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

One eyed Jack

political analyst wrote: »

Please try to look past the fact that this article is from Gript.

https://gript.ie/are-trans-rights-taking-priority-over-womens-safety/

Why? Have Gript suddenly decided that reporting facts is a better business model for generating clicks and revenue than peddling their usual crap?

Having read the article in full that you linked to, it doesn’t appear as though they have. I was beginning to think they might just go out of business.

Gruffalux wrote: »

It is the same with a lot of issues. The so called mainstream media do not seem to handle stuff they think goes against some kind of progressiveness, though that is a stupid term. Don't know what other word to use. I can hardly bear to listen to news these last few years and I quit all newspapers - there is always an element of spin involved.

It’s nothing to do with being able or unable to handle stuff they think goes against some kind of progressiveness. It has everything to do with Court restrictions being placed on the media about what they can or cannot report on any particular case. Mainstream media have always printed what people wanted to read, that’s exactly how they became mainstream. It’s also how they generate revenue. The Daily Mail is mainstream media ffs, I defy anyone to say they’ve ever been shy about reporting the salacious details of any criminal cases they thought would whet the public appetite for moral outrage.

Meanwhile I can remember a number of cases which weren’t so widely reported or discussed at the time when they happened, can’t fault the public for not being interested in things they simply aren’t interested in, but the cases certainly were of interest to those people who were impacted by the implications of the judgements in each case -


Teenage girl who posed as boy for sex jailed

Fake penis assault woman given suspended jail term

Prosthetic penis sex attacker Gayle Newland jailed


I can remember arguing with people at the time who claimed it would be an infringement of their human rights to have to disclose to any potential sexual partners that they are transgender. The same arguments had been made years before by people saying that if a man deceived another man by having him believe he was having sex with a woman, the man should not face charges of rape or sexual assault, and that the laws would unfairly target people who are transgender.

I argued that the laws had nothing to do with targeting people who are transgender, the same law would apply equally to everyone, with the point being that regardless of their sex, a person who is found to have committed rape or sexual assault should face sanctions.

That Gript article isn’t bringing anything new to the table, not even the fact that they would word their article in such a way as to make it appear that Robert Purcell is the person employing a bit of mental reservation, and not the author of the articles own ignorance of the public consultation and the legal and political context of the introduction of the Gender Recognition Act in Irish Law.

Justin Credible Darts

RWCNT wrote: »

Imagine a 370 page thread occasionally straying from the premise of it's first post and thread title and related topics being discussed, absolutely unthinkable :rolleyes: The comment I was responding to is right there in the original post from me you quoted- you can read back if you want? The poster even responded to me (and I assume the others that weighed in) saying they disagreed and expanded on their ideas. Almost like a discussion.

If you feel I'm dragging the thread so far off topic please feel free to report. Otherwise, have a good one.

I dont give a flying feck if the topic has strayed off course according to you.


I am commenting on what the topic is about. If you dont like it, go start another thread then.



My point is still the same. JK Rowling was right to stand up for real women.
Trans women are not real women, and no amount of deflecting or spin will alter biology, which is a FACT.

Gervais08

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

I dont give a flying feck if the topic has strayed off course according to you.


I am commenting on what the topic is about. If you dont like it, go start another thread then.


My point is still the same. JK Rowling was right to stand up for real women.
Trans women are not real women, and no amount of deflecting or spin will alter biology, which is a FACT.

Did you ever foresee a time when stating the fact that a person with a penis was a man, not a woman could cause you to lose your job ???

Down the frigging rabbit hole we are now.

Justin Credible Darts

Gervais08 wrote: »

Did you ever foresee a time when stating the fact that a person with a penis was a man, not a woman could cause you to lose your job ???

Down the frigging rabbit hole we are now.

You , I or others have not attacked trans women, never disrespected their choices in life, never did or say anything that would be against the law etc.


I am all for neveryone being treated fairly, respected and freedom of thought and expression...HOWEVER I will not now or ever accept some MALE born with a penis, and extra testosterone, adams apple etc is a woman.


That is not just my opinion, that is a biological fact. The trans women supporters can dispense abuse towards people like me, only showing up what they are really like.
They can make ridiculous comments calling me a transphobe in an effort to deflect, but it will not change biology.


Just as no person born a woman will ever be a real man.


It wont be long before the crying and whinging get so bad it will be called hate speech to quote biology.

Gervais08

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

You , I or others have not attacked trans women, never disrespected their choices in life, never did or say anything that would be against the law etc.


I am all for neveryone being treated fairly, respected and freedom of thought and expression...HOWEVER I will not now or ever accept some MALE born with a penis, and extra testosterone, adams apple etc is a woman.


That is not just my opinion, that is a biological fact. The trans women supporters can dispense abuse towards people like me, only showing up what they are really like.
They can make ridiculous comments calling me a transphobe in an effort to deflect, but it will not change biology.


Just as no person born a woman will ever be a real man.


It wont be long before the crying and whinging get so bad it will be called hate speech to quote biology.

This!

If you want to live as the opposite sex - have at it. Gender bend to your hearts content!!

But science is science is science - twas ever thus!!!

One eyed Jack

Gervais08 wrote: »

Did you ever foresee a time when stating the fact that a person with a penis was a man, not a woman could cause you to lose your job ???

Down the frigging rabbit hole we are now.

Yes, of course, and in circumstances where the person is employed as a tax consultant with a global “think tank” organisation, it’s practically guaranteed that they would lose their job!

You’re acting like this is somehow unusual, it’s not.

Here’s a decent analysis of what the case was actually about (and what it wasn’t about) -


Maya Forstater’s case was about protected beliefs, not trans rights


It’s also crucial to point out this bit -


Crucially, that doesn’t mean women can now be sacked just for criticising self-identification or for objecting to trans women having automatic access to women’s prisons and domestic violence shelters. But what it means is objections shouldn’t be based on arguing that trans women are men really. The ruling explicitly says that it is “quite possible to accept that trans women are women but still argue that there are certain circumstances in which it would be justified to exclude certain trans women”, for example, from services used by rape victims or potentially traumatised women, just as the law currently allows. The central idea is that being a woman, trans or not, isn’t a licence to ride roughshod over the needs of others; that it comes with rights, but not infinite ones.


Bold emphasis my own.

political analyst

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why? Have Gript suddenly decided that reporting facts is a better business model for generating clicks and revenue than peddling their usual crap?

Having read the article in full that you linked to, it doesn’t appear as though they have. I was beginning to think they might just go out of business.





It’s nothing to do with being able or unable to handle stuff they think goes against some kind of progressiveness. It has everything to do with Court restrictions being placed on the media about what they can or cannot report on any particular case. Mainstream media have always printed what people wanted to read, that’s exactly how they became mainstream. It’s also how they generate revenue. The Daily Mail is mainstream media ffs, I defy anyone to say they’ve ever been shy about reporting the salacious details of any criminal cases they thought would whet the public appetite for moral outrage.

Meanwhile I can remember a number of cases which weren’t so widely reported or discussed at the time when they happened, can’t fault the public for not being interested in things they simply aren’t interested in, but the cases certainly were of interest to those people who were impacted by the implications of the judgements in each case -


Teenage girl who posed as boy for sex jailed

Fake penis assault woman given suspended jail term

Prosthetic penis sex attacker Gayle Newland jailed


I can remember arguing with people at the time who claimed it would be an infringement of their human rights to have to disclose to any potential sexual partners that they are transgender. The same arguments had been made years before by people saying that if a man deceived another man by having him believe he was having sex with a woman, the man should not face charges of rape or sexual assault, and that the laws would unfairly target people who are transgender.

I argued that the laws had nothing to do with targeting people who are transgender, the same law would apply equally to everyone, with the point being that regardless of their sex, a person who is found to have committed rape or sexual assault should face sanctions.

That Gript article isn’t bringing anything new to the table, not even the fact that they would word their article in such a way as to make it appear that Robert Purcell is the person employing a bit of mental reservation, and not the author of the articles own ignorance of the public consultation and the legal and political context of the introduction of the Gender Recognition Act in Irish Law.

But do you not envisage a problem with the imprisonment of a sex offender who is biologically male and identifies as female - but still has a penis - in a women's prison? It doesn't take a psychologist to figure out what that offender would do with the penis.

RWCNT

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

I dont give a flying feck if the topic has strayed off course according to you.


I am commenting on what the topic is about. If you dont like it, go start another thread then.



My point is still the same. JK Rowling was right to stand up for real women.
Trans women are not real women, and no amount of deflecting or spin will alter biology, which is a FACT.

Cool. You can comment on that, and I can comment on any related subject that comes up over the course of the thread. No need for any new threads. If you feel its inappropriate then feel free to ignore or report. I really don't know what I've done to get you so wound up.

Justin Credible Darts

RWCNT wrote: »

Cool. You can comment on that, and I can comment on any related subject that comes up over the course of the thread. No need for any new threads. If you feel its inappropriate then feel free to ignore or report. I really don't know what I've done to get you so wound up.

I am not "wound up" no matter how much you would like to think.
I have not reported any posts, not have I any intention of doing so.
That might be your reaction, its not mine.


Normally if I go off on a tangent on a thread, I have people snapping at me to "keep to the topic", yet you think that dont apply to you.,


Fair play to you.

RWCNT

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

I am not "wound up" no matter how much you would like to think.
I have not reported any posts, not have I any intention of doing so.
That might be your reaction, its not mine.


Normally if I go off on a tangent on a thread, I have people snapping at me to "keep to the topic", yet you think that dont apply to you.,


Fair play to you.

Delighted to hear you're in good spirits.

My "tangent" came in response to a point raised by another poster, so take your issue up with them I suppose. I'm sorry you've been snapped at by someone in another thread, that's a pity. As you're so keen to stay on topic shall we end this strange exchange you've began?

One eyed Jack

political analyst wrote: »

But do you not envisage a problem with the imprisonment of a sex offender who is biologically male and identifies as female - but still has a penis - in a women's prison? It doesn't take a psychologist to figure out what that offender would do with the penis.

Of course I envision a whole host of problems with the imprisonment of a person who has a history of sexual violence towards women being housed in a women’s prison, but the idea that they present as an issue solely by virtue of the fact they have a penis and what they might do with it, pales in comparison to the fact that their previous form in attacking women doesn’t include the use of their penis. Instead they appear to have tried to claw the woman’s eyes out and torn the woman’s hair out with their fingers.

Even in the post you quoted, there were examples given of sexual offenders who never had a penis, yet committed sexual assaults against women and were convicted of rape. Essentially - a penis is not required to commit rape or sexual assault against women, no psychologist necessary to figure that much out either.

Having said that, I also envision that the only person this person is the most likely to be a danger to in a women’s prison, is themselves. It’s highly likely they’ll run their mouth off in the wrong company, and find themselves in a world of hurt when the women there put manners on this particular individual, but I do hope at the same time the prison officers who are employed there will actually do their job and keep order among the inmates, instead of disappearing to have sex with one of the other inmates -


This is the second time Charlotte Mulhall has been embroiled in a scandal with prison staff. In November 2017 a male member of prison staff was found hiding behind a shower curtain in Mulhall’s en-suite bathroom. The officer was ‘very flustered’ and CCTV recorded him entering her cell 10 minutes earlier. Prison officers later entered Charlotte Mulhall’s room as there was a suspicion the pair were in a sexual relationship.

When interviewed in the aftermath of the incident, Charlotte Mulhall claimed that she had been involved in a 10-month affair with the married man. Women sent to the Dóchas Centre are said to enjoy a ‘relaxed regime’. Each prisoner has a cell key to their own en-suite rooms.


Scissor Sister Charlotte Mulhall ‘caught having sex with jail worker in cell’


Charlotte is appealing the decision to move her to Limerick prison so that she can be moved back to Dublin, where by all accounts she seems to be quite popular among the staff and other inmates -





Scissor Sister moved to new jail after knife photos leaked


It’s simply impossible to predict with any degree of certainty what may or may not happen in any individual case. Certainly we could speculate all day and come up with all sorts of outrageous and dramatic hypothetical scenarios that would make Orange Is The New Black seem tame by comparison, each one more dramatic and paranoia fuelled than the last. What strikes me as more unusual than any of that though, is the sudden increase among some people about the welfare of women in prison, when there didn’t appear to be that same concern before when women were being sexually exploited and assaulted in prison long before now -


Two complaints of assault made by women in prison partially upheld this year


One can only hope those people’s new found vigour and concern for the welfare of inmates in women’s prisons will translate into action. Unfortunately I’d also consider the odds of that actually happening, are extremely unlikely.

y0ssar1an22

i suppose the most fundamental question is....

are you different?

if no, why insist on being called something different. just be a man/women; no one really cares.

if yes, why give out about different rules that pertain to sports and the like?

ETA: thats pretty binary.

Dante7

The Phoenix published an article dismissing the Irish women who are raising concerns as British influenced TERFs. It's not going well for them in the replies.

https://twitter.com/ThePhoenixMag/status/1314637430323109890?s=20

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Dante7 wrote: »

The Phoenix published an article dismissing the Irish women who are raising concerns as British influenced TERFs. It's not going well for them in the replies.

https://twitter.com/ThePhoenixMag/status/1314637430323109890?s=20

Very patronising. Those easily influenced TERFs, wha’?

political analyst

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course I envision a whole host of problems with the imprisonment of a person who has a history of sexual violence towards women being housed in a women’s prison, but the idea that they present as an issue solely by virtue of the fact they have a penis and what they might do with it, pales in comparison to the fact that their previous form in attacking women doesn’t include the use of their penis. Instead they appear to have tried to claw the woman’s eyes out and torn the woman’s hair out with their fingers.

Even in the post you quoted, there were examples given of sexual offenders who never had a penis, yet committed sexual assaults against women and were convicted of rape. Essentially - a penis is not required to commit rape or sexual assault against women, no psychologist necessary to figure that much out either.

I've read the reports of cases in which biological females posed as males to trick other females into agreeing to have sex with them.

But I don't see how a biological male could become sexually aroused without a penis. After all, no penis means no erection.

One eyed Jack

political analyst wrote: »

I've read the reports of cases in which biological females posed as males to trick other females into agreeing to have sex with them.

They may find themselves charged with with committing a criminal offence in those circumstances. Similar laws exist in both the UK and Ireland -


Conclusive presumptions about consent

(1)If in proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is proved that the defendant did the relevant act and that any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2) existed, it is to be conclusively presumed—

(a)that the complainant did not consent to the relevant act, and

(b)that the defendant did not believe that the complainant consented to the relevant act.

(2)The circumstances are that—

(a)the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act;

(b)the defendant intentionally induced the complainant to consent to the relevant act by impersonating a person known personally to the complainant.


Sexual Offences Act 2003


The Act of 1990 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 9:

“9. (1) A person consents to a sexual act if he or she freely and voluntarily agrees to engage in that act.

(2) A person does not consent to a sexual act if—

(a) he or she permits the act to take place or submits to it because of the application of force to him or her or to some other person, or because of the threat of the application of force to him or her or to some other person, or because of a well-founded fear that force may be applied to him or her or to some other person,

(b) he or she is asleep or unconscious,

(c) he or she is incapable of consenting because of the effect of alcohol or some other drug,

(d) he or she is suffering from a physical disability which prevents him or her from communicating whether he or she agrees to the act,

(e) he or she is mistaken as to the nature and purpose of the act,

(f) he or she is mistaken as to the identity of any other person involved in the act,

(g) he or she is being unlawfully detained at the time at which the act takes place,

(h) the only expression or indication of consent or agreement to the act comes from somebody other than the person himself or herself.

(3) This section does not limit the circumstances in which it may be established that a person did not consent to a sexual act.

(4) Consent to a sexual act may be withdrawn at any time before the act begins, or in the case of a continuing act, while the act is taking place.

(5) Any failure or omission on the part of a person to offer resistance to an act does not of itself constitute consent to that act.


Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017

political analyst wrote: »

But I don't see how a biological male could become sexually aroused without a penis. After all, no penis means no erection.

I’m not trying to be smart, I’m trying to be helpful, because I think you’re having a fundamental misunderstanding of a few things. Sexual arousal isn’t related to whether one has or hasn’t a penis. It’s related to hormones in either biological females or biological males. Chemical castration, or in circumstances where a person has undergone treatment for testicular cancer and had their testicles or their penis removed, reduce their capacity for sexual arousal. Such procedures have no effect on a person’s capacity to commit rape, whether they are a biological male or a biological female.

“Rape under section 4” as it’s known in Irish law, is fully 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


I don’t suggest we go chopping off people’s hands to prevent them from committing rape though, any more than I would suggest that being in possession of a penis has any bearing on whether or not a person is likely to commit rape.

political analyst

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not trying to be smart, I’m trying to be helpful, because I think you’re having a fundamental misunderstanding of a few things. Sexual arousal isn’t related to whether one has or hasn’t a penis. It’s related to hormones in either biological females or biological males. Chemical castration, or in circumstances where a person has undergone treatment for testicular cancer and had their testicles or their penis removed, reduce their capacity for sexual arousal. Such procedures have no effect on a person’s capacity to commit rape, whether they are a biological male or a biological female.

“Rape under section 4” as it’s known in Irish law, is fully 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


I don’t suggest we go chopping off people’s hands to prevent them from committing rape though, any more than I would suggest that being in possession of a penis has any bearing on whether or not a person is likely to commit rape.

How can a biological male whose genitals have been removed have an orgasm? After all, an orgasm in a biological male means erection and then ejaculation.

I'm aware that rapes have been committed with hand-held non-anatomical objects.

Libski

political analyst wrote: »

How can a biological male whose genitals have been removed have an orgasm? After all, an orgasm in a biological male means erection and then ejaculation.

I'm aware that rapes have been committed with hand-held non-anatomical objects.

I think the point they made was that a person can still rape someone after castration.

Gervais08

Libski wrote: »

I think the point they made was that a person can still rape someone after castration.

He’s somehow defending the inclusion of male bodies in women’s prisons but quoting the law that doesn’t apply and pointing out that one of the Mulhall sisters is a right head the ball.

Libski

Gervais08 wrote: »

He’s somehow defending the inclusion of male bodies in women’s prisons but quoting the law that doesn’t apply and pointing out that one of the Mulhall sisters is a right head the ball.

Well that's not okay.

Gervais08

Libski wrote: »

Well that's not okay.

No but if they “feel” like a woman despite convictions for raping women - they’re in the Dochas.

One eyed Jack

Gervais08 wrote: »

He’s somehow defending the inclusion of male bodies in women’s prisons but quoting the law that doesn’t apply and pointing out that one of the Mulhall sisters is a right head the ball.

He’s doing no such thing, because he knows that it’s completely up to the Irish Prison Service where and how they accommodate prisoners according to a number of criteria (one of which has never been the outrage from the general public), and not just the fact that they are as you put it - male bodied.

He is making the point that being born male offers no indication or evidence that a man is invariably going to commit rape or sexual assault. Committing rape or sexual assault has nothing to do with a persons sex or their biology, or the sex or biology of their victims. It has everything to do with the fact that as you suggest - they are a head the ball. The decision to commit rape or sexual assault is an entirely voluntary one which a person has control over, it has nothing, zero to do with biology. There have been some people who have argued a biological basis for rape, but that too is complete nonsense founded on equally shaky reasoning -


Sociobiological theories of rape


If their argument is that being born male means a person is likely to commit rape, and they are concerned about protecting women from rape, then the logical conclusion of their argument is to institute a policy that declares all males should be castrated at birth in order to prevent males from committing rape.

That policy would apply even more so in the cases of their male family members and friends as rape is more commonly committed by males known to their victims. Incidents of either males or females committing rape and sexual assault in women’s and girls spaces would barely be a blip on the statistics of the circumstances in which rape and sexual assault occurs.

Their underlying principle of the idea that because a male is born with a penis means they are more likely to commit rape, simply isn’t borne out by any measure of the application of logic, reasoning, evidence from statistical data, or science. I know that posters here are not stupid, but there are some glaring and obvious flaws in their reasoning when they attempt to correlate human behaviour which is a choice, with biology, which isn’t, and the dangers of conflating human behaviour with biology if we were to actually follow through on the premise of the idea that males are a threat to females solely by virtue of the fact that males are born with a penis.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

being born male offers no indication or evidence that a man is invariably going to commit rape or sexual assault. .

No one has ever said this on the thread but Crikey you have spent a lot of time pushing back against this non-existent claim...

Libski

One eyed Jack wrote: »

He’s doing no such thing, because he knows that it’s completely up to the Irish Prison Service where and how they accommodate prisoners according to a number of criteria (one of which has never been the outrage from the general public), and not just the fact that they are as you put it - male bodied.

He is making the point that being born male offers no indication or evidence that a man is invariably going to commit rape or sexual assault. Committing rape or sexual assault has nothing to do with a persons sex or their biology, or the sex or biology of their victims. It has everything to do with the fact that as you suggest - they are a head the ball. The decision to commit rape or sexual assault is an entirely voluntary one which a person has control over, it has nothing, zero to do with biology. There have been some people who have argued a biological basis for rape, but that too is complete nonsense founded on equally shaky reasoning -


Sociobiological theories of rape


If their argument is that being born male means a person is likely to commit rape, and they are concerned about protecting women from rape, then the logical conclusion of their argument is to institute a policy that declares all males should be castrated at birth in order to prevent males from committing rape.

That policy would apply even more so in the cases of their male family members and friends as rape is more commonly committed by males known to their victims. Incidents of either males or females committing rape and sexual assault in women’s and girls spaces would barely be a blip on the statistics of the circumstances in which rape and sexual assault occurs.

Their underlying principle of the idea that because a male is born with a penis means they are more likely to commit rape, simply isn’t borne out by any measure of the application of logic, reasoning, evidence from statistical data, or science. I know that posters here are not stupid, but there are some glaring and obvious flaws in their reasoning when they attempt to correlate human behaviour which is a choice, with biology, which isn’t, and the dangers of conflating human behaviour with biology if we were to actually follow through on the premise of the idea that males are a threat to females solely by virtue of the fact that males are born with a penis.

I worked for the Probation Service for 11 years. I'm confused by your post. What exactly are you saying?

One eyed Jack

Gruffalux wrote: »

No one has ever said this on the thread but Crikey you have spent a lot of time pushing back against this non-existent claim...

Nobody has ever said it explicitly, it’s what they infer from arguing that males are a risk to females based upon the fact that males have a penis.

But you knew that.

One eyed Jack

Libski wrote: »

I worked for the Probation Service for 11 years. I'm confused by your post. What exactly are you saying?

In relation to where or how inmates are housed, one of the criteria has never been whether or not the circumstances of their incarceration should be decided by the general public. That’s why all this manufactured outrage and hysteria being whipped up by media outlets such as Gript, and outrage on social media is just that, it has no influence on Irish Prison Service policies.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody has ever said it explicitly, it’s what they infer from arguing that males are a risk to females based upon the fact that males have a penis.

But you knew that.

No. It is based on the criminological fact that most (not all, but most) rape is committed with a penis. It is a big BIG difference to implying any sort of ''invariability'' re most men and rape. But you knew that.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalux wrote: »

No. It is based on the criminological fact that most (not all, but most) rape is committed with a penis. It is a big BIG difference to implying any sort of ''invariability'' re most men and rape. But you knew that.

Those statistics infer a correlation, not a causation. There is zero evidence to support the notion that a penis is the cause of rape. If you want to talk statistical facts, you would have to acknowledge that the vast majority of males do not commit rape - their risk to anyone solely by virtue of their biology is zero.

Libski

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In relation to where or how inmates are housed, one of the criteria has never been whether or not the circumstances of their incarceration should be decided by the general public. That’s why all this manufactured outrage and hysteria being whipped up by media outlets such as Gript, and outrage on social media is just that, it has no influence on Irish Prison Service policies.

Obviously - that's common sense. I'm asking whether or not they're housing trans women with women.

One eyed Jack

Libski wrote: »

Obviously - that's common sense. I'm asking whether or not they're housing trans women with women.

They probably are, I don’t know for certain exactly what the conditions of each inmates incarceration is, whether resources allow for an individual cell (I doubt it), or whether a risk assessment suggests that they are a danger to anyone else but themselves, or whether the risk assessment suggests that for their own protection they need to be protected from other inmates in case they are sexually assaulted by one of the other inmates with a hair straightener.

To be honest I don’t lose much sleep over it because I know it’s the remit of the IPS to determine all these things and they aren’t and won’t be influenced by anything the general public has to say related to individual cases.