J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

Gruffalux

Tearing eyelids!!! Gah!!! What a horrific job to have to do. Poor woman. Runs away screaming..

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

So now there's this, thanks to Ireland's self declaration laws:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/teen-outlined-chilling-plan-to-track-down-and-kill-mother-39542753.html

You have to go on twitter to discover that this is a trans teen who is physically mal. The newspapers have been banned form reporting that fact - which makes their articles look like an incomprehensible mess. For once, thats not their fault!

The particular case you’re talking about has nothing to do with Ireland’s self declaration laws. It has everything to do with the fact that the teenager simply “aged out of the system” on their 18th birthday, and it’s due to what it is claimed are inadequacies in Irish Mental Health Acts are the reason the person cannot be detained in a facility against their will. It even explains as much in the article you copied from but must have forgotten to include in your post -


G's 18th birthday doesn't just mark her transition from childhood to adulthood. It will also mean she can no longer be held in Tusla's care.

By law, Tusla is obliged to prepare an "aftercare" plan for children in care who are close to the age of 18, which will put in place supports for them up to the age of 21.

But Ms Justice Mary Faherty was told this week the child and family agency is having considerable difficulty finding a facility in Ireland or abroad for G once she turns 18.

...

There are a number of factors that make G's situation far from straightforward. A court judgment earlier this year outlined that while G was an extremely complex and psychologically disturbed young person, the uncontested evidence was that she was not suitable for detention under the Mental Health Act.

A 2017 report by child and adolescent psychotherapist Patricia Allan said G's "presentation could be associated with an emerging, severe personality disorder". But unlike in the UK, Irish law doesn't allow for the detention of a person on the basis of a personality disorder.

Earlier this week, the High Court heard a recent report by English psychiatrist Dr Peter Misch found G had capacity to function and make decisions independently, which would appear to rule out the prospect of her being made a ward of court.

G's troubled history has been well known to the State for some time.


Teen who vows to kill set to be back on the streets within weeks

Vic_08 wrote: »

That story makes so much more sense now. I am actually annoyed I didn't cop that this was a "girl", the behaviour and violence is so out of the norm for a female, even the most vicious female sociopaths are rarely so openly aggressive it certainly didn't ring true.

It is just beyond the bounds of any logic that someone who there was a real risk of being let loose on the public would be so comprehensively described as female when they are not.

It’s behaviour well out of the norm for either males or females!

suicide_circus

Gruffalox wrote: »

Just want to post Cohen's tweet, so people can evaluate for themselves, and in case I am misinterpreting. You have to follow the thread to see his points. But as far as I can make out surrogacy will have to involve a woman outside his relationship. Note pregnancy is a danger by its very nature to any woman who undergoes it and this danger increases with IVF drugs like Lupron plus multiple embryos- surrogacy is therefore a considerable risk to any woman. I do not know why society is in any way casual about it. Also this habit of referring to someone as ''the surrogate'' instead of the woman who will bear the child is very de-humanising.

https://twitter.com/benjamincohen/status/1308357671708434434?s=20

What an absolute twat, he made a show of himself there. My favourite answer was;

The fact that two men cannot conceive is not a medical issue,
so it’s outside the remit of the NHS.

suicide_circus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The particular case you’re talking about has nothing to do with Ireland’s self declaration laws.

Perhaps not but it certain sheds an entirely different light on it now that we know the person is biologically male identifying as a woman....threatening to rape their mother with their female penis.

mohawk

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The particular case you’re talking about has nothing to do with Ireland’s self declaration laws. It has everything to do with the fact that the teenager simply “aged out of the system” on their 18th birthday, and it’s due to what it is claimed are inadequacies in Irish Mental Health Acts are the reason the person cannot be detained in a facility against their will.

It’s behaviour well out of the norm for either males or females!

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gardai-issue-alert-around-the-country-as-homicidal-teen-to-be-released-39558022.html

So in this article they mention Gardai issuing an alert. The article only mentions a female teenager. No mention at all that biologically they were born male. Last I checked most people are able to distinguish between a biological male versus female. There is a significant difference between been attacked by a biological male versus biological female. This person’s natal sex is relevant to the level of threat they pose.

Neyite

Gervais08 wrote: »

I agree with you 1,000% but I think that fertilised ova that are not implanted should not be just the property of the woman after a break up - unless the male is permitted (if he wishes) to give up any parental responsibility and walk away.

As far as I know, it is the property of both. No half of the couple have a right to use it, even if consent was initially given. There's been a few court cases and I can't recall one where one half of the couple gained the right to use the fertilised material without the other's consent. I recall one sad case where a couple were undergoing IVF, had embryos frozen and the husband died and the wife wasn't allowed by the court to continue with implantation because her husband wasn't around to consent any longer - even though he had consented at the time of fertilisation.


For what it's worth, when I needed fertility investigations and treatment, it required the presence of my partner at the initial appointment, and his signature consenting to me taking fertility medication before any prescription was written out for me, only right really.

JMNolan

mohawk wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gardai-issue-alert-around-the-country-as-homicidal-teen-to-be-released-39558022.html

So in this article they mention Gardai issuing an alert.

This is madness, they were going to issue an alert for a woman! And the 18-year-old is physically a man!! :eek:

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

Perhaps not but it certain sheds an entirely different light on it now that we know the person is biologically male identifying as a woman....threatening to rape their mother with their female penis.

It certainly does, but I’m guessing that was the intent of the person making the claims on Twitter - to have people draw their own conclusions about the case based upon their own assumptions and behaviours they associate with either males or females. For me personally their sex doesn’t make any difference, they’re an incredibly disturbed individual either way, as making threats like that is well outside the idea of normal behaviour for either males or females.

I didn’t see the part though where they threatened to rape their mother ‘with their female penis’ as you put it, it’s not as though males are predisposed to commit rape because they have a penis, and Irish law regarding rape is cognisant of this fact -


4.—(1) In this Act “rape under section 4 ” means a sexual assault that includes—

(a) penetration (however slight) of the anus or mouth by the penis, or

(b) penetration (however slight) of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person.

(2) A person guilty of rape under section 4 shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

(3) Rape under section 4 shall be a felony.


Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990


Mother charged with raping her daughter in Co Galway

JoannaJag

The 2014 Rape Crisis Network Ireland Report shows that:
• The vast majority of perpetrators of sexual violence against female and male victims were males (96%).
A small number were combinations of males and females acting together (3%), or females acting alone (1%).


There is a reason we associate the act of rape with males.

One eyed Jack

JoannaJag wrote: »

The 2014 Rape Crisis Network Ireland Report shows that:
• The vast majority of perpetrators of sexual violence against female and male victims were males (96%).
A small number were combinations of males and females acting together (3%), or females acting alone (1%).


There is a reason we associate the act of rape with males.

Yes because of an association fallacy. I don’t think anyone would seriously argue with the fact that males commit rape to a far greater extent than females, but those statistics say nothing of the fact that 93% of males do not commit rape or sexual violence.

Statistics aren’t all that useful in terms of individual cases as I have shown previously in the case where the individual charged with four counts of rape of her own daughter was female. Basically there’s a lot more context involved in individual cases than simply the sex of the perpetrator(s) or their victim(s) involved in any individual case.

That’s why when Dr. Cliona Saidlear, Executive Director of the RCNI said this -


Dr Cliona Saidlear said that young girls need to be made aware that young boys who sit with them in the classroom can also be a danger.


What she said wasn’t only fearmongering, it was dangerously misguided IMO. Young boys do not present a danger to anyone solely by virtue of the fact that they are either male, or by virtue of the fact that they have a penis.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The particular case you’re talking about has nothing to do with Ireland’s self declaration laws.

I wonder does it not. The violent person was effectively in a care situation and often people are assigned guards or wardens according to their sex. I have a friend, a chap, who worked in such a place and was set upon brutally by a lad. Probably the only reason he survived is that as a man he could somewhat fend off the blows. If a person identifies as a female - and we can see here they were for all intents and purposes regarded as female to the point that the whole story is couched as one of an ultra violent girl - would they likely be assigned a female to drive them about etc. In this case the disparity in physical strength might very well have meant the social worker being severely injured or even killed.. But perhaps a male could not be sent unaccompanied as a warden with a person who identifies as a girl?

CrabRevolution

Neyite wrote: »

As far as I know, it is the property of both. No half of the couple have a right to use it, even if consent was initially given. There's been a few court cases and I can't recall one where one half of the couple gained the right to use the fertilised material without the other's consent. I recall one sad case where a couple were undergoing IVF, had embryos frozen and the husband died and the wife wasn't allowed by the court to continue with implantation because her husband wasn't around to consent any longer - even though he had consented at the time of fertilisation.

For what it's worth, when I needed fertility investigations and treatment, it required the presence of my partner at the initial appointment, and his signature consenting to me taking fertility medication before any prescription was written out for me, only right really.

Slightly OT; it could just be the USA but I read of a case where a young man died and his parents paid to have sperm extracted from the body and frozen so that they could pay a surrogate to have a child using the sperm. It was all OKed by the courts too. Obviously no issue with post-mortem consent there.

ProfessorPlum

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The particular case you’re talking about has nothing to do with Ireland’s self declaration laws.

Just to add to the above, (from Gruffalox)

Reading the extracts from the clinicians report from Tavistock, it would seem they are not convinced that this kid is actually transgender, so in a jurisdiction that doesn’t have self ID, there’s every likelihood that this person would be considered male.
If she’s not transgender, her identifying as female is probably not helping with her already sever psychological issues. I wonder if the fact that her doctors and psychologists have to affirm her female gender, has that in any way negatively impacted the treatments and supports they were able to provide?
It seems this kid has a whole lot of issues that need to be worked through before even getting near gender dysmorphia.

seenitall

Neyite wrote: »

For what it's worth, when I needed fertility investigations and treatment, it required the presence of my partner at the initial appointment, and his signature consenting to me taking fertility medication before any prescription was written out for me, only right really.

Why is it right? Do women who are not able to conceive now, but may be able to later in the month, also need their life partners’ signatures before they do whatever they want to do with their reproductive systems? If they don’t, what makes you so different to them, by dint of needing some help for your body to function effectively?

To me, it is blatant nannying and muscle-flexing by the medical and legal systems over people who are in a vulnerable position. Sticking their nose where it doesn’t belong. Same old.

ceadaoin.

I did wonder when I saw the thread about that dangerous "female" the other day. An actual female raping, assaulting and planning to murder people is virtually unheard of, especially at such a young age. If anyone had questioned that in the thread though, the usual suspects would have been in throwing around transphobia accusations.

This person is clearly taking advantage of self id to gain access to victims. They refused to be housed in a male facility. They also exclusively attack females. When they inevitibly reoffend, they will be sent to a female prison to continue their abuse. But there are no problems with self id in ireland.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

I wonder does it not. The violent person was effectively in a care situation and often people are assigned guards or wardens according to their sex. I have a friend, a chap, who worked in such a place and was set upon brutally by a lad. Probably the only reason he survived is that as a man he could somewhat fend off the blows. If a person identifies as a female - and we can see here they were for all intents and purposes regarded as female to the point that the whole story is couched as one of an ultra violent girl - would they likely be assigned a female to drive them about etc. In this case the disparity in physical strength might very well have meant the social worker being severely injured or even killed.. But perhaps a male could not be sent unaccompanied as a warden with a person who identifies as a girl?

I’m honestly not aware of any policy that mandates females must only be accompanied by females or males must be accompanied by males in terms of social care. There IS a volunteer programme run by Foróige alright that has this stipulation ( Big Brothers Big Sisters Ireland) but it wouldn’t be directly related to mental health services. I’d also be aware of a number of cases where female nurses have been injured by male patients in their care in mental hospitals. They don’t appear to have this policy in UK or Irish prisons either -


Female ex-inmates talk about prison abuse

Scissor Sister hits out at prison transfer and denies lesbian liaison - ‘It has caused untold stress and upset’


On reading the article referring to this particular case where the woman was violently assaulted, the first thing that came to my mind was a failure in the process somewhere that allowed for this to happen, the idea that they couldn’t possibly have foreseen the risk of something like this happening means there had to have been other circumstances involved, whether it was the case that the woman who was assaulted was the only person available to take the individual to wherever they were being transferred to, I just don’t know.

That’s the thing really, it’s difficult to know exactly what went on with this particular individual. I remember another case which made national news a few years back where a girl was detained against her will and the mother was involved in her transfer to a mental health facility -


The court also heard from the young girl’s treating adolescent psychiatrist who had last seen her the day before the detention application.

“He was of the opinion that while the young girl remained agitated and angry, she did not suffer from an acute mental health disorder that warranted her detention under the Mental Health Act 2001. The consultant adolescent psychiatrist said that there was an initial concern of self-harm and that she was very distressed to find out about the pregnancy.”

He said her mental health was difficult to ascertain on admission because both she and her mother had thought they were being transferred to Dublin for an abortion and she was very agitated when she found that she was being admitted to a mental health unit.


Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion


In any case the idea that the individual self identified as female wouldn’t have meant much either way on it’s own. There’s no mention of them being granted an exemption which is normally granted to anyone under the age of 18 according to the Gender Recognition Act, so it would be a stretch in any case to associate the circumstances of this particular case with self identification legislation in Ireland - the whole point of the legislation is that their preferred gender is recognised by the State.

It might be related to the fact that the individual in question considered the facilities being offered in both Ireland and the UK unsuitable for their particular circumstances, but in terms of whether they could be detained or not in the first place once they reached 18, that’s the more relevant consideration than the fact that they are male or how they chose to identify themselves. It just sounds to me like those people involved in this individuals care were kicking the can down the road until this individual aged out of the system and then they wouldn’t be the responsibility of Tusla any more after that.

To suggest though that because the individual in this particular case is male is a reason they are more likely to be violent is simply to ignore the many individual cases where children are violent as a consequence of ill mental health, not simply because of their sex -


Gardaí called as girl, 11, makes death threats to classmates

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

The sad thing is that we will probably have to wait for something tragic to happen before people wake up. Why can’t we aim for risk reduction and prevention? Use the information at our disposal about male and female criminality to STOP bad things from happening?

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m honestly not aware of any policy that mandates females must only be accompanied by females or males must be accompanied by males in terms of social care. There IS a volunteer programme run by Foróige alright that has this stipulation ( Big Brothers Big Sisters Ireland) but it wouldn’t be directly related to mental health services. I’d also be aware of a number of cases where female nurses have been injured by male patients in their care in mental hospitals. They don’t appear to have this policy in UK or Irish prisons either -


Female ex-inmates talk about prison abuse

Scissor Sister hits out at prison transfer and denies lesbian liaison - ‘It has caused untold stress and upset’


On reading the article referring to this particular case where the woman was violently assaulted, the first thing that came to my mind was a failure in the process somewhere that allowed for this to happen, the idea that they couldn’t possibly have foreseen the risk of something like this happening means there had to have been other circumstances involved, whether it was the case that the woman who was assaulted was the only person available to take the individual to wherever they were being transferred to, I just don’t know.

That’s the thing really, it’s difficult to know exactly what went on with this particular individual. I remember another case which made national news a few years back where a girl was detained against her will and the mother was involved in her transfer to a mental health facility -


The court also heard from the young girl’s treating adolescent psychiatrist who had last seen her the day before the detention application.

“He was of the opinion that while the young girl remained agitated and angry, she did not suffer from an acute mental health disorder that warranted her detention under the Mental Health Act 2001. The consultant adolescent psychiatrist said that there was an initial concern of self-harm and that she was very distressed to find out about the pregnancy.”

He said her mental health was difficult to ascertain on admission because both she and her mother had thought they were being transferred to Dublin for an abortion and she was very agitated when she found that she was being admitted to a mental health unit.


Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion


In any case the idea that the individual self identified as female wouldn’t have meant much either way on it’s own. There’s no mention of them being granted an exemption which is normally granted to anyone under the age of 18 according to the Gender Recognition Act, so it would be a stretch in any case to associate the circumstances of this particular case with self identification legislation in Ireland - the whole point of the legislation is that their preferred gender is recognised by the State.

It might be related to the fact that the individual in question considered the facilities being offered in both Ireland and the UK unsuitable for their particular circumstances, but in terms of whether they could be detained or not in the first place once they reached 18, that’s the more relevant consideration than the fact that they are male or how they chose to identify themselves. It just sounds to me like those people involved in this individuals care were kicking the can down the road until this individual aged out of the system and then they wouldn’t be the responsibility of Tusla any more after that.

To suggest though that because the individual in this particular case is male is a reason they are more likely to be violent is simply to ignore the many individual cases where children are violent as a consequence of ill mental health, not simply because of their sex -


Gardaí called as girl, 11, makes death threats to classmates

I dunno, Jack, you invest such a lot of effort into always being a devil's advocate. How about just simply do you think a woman on her own should have been chaperoning a trans identifying violent male who nearly clawed her eyes out? How would you feel if the driver had been your sister?
Having reared both girls and boys - all strong - I know I would not have a hope against a teenage boy in a fight, whereas I would have some hope to at least defend myself against a teenage girl. The difference in strength is massive.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

I dunno, Jack, you invest such a lot of effort into always being a devil's advocate. How about just simply do you think a woman on her own should have been chaperoning a trans identifying violent male who nearly clawed her eyes out? How would you feel if the driver had been your sister?
Having reared both girls and boys - all strong - I know I would not have a hope against a teenage boy in a fight, whereas I would have some hope to at least defend myself against a teenage girl. The difference in strength is massive.

I really don’t, that’s why I wasn’t bothered contributing to the last few pages, because it was going over the same old ground that’s been done to death already. These are completely distinct circumstances unrelated to JK’s perception of how far her right to freedom of speech stretches.

To answer your questions though, no, I don’t think a woman on her own should have been chaperoning a trans identifying violent male who nearly clawed her eyes out. I thought that much was obvious from my post that I figured there had to have been a failure in the process somewhere where that was allowed to happen. I’d say the same regardless of whether the person doing the chaperoning was male or female - there were simply insufficient safeguards in place in any case regarding the welfare and safety of all concerned.

How would I feel if the driver had been my sister? Horrified, obviously. I’d feel the same way if the driver had been my brother or my father or my son. Undoubtedly the difference in strength is massive, but I didn’t raise my son assuming he would ever be a danger to anyone in the first place solely by virtue of the fact that he is male. I dunno about you but I’d be pissed if anyone were to think of my son as a danger to them solely by virtue of the fact that he is male. That’s not devils advocate, I’d still think people with those sort of funky ideas are best avoided in any case, but that shouldn’t mean their ideas should go unchallenged.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I really don’t, that’s why I wasn’t bothered contributing to the last few pages, because it was going over the same old ground that’s been done to death already. These are completely distinct circumstances unrelated to JK’s perception of how far her right to freedom of speech stretches.

To answer your questions though, no, I don’t think a woman on her own should have been chaperoning a trans identifying violent male who nearly clawed her eyes out. I thought that much was obvious from my post that I figured there had to have been a failure in the process somewhere where that was allowed to happen. I’d say the same regardless of whether the person doing the chaperoning was male or female - there were simply insufficient safeguards in place in any case regarding the welfare and safety of all concerned.

How would I feel if the driver had been my sister? Horrified, obviously. I’d feel the same way if the driver had been my brother or my father or my son. Undoubtedly the difference in strength is massive, but I didn’t raise my son assuming he would ever be a danger to anyone in the first place solely by virtue of the fact that he is male. I dunno about you but I’d be pissed if anyone were to think of my son as a danger to them solely by virtue of the fact that he is male. That’s not devils advocate, I’d still think people with those sort of funky ideas are best avoided in any case, but that shouldn’t mean their ideas should go unchallenged.

No no, that is just silly, to imply I hate men and would not care that a man was in the car with such a violent person. It is horrible for anyone to have to do that job but I know for sure that my boys would have a lot better of a chance to defend themselves against a violent male than my daughters would. I am really not gone beyond logic to the stupid place where some things are not more difficult for women to do, just as some things are more difficult for men to do. I work in a male dominated industry and yes, there are females. But the work is extremely physical and the men will always step in to do the very heavy work. It would only be a bollox who would say to a woman, you do it, even though she is there in the same capacity. She would be far more likely to suffer from something like a prolapse of internal organs than them. On a gut level we all know that. And when it comes to something that she can do and he might not enjoy, the women often opt in, knowing that the men have helped them elsewhere. This stupid presumption of battle lines always drawn between the sexes is so lame - which is what you are saying when you imply I would not feel bad if it was a man. I already told the story of my male friend being brutally attacked in a care situation.
And yes, no matter what you say, a violent male is more dangerous generally speaking to a woman or a man than a violent female.

Neyite

seenitall wrote: »

Why is it right? Do women who are not able to conceive now, but may be able to later in the month, also need their life partners’ signatures before they do whatever they want to do with their reproductive systems? If they don’t, what makes you so different to them, by dint of needing some help for your body to function effectively?

To me, it is blatant nannying and muscle-flexing by the medical and legal systems over people who are in a vulnerable position. Sticking their nose where it doesn’t belong. Same old.

In Ireland the initial appointment is done by taking both partners and undergoing various tests - bloods (female), sti tests (both) ultrasound (female partner) semen analysis (male partner) before a clinic will prescribe medication for fertility. At the appointment both partners sign a document reflecting that they are both giving their consent to the fertility treatment and what may be involve. It's more of a legal thing for clinics to cover themselves but I see why they do it.

It might have changed since I attended but I can't see any specialist prescribing a woman fertility drugs when a) she may have no medical need for them and b) without ruling out male factor infertility.

CtevenSrowder

Lillyfae wrote: »

Seriously? I've been reading that case over the last few days and couldn't make out what the problem with reincarceration, since all involved have reported a danger. This makes my blood run cold. People don't even know who they need to be careful of.

They are 18. There is no reason, in respect of the risk posed, then their identity should be released.

The most shocking things is that there is every chance they will be put in a women's prison if ever convicted of a crime.

Rothko

It seems like some people think it's more important to be politically correct than to protect others.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

No no, that is just silly, to imply I hate men and would not care that a man was in the car with such a violent person.

I didn’t imply that at all? Of course I imagine you would care if it were a man in those circumstances. It can’t have escaped your attention that it was just a bad idea that anyone be alone or be put in those circumstances with the child in question, regardless of their sex?

Gruffalox wrote: »

This stupid presumption of battle lines always drawn between the sexes is so lame - which is what you are saying when you imply I would not feel bad if it was a man. I already told the story of my male friend being brutally attacked in a care situation.
And yes, no matter what you say, a violent male is more dangerous generally speaking to a woman or a man than a violent female.

I’m not drawing any battle lines between the sexes, because I agree with you, that would be lame. Yet you go on to state that a violent male is more dangerous generally speaking to a woman or a man than a violent female, as if that’s not drawing battle lines between the sexes? Of course it is.

Pre-crimes are not a thing, that’s why we don’t incarcerate or punish individuals or discriminate against individuals based upon something an individual who shares characteristics in common with them, has done. Cases are based upon the circumstances in each individual case, rather than the idea of punishing or discriminating against either men, women or children as a group because a handful of them go off the reservation.

seenitall

Neyite wrote: »

In Ireland the initial appointment is done by taking both partners and undergoing various tests - bloods (female), sti tests (both) ultrasound (female partner) semen analysis (male partner) before a clinic will prescribe medication for fertility. At the appointment both partners sign a document reflecting that they are both giving their consent to the fertility treatment and what may be involve. It's more of a legal thing for clinics to cover themselves but I see why they do it.

It might have changed since I attended but I can't see any specialist prescribing a woman fertility drugs when a) she may have no medical need for them and b) without ruling out male factor infertility.

Ok. I didn’t get that picture from your post, as it was a reply to a discussion on rights of people to their reproductive material (sperm and ova). Btw, I do agree that sperm and ova should generally belong to whoever produced them, and then embryos belong to both people. And in a case such as yours, fair enough, both partners need to be investigated. I am, however, iffy on a partner having to SIGN for another adult’s medical treatment. I do think it is a hangover from the authoritarianism of the state. You may argue it’s just a formality, but I find it grating.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Pre-crimes are not a thing, .

Criminology is a thing though.

Bonniedog

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I did wonder when I saw the thread about that dangerous "female" the other day. An actual female raping, assaulting and planning to murder people is virtually unheard of, especially at such a young age. If anyone had questioned that in the thread though, the usual suspects would have been in throwing around transphobia accusations.

This person is clearly taking advantage of self id to gain access to victims. They refused to be housed in a male facility. They also exclusively attack females. When they inevitibly reoffend, they will be sent to a female prison to continue their abuse. But there are no problems with self id in ireland.

there was a thread on this earlier, but it seems to have disappeared. Story is here:

https://gript.ie/the-homicidal-girl-youre-reading-about-in-the-media-is-really-a-ma

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

Criminology is a thing though.

Of course criminology is a thing, but even criminology doesn’t assume guilt by association.

John Hutton

Bonniedog wrote: »

there was a thread on this earlier, but it seems to have disappeared. Story is here:

https://gript.ie/the-homicidal-girl-youre-reading-about-in-the-media-is-really-a-ma

Yeah I was wondering where that thread was.

Gript have worded things quite provocativly/badly, but raises some important issues. I was very shocked when I read the original story, it makes much more sense now.

https://gript.ie/the-homicidal-girl-youre-reading-about-in-the-media-is-really-a-man/

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course criminology is a thing, but even criminology doesn’t assume guilt by association.

You do not seem to want to acknowledge the rational and criminologically ascertained distinction between Most males are not violent and Most violent offenders are male. I will help you. Most women do not have Munchausens Syndrome by Proxy and Most people who have Muchausen's Syndrome by proxy are women. Hey here's another - most women are not anxious but most people with anxiety disorder are women. Etc. Based on actual biological reasons in these cases.