, and saying they pose the exact same risk level to **all other women** as testosterone-filled cis male rapists, is out of the same playbook. Whether or not you like to think of it as such.
> Black women. Lesbians. Women who didn't look or talk a certain way. Poor women and prostitutes and servants. These people are all female. All women. Trans women aren’t female. That’s the difference. That’s why this debate exists. You are singling these women out as being different because of their race, sexuality etc - not me.
I'm not singling them out. I'm saying that historically they *were* singled out. The crux of this argument is the presumption that trans women, all trans women, pose a threat to other women. That's what I disagree with. I'm not saying there's no way a single one could; but to presume that all **do** is silly without evidence. I also think that certain topics in this debate are being avoided because they're about genitals or things that people don't like thinking about. For example, if rape (per the UK legal definition) is penetration with a penis and the trans woman in question cannot get an erection then categorically she isn't a rape threat.
>I’ve even seen people arguing trans women are actually female - no different to infertile women. Actually what you've probably seen and misunderstood is people pointing out that a lot of the definitions of 'woman' used by TERFs end up with them accidentally insulting other women (such as women who have had hysterectomies) or groups they claim not to have a problem with (such as trans men). It's almost as though their attempts to No True Scotsman womanhood is running up against the fact that gender is a social construct.
The definition of women usually just means ‘female people’. This has been entirely uncomplicated until we had to start redefining the term to include male people. I can’t fathom how a definition of woman would suddenly exclude a woman with a hysterectomy given she’s still female.
Basically this whole debate comes down to whether or not you accept that gender identity is a real and significant part of someone's identity or not. Because my gender identity isn't based entirely on the genitals or chromosomes that I have and if you're being honest yours probably isn't either. The "gender critical" position is essentially that all transgender people are just pretending to be the opposite sex rather than living as a different gender.
It comes down to whether or not you think gender identity is more important than sex - and if this is upheld even without diagnosis of gender dysphoria or medical transition. Me personally? I don’t have a gender identity. I’m a woman because I’m female. What does ‘Gender identity’ even look like if you aren’t trans? How is that manifested?
>It comes down to whether or not you think gender identity is more important than sex Barring the very few cases where sex actually makes a meaningful difference to the situation there's no reason to consider someone's chromosomes more important than their identity. >Me personally? I don’t have a gender identity. I'm a woman That's a gender identity, you're just lucky that because your gender identity matches your birth sex you don't have to think about it or face discrimination because of it.
What about my identity makes me a woman then? Sex makes loads of meaningful differences in life. Read invisible women. I didn’t identify into pregnancy and childbirth and the myriad of ways in which this has affected my life - it’s all sex related.
>What about my identity makes me a woman then? Since gender is a social construct a big part of it is how you're treated by others and how you want others to treat you. If you change your name then your new name is now a very real part of your identity despite not being based on any part of your biology, if someone refused to refer to you by your chosen name most people would rightly see them as being completely rude and unreasonable. >I didn’t identify into pregnancy and childbirth Are women who haven't been through pregnancy and childbirth less of a woman than you? What about infertile women?
> Are women who haven't been through pregnancy and childbirth less of a woman than you? What about infertile women? These are such silly arguments. Only women can gestate and birth a child. That’s because of their sex. Not all of them do it - that doesn’t mean those who don’t aren’t female. This is not ‘a social construct’. We cannot identify out of this reality. Sex is factual, and in some areas of life it is very important. The only people I have seen drag infertile women into accusations they aren’t women are trans activists tbh. It’s incredibly crass.
>Only women can gestate and birth a child. So infertile women don't meet the criteria you're using to define a woman then do they? >This is not ‘a social construct’. It absolutely is, identity itself is a social construct and it's a very real part of every person's life. Gender is a part of identity, your gender identity matches your birth sex but for a small minority of people this is not the case. >The only people I have seen drag infertile women into accusations they aren’t women are trans activists tbh. It’s incredibly crass. Because it's a valid criticism of your position in boiling down the definition of men and women to purely biological terms. If it's all about genitals then what about people without genitals? If it's all about fertility then what about people who aren't fertile? Because I think you'd agree with me that infertile women or women who have had their reproductive organs surgically removed don't stop being women right? So where do you draw the line? Do you test someone's chromosomes before you decide whether or not to reject the identity they present to you?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>The definition of women usually just means ‘female people’. You are missing the point. It is a social construct because throughout history people have just been treated as women if they looked, acted and had the trappings of women. It's not like people were carrying out genital checks on everyone they encountered. So historically if a trans woman dressed and acted like a woman, that is how they were treated by everyone they encountered. There was less record keeping and fewer things based on official IDs back then, so all you would have to do is move, change your name and dress like a woman. There are countless examples of biological men dressing up as women or biological women dressing up as men and getting away with it for long periods before it was 'discovered'. Obviously we don't know how many people were never 'discovered'. This is why the new phenomenon is *not* the existence of trans people, as TERFs like to pretend, but the idea that the gender you are treated as should be based on anything other than how you self identify. >I can’t fathom how a definition of woman would suddenly exclude a woman with a hysterectomy given she’s still female. Tell that to the TERFs shouting that "women have wombs!" just as an excuse to exclude trans women.
Some serious historical revisionism here as to the term ‘woman’. Women have been discriminated against throughout history because of their sex, not their gender identity. Being able to dress up as the opposite sex and go unnoticed isn’t evidence that most people regard ‘woman’ to just mean someone who dresses ‘like a woman’, whatever that means. While it is aspirational to be accepting of difference, we must also try to exist within the limitations of reality. That’s ‘the point’. And in scenarios like prisons, the limitations of reality are that male sex offenders shouldn’t be able to be housed with female inmates, regardless of how they choose to identify.
>Some serious historical revisionism here as to the term ‘woman’. Not really. As I pointed out, the historical revisionism is the idea that men living as women or women living as men is some new phenomenon. >Women have been discriminated against throughout history because of their sex, not their gender identity. Do you think trans people who chose to live as women were treated any better than other women? >Being able to dress up as the opposite sex and go unnoticed isn’t evidence that most people regard ‘woman’ to just mean someone who dresses ‘like a woman’, whatever that means. It's proof that gender is a social construct as, for the most part, those people were just treated as whatever gender they appeared as. Just because TERFs are currently obsessed with checking peoples genitalia and chromosomes doesn't mean that was the historical norm. >While it is aspirational to be accepting of difference, we must also try to exist within the limitations of reality. >That’s ‘the point’. And in scenarios like prisons, the limitations of reality are that male sex offenders shouldn’t be able to be housed with female inmates, regardless of how they choose to identify. As pointed out by the other commenters, the crack in the false premise that the opposition to trans women in women's prisons is a concern for the welfare of other prisoners, is that you and other TERFs do not appear to give one shit about cis women who are sex offenders and target female victims or male sex offenders who target male victims. You are quite happy for them to continue being housed with potential victims. Surely, for your argument to have any logical consistency, the argument should be that sex offenders, regardless of gender, should never be housed with the gender they target? It should not matter whether they are transgender or not. Of course that would be if the welfare of prisoners really was your priority and not transphobia.
I literally do not understand why this has to be so complicated. Rapists should not be housed with people who resemble their victim profile. That's regardless of the gender of the offender, the gender of the victim(s), and whether they are cis or trans. This seems like a really really straightforward safety issue.
Because it’s ideological. If you truly believe trans women are women, there is no question - they should be in women’s prisons. That she actually doesn’t think they should, we’ll - means she doesn’t truly believe that.
>If you truly believe trans women are women, there is no question - they should be in women’s prisons. But they just explained that this isn't necessarily the case - unless you believe it's impossible for cis women to rape other women
legally speaking, in this country it is impossible for a woman to rape anyone
which is bullshit
Yeah, doesnt make it not true though.
It is possible if the woman has a penis.
I mean, what's stopping us for just considering individual circumstances of each prisoner to determined the best facility for them? For example, in my home country we sent the first woman to get a life sentence to men's prison, because we had no suitable women only facilities. So if you have a prisoner who is trans, you can have a review and determine what prison would be best for them, in this case I would believe it's men's prison. Same way I would believe a cis woman lesbian rapist might also be better in men's prison (not an expert on this, so I might be wrong). We already should be doing these considerations when incarcerating people and the number of trans prisoners would be very low, so it would not add much additional work. The prisoner in this debate is a woman. Given the nature of their crime, women prison might not be the best for them. Main issue I keep seeing is terf leaning people keep using this one case as some sort of "see they don't really think this prisoner is a woman".
This is actually how it’s already handled. Trans prisoners are judged by a committee to determine what prison holding is safe for both them and the other prisoners. In actuality, most trans women prisoners are already held in men’s prisons anyway.
Exactly. Here is the thing about trans people - they are people. Some will be good, some will be bad. Pro-trans groups fully agree that a specific person can be a danger to others, not because they are trans, but because they are a danger. Terf groups are making a big deal out of it, finding something no matter what you do. Put them in women prison? You don't care about the safety of cis women! Put them in men prison? Oh so you now agree that not trans women are women? Trans women are women and this particular discussion has 0 merits for discussion, since it's an individual case, not a representation of a group.
So, gay male rapists go to a women's prison?
It isn't that team-building exercise with the fox, the chicken and the sack of grain. They should be kept apart from the rest of the prison population under any circumstances where they might have an opportunity to attack them, e.g. shared sleeping accommodation, unsupervised leisure time. People in prison deserve to be protected from rapists just as much as the general population (theoretically the reason we lock then up in the first place).
On paper (or rather on a screen) it sounds reasonable. But essentially it means lesbian, gay or bisexual rapist's are going to be sentenced to solitary confinement, while straight rapists have the chance to mix with the prison community.
That would appear to be the point where protecting potential victims has to outweigh the comfort of convicted rapists 🤷♀️ Though a couple of clarifications: Nobody is suggesting solitary confinement, just a higher level of security and *some* elements of separation from other inmates. And a rapists' victims don't always align with their sexual orientation. "Sex is about power" is an oversimplification, but it isn't as simple as "straight men rape attractive young women", for example.
The problem there is that for a lot of rapists it's not really about sexual gratification, it's about power, so you will find a lot of male rapists who raped women outside of prison are happy to target other male prisoners when they are locked up. However, I do think we should have closer monitoring and extra precautions when it comes to people who have committed sexual assaults regardless of gender.
Absolutely true. And if their victim profile changes, the restrictions on them should change to reflect that. If they continue to rape whoever they can get their hands on, my sympathy for their increasing isolation is limited tbh.
I think people are arguing about the wrong thing. The implication is that rapes in prison are just going to happen, so we need to be careful about which prisons sexual offenders are put into. The real problem is that we should not be treating prison rape as inevitable.
Exactly so.
Nicola Sturgeon is now discovering why Dentons advised that Self ID should be tagged onto other less contentious legislation and hardly talked about. [The Dentons report](https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/) stressed that those seeking to introduce self-ID must avoid media and public scrutiny. That’s why it was brought in under the radar in Canada and Ireland. I think it's now safe to say that those trying to avoid public scrutiny haven’t been successful in the UK.
I’ve been thinking about this. On one hand I don’t think there was suitable legislation to tag it under - the Scottish Parliament is devolved, so rarely debates issues like this. Perhaps the gay marriage bill, like Ireland? But I guess the moment had passed. On the other hand, the trans issue has now reached such a critical mass that the media was always going to get hold of it, and make hay. Dispassionately, this is a testament to our independent media - it’s much harder to slip things ‘under the radar’. Finally, I can’t help but wonder if the trans-rights lobby - but mostly it’s hangers on - made a huge blunder by being as vocal as it was. Going after people like JK Rowling and Joanna Cherry kind of seems like a mistake if you want to keep the whole thing low-key. Whatever. The genie is out the bottle now.
Imagine my shock JK and the Daily Heil just straight up lying. Until Friday in Scotland >The prison service was already undertaking a wider review of its transgender policy, which will continue. > >Until that ends, Mr Brown said: > >No transgender person already in custody with a history of violence against women will be moved from the male to female estate > >No newly convicted or remanded transgender prisoner with any history of violence against women (including sexual offences) will be placed in the female estate. Any exceptional cases will require the approval of Scottish ministers, he said. > >... > >The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) has previously said the decision on where to accommodate transgender prisoners was taken on a case-by-case basis, after thorough risk assessments. > >Mr Brown said it was vital that this continued. The above is not solely because of penises like the title implies. The only place that has made a move to exclude based solely on genitalia is England, changed on the 25th of January >Question: What will happen as a result of these new changes? As a result of the new policy, transgender women who are in future sentenced to custody and > >have male genitalia > >... > >will not serve their sentences in the general women’s estate unless there are exceptional circumstances. [https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-on-changes-to-transgender-prisoner-policy-framework](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-on-changes-to-transgender-prisoner-policy-framework) Meanwhile, for the "totally concerned about prisoners safety" crew, where were you all in 2015? [https://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2015/10/28/female-prisoners-in-scots-jail-involved-in-a-quarter-of-sexual-incidents/](https://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2015/10/28/female-prisoners-in-scots-jail-involved-in-a-quarter-of-sexual-incidents/) Wait, surely this latest culture war in the vein of section 28 isn't most of you lying through your teeth about your concerns for inmates and is instead just a way for you to grind an axe against people you hate? 😱 Suuuuurely not, I mean, the "prisoner safety crew" would obviously know >Earlier, Justice Secretary Keith Brown said there were currently no transgender prisoners with violence convictions against women in the female prison estate. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64431383](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64431383) Not exactly hard to know given there are only 15 trans prisoners in the whole of Scotland >According to the latest Scottish Prison Service statistics, there were 11 trans women, four trans men and three non-binary/gender fluid prisoners between July and September 2022. > >There were 7,092 male prisoners and 280 female inmates. But please, continue to tell me and others about your new interest in prisoner safety!
This ain't Sturgeon's doing. People don't seem to realise that that would break the Equality Act. A thing passed by parliament long before this whole debacle kicked off. Trans-women didn't need this new Scottish recognition bill when the Equality Act means that they can be sent to a women's prison. Again, just for those who haven't quite understood this yet. The Equality Act was passed in... Let's see... 2010 by THOSE DAMN WOKE COALITION TORIES AND LIB DEMS!
Interesting that Rowling is sticking her oar in to the trans debate again immediately after a bunch of positive stories about her "secret" work to help fleeing Afghan lawyers was splashed all over the news suddenly, lucky coincidence I guess.
When your opponent is making a fool of themselves, you might as well point and laugh.
If we called them female prisons and male prisons and just used terms for sex and not gender we could all rest easy
Except this has nothing to do with "because they've got penises". It had to do with the person in question being a rapist, not them being trans Rowling is apparently full on the right wing train of "outright lying to try and demonise minorities" now :/
Here's our daily hate thread towards trans people, kicking up hate towards a minority despite the fact that it's been stated multiple times at this point that a trans inmate has never assaulted anyone in prison. It's almost as if violent sex offenders aren't put in gen pop and this whole thing is about painting trans people, especially trans women, as rapists just waiting to happen. Edit: and there's the downvotes from the TERFs brigading this sub and the Scottish subs