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

ProfessorPlum

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I it’s completely up to the Irish Prison Service where and how they accommodate prisoners according to a number of criteria

I think the pertinent point is though, that it’s not up to the IPS where they house a prisoner who claims to be transgender and has a GRC to wave about.
They are obliged to house them in (this case) the female estate.
Because the law says they are female.

Neyite

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I think the pertinent point is though, that it’s not up to the IPS where they house a prisoner who claims to be transgender and has a GRC to wave about.
They are obliged to house them in (this case) the female estate.
Because the law says they are female.

I thought the Irish GRC legislation specified that certain single sex spaces specifically prisons and hospital wards were exempt?

ProfessorPlum

Neyite wrote: »

I thought the Irish GRC legislation specified that certain single sex spaces specifically prisons and hospital wards we exempt?

Nope. All those exceptions, including the exception for sports, were taken out at one of the last stages before the bill was written into law.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

The correlation is precisely what people have talked about. Not causation. You were the one who ran with the causation.

Libski

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

You sound a little crazy to me.

Libski

Even if you're trolling - it's kinda crazy.

One eyed Jack

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I think the pertinent point is though, that it’s not up to the IPS where they house a prisoner who claims to be transgender and has a GRC to wave about.
They are obliged to house them in (this case) the female estate.
Because the law says they are female.

The law doesn’t oblige the IPS to house anyone who claims to be transgender anywhere, regardless of whether they are in possession of a GRC or not. A GRC is not a license to ride roughshod over other people’s rights. They could house a man with a GRC stating their preferred gender as female, in the male prison if they decided that it was more suitable accommodation for that prisoner.

If the prisoner had an issue with it, they could claim they are being discriminated against, and it would simply be pointed out to them that the discrimination is necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, whatever those aims may be, in order to deny facilitating them in the female prison. That’s notwithstanding the fact that the Minister for Social Protection can revoke a GRC, rendering the claim of discrimination at least, null and void in any case.

The aim of the GRC was and has always been to give legal recognition to people on the basis of their preferred gender to prevent discrimination in terms of housing, employment, healthcare, that sort of thing. Robert Purcell is right to claim that it presents some difficulties for the State, but they’re not insurmountable difficulties, and they’re not even close to suggesting that they are erasing women’s rights or have any effect on women’s welfare or men’s welfare or any of the rest of it.

In the case of this particular individual, I’d suggest gluing a set of oven mitts over their hands might be a less drastic means to prevent the risk of them causing harm to other inmates, but I have no doubt someone else will argue that would be cruel and unusual punishment. It is.

One eyed Jack

Libski wrote: »

You sound a little crazy to me.

Arguing as though penises have a mind of their own seems equally crazy to me to be honest, but here we are.

Libski

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Arguing as though penises have a mind of their own seems equally crazy to me to be honest, but here we are.

I haven't read the thread. What's your argument?

ProfessorPlum

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The law doesn’t oblige the IPS to house anyone who claims to be transgender anywhere, regardless of whether they are in possession of a GRC or not. A GRC is not a license to ride roughshod over other people’s rights. They could house a man with a GRC stating their preferred gender as female, in the male prison if they decided that it was more suitable accommodation for that prisoner.

If the prisoner had an issue with it, they could claim they are being discriminated against, and it would simply be pointed out to them that the discrimination is necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, whatever those aims may be, in order to deny facilitating them in the female prison. That’s notwithstanding the fact that the Minister for Social Protection can revoke a GRC, rendering the claim of discrimination at least, null and void in any case.

The aim of the GRC was and has always been to give legal recognition to people on the basis of their preferred gender to prevent discrimination in terms of housing, employment, healthcare, that sort of thing. Robert Purcell is right to claim that it presents some difficulties for the State, but they’re not insurmountable difficulties, and they’re not even close to suggesting that they are erasing women’s rights or have any effect on women’s welfare or men’s welfare or any of the rest of it.

In the case of this particular individual, I’d suggest gluing a set of oven mitts over their hands might be a less drastic means to prevent the risk of them causing harm to other inmates, but I have no doubt someone else will argue that would be cruel and unusual punishment. It is.

Well Jack, given that the prison service, to my knowledge, has never housed a male prisoner outside of the male estate, or a female prisoner outside of the female estate, and given that if there were ever circumstances where a more suitable accommodation might be indicated - ie - housing a convicted male bodied sex offender and a male bodied person who threatens to rape and murder women, with women, this is it.
So despite the slightly woolly language about suitable accommodation, and because the law states that in all circumstances a person with a GRC will be treated as a person of their preferred sex, then, no, I don’t think the prison service in practice are in a position to house prisoners outside of their sex based estate. The governor said as much last year after the law gazette wrote about the first prisoner (the one convicted of sex offences against children, who was them initially housed with - yes, children.)

One eyed Jack

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Well Jack, given that the prison service, to my knowledge, has never housed a male prisoner outside of the male estate, or a female prisoner outside of the female estate, and given that if there were ever circumstances where a more suitable accommodation might be indicated - ie - housing a convicted male bodied sex offender and a male bodied person who threatens to rape and murder women, with women, this is it.

Obviously the reasons you give aren’t enough in this particular case if they’re still choosing to house a male prisoner in the female estate. And this is the point - they choose to, they are not obligated by law to do so.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

So despite the slightly woolly language about suitable accommodation, and because the law states that in all circumstances a person with a GRC will be treated as a person of their preferred sex, then, no, I don’t think the prison service in practice are in a position to house prisoners outside of their sex based estate. The governor said as much last year after the law gazette wrote about the first prisoner (the one convicted of sex offences against children, who was them initially housed with - yes, children.)

That’s what the law as it is written suggests in the general application of the effects of a GRC, but if you read the full act, there are exceptions, the most obvious ones being in family law and indeed criminal law -


Gender specific offences

23. (1) Where (apart from this subsection) a relevant gender-specific sexual offence could be committed or attempted only if the gender of the person to whom a gender recognition certificate is issued were not the preferred gender, the fact that the person’s gender has become the preferred gender does not prevent the sexual offence being committed or attempted.

(2) An offence is a relevant gender-specific sexual offence if a condition specified in subsection (3) is satisfied.

(3) The following conditions are referred to in subsection (2):

(a) that the offence may only be committed by a person of a particular gender;

(b) that the offence may only be committed against, or in relation to, a person of a particular gender.

(4) A part of the body surgically constructed (in particular through gender assignment surgery) is the same, for the purposes of a sexual offence, as a part of the body not so surgically constructed.

(5) In this section “sexual offence” means an offence specified in the Schedule to the Sex Offenders Act 2001.


Gender Recognition Act 2015


I’m not aware of the context of the comments you’re referring to, but it doesn’t surprise me that the Governor would say as much as what you’re suggesting they said. I know their policies don’t allow them to transfer male and female prisoners between male and female estates, but that’s obviously not the same thing, and according to this article from the Gazette, a spokesman for the IPS had this to say -


An IPS spokesman said that he couldn’t comment on individual prisoners or cases.

“The Irish Prison Service must accept all prisoners into custody into whatever prison a judge orders under the Consolidated Committal Order, which was signed by the Minister for Justice and Equality in 2015,” the IPS spokesman said.

“Upon committal, all prisoners are brought to the reception/committal unit of the prison, where there is an opportunity to provide personal and physical details as part of the regular committal interview process.

“The assessment of the prisoner’s needs, may require the Prison Governor to consider the biological gender, legal gender, gender identity, transgender, gender expression, sexual orientation or gender recognition legislation.

“In such cases, the governor may make a recommendation on the appropriate placement within the prison system, taking into consideration good order, security and operational issues, protection issues, available accommodation, and the healthcare needs of the prisoner.”


Looks like a classic game of ‘pass the buck’ to me tbh, everyone claiming they have no responsibility, their hands are tied, it’s someone else’s responsibility, etc.

Gervais08

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Arguing as though penises have a mind of their own seems equally crazy to me to be honest, but here we are.

No less crazy than arguing they’re “girl” penises so lesbians should just take them or be deemed “phobic“.

Justin Credible Darts

Gervais08 wrote: »

No less crazy than arguing they’re “girl” penises so lesbians should just take them or be deemed “phobic“.

dont forget, on this very thread, I asked what if a straight man went to a club trying to pick up a woman, and found out the "girl" he was chatting up was trans, and he made his excuses and left would he be transphobic, and the answer by one member was "yes".


This is the mindset of some people, that a straight man who would refuse to sleep with a biological male is a transphobe....go figure.

ProfessorPlum

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Obviously the reasons you give aren’t enough in this particular case if they’re still choosing to house a male prisoner in the female estate. And this is the point - they choose to, they are not obligated by law to do so.





That’s what the law as it is written suggests in the general application of the effects of a GRC, but if you read the full act, there are exceptions, the most obvious ones being in family law and indeed criminal law -


Gender specific offences

23. (1) Where (apart from this subsection) a relevant gender-specific sexual offence could be committed or attempted only if the gender of the person to whom a gender recognition certificate is issued were not the preferred gender, the fact that the person’s gender has become the preferred gender does not prevent the sexual offence being committed or attempted.

(2) An offence is a relevant gender-specific sexual offence if a condition specified in subsection (3) is satisfied.

(3) The following conditions are referred to in subsection (2):

(a) that the offence may only be committed by a person of a particular gender;

(b) that the offence may only be committed against, or in relation to, a person of a particular gender.

(4) A part of the body surgically constructed (in particular through gender assignment surgery) is the same, for the purposes of a sexual offence, as a part of the body not so surgically constructed.

(5) In this section “sexual offence” means an offence specified in the Schedule to the Sex Offenders Act 2001.


Gender Recognition Act 2015


I’m not aware of the context of the comments you’re referring to, but it doesn’t surprise me that the Governor would say as much as what you’re suggesting they said. I know their policies don’t allow them to transfer male and female prisoners between male and female estates, but that’s obviously not the same thing, and according to this article from the Gazette, a spokesman for the IPS had this to say -


An IPS spokesman said that he couldn’t comment on individual prisoners or cases.

“The Irish Prison Service must accept all prisoners into custody into whatever prison a judge orders under the Consolidated Committal Order, which was signed by the Minister for Justice and Equality in 2015,” the IPS spokesman said.

“Upon committal, all prisoners are brought to the reception/committal unit of the prison, where there is an opportunity to provide personal and physical details as part of the regular committal interview process.

“The assessment of the prisoner’s needs, may require the Prison Governor to consider the biological gender, legal gender, gender identity, transgender, gender expression, sexual orientation or gender recognition legislation.

“In such cases, the governor may make a recommendation on the appropriate placement within the prison system, taking into consideration good order, security and operational issues, protection issues, available accommodation, and the healthcare needs of the prisoner.”


Looks like a classic game of ‘pass the buck’ to me tbh, everyone claiming they have no responsibility, their hands are tied, it’s someone else’s responsibility, etc.

I would argue that they are obliged by law to house a prisoner in the appropriate sex estate - but I suppose unless they try to go outside of those boundaries and it is challenged in the courts, we will never know.

You need to read the part of the act that you quoted again. It’s not an exception to recognising an individual as their preferred sex, it’s basically saying that they can still commit an offence that can only be committed by a person of their former sex, or be a victim of such an act.

The minister can’t revoke a GRC either, except on technical grounds ie residency status of the applicant etc. So inferring that that’s an option is misleading at a minimum.

You really are just using up bandwidth unnecessarily here.

One eyed Jack

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

You need to read the part of the act that you quoted again. It’s not an exception to recognising an individual as their preferred sex, it’s basically saying that they can still commit an offence that can only be committed by a person of their former sex, or be a victim of such an act.

The minister can’t revoke a GRC either, except on technical grounds ie residency status of the applicant etc. So inferring that that’s an option is misleading at a minimum.

You really are just using up bandwidth unnecessarily here.

Your initially implying that there are no exceptions, that the person in possession of a GRC means they must be treated as their preferred gender in ALL circumstances is what was misleading. You did the same when you said the Governor “as much as said” something, but I wasn’t going to nit-pick as that would be using up bandwidth, and was never the salient point of your argument.

You argued as though there were no exceptions or exemptions and the implications of that for what Neyite was referring to. I was simply pointing out that there are exceptions and exemptions made.

Even the circumstances in this particular case provides a good example of it in that the mother was asked to leave the shelter when her son was perceived as a threat by the other service users in the domestic violence shelter. There has never been an automatic right to these services in the first place, not even among women, let alone men who claim to be women or these women’s sons who are biological males born with a penis. Their children being denied access is one of the reasons many women who are victims of domestic violence and abuse will simply say “no” to the offer of being housed in a shelter. There are numerous reasons why women themselves would be denied access in the first place too - not based upon their sex, but based upon their behaviours and attitudes towards other people.

ProfessorPlum

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your initially implying that there are no exceptions, that the person in possession of a GRC means they must be treated as their preferred gender in ALL circumstances is what was misleading. You did the same when you said the Governor “as much as said” something, but I wasn’t going to nit-pick as that would be using up bandwidth, and was never the salient point of your argument.

You argued as though there were no exceptions or exemptions and the implications of that for what Neyite was referring to. I was simply pointing out that there are exceptions and exemptions made.

Even the circumstances in this particular case provides a good example of it in that the mother was asked to leave the shelter when her son was perceived as a threat by the other service users in the domestic violence shelter. There has never been an automatic right to these services in the first place, not even among women, let alone men who claim to be women or these women’s sons who are biological males born with a penis. Their children being denied access is one of the reasons many women who are victims of domestic violence and abuse will simply say “no” to the offer of being housed in a shelter. There are numerous reasons why women themselves would be denied access in the first place too - not based upon their sex, but based upon their behaviours and attitudes towards other people.

More waffle.

There are no exceptions in law wherea transgender person can be treated differently than their preferred gender, except for the fact that a former male can still rape by penetration, and a former female can be vaginally raped.
What I said in response to Neyite was not misleading.
In practical terms, and I can find no case where the opposite has happened, men are house in the male estate and women in the female estate.

The mother being asked to leave a shelter when the boy was 10 has nothing to do with fact that he since declared herself to be transgender.

You really are determined to muddy the waters, and I’m not entirely sure what your motive is.

One eyed Jack

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

More waffle.

There are no exceptions in law wherea transgender person can be treated differently than their preferred gender, except for the fact that a former male can still rape by penetration, and a former female can be vaginally raped.
What I said in response to Neyite was not misleading.
In practical terms, and I can find no case where the opposite has happened, men are house in the male estate and women in the female estate.

No exceptions except where there are exceptions then. Cool.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

The mother being asked to leave a shelter when the boy was 10 has nothing to do with fact that he since declared herself to be transgender.

You really are determined to muddy the waters, and I’m not entirely sure what your motive is.

True, but that was never the point. It has everything to do with the assumption that males are excluded from female spaces in order to maintain females safety. If I anyone were actually to accept that premise, they would be sorely disappointed by the reality. Essentially, it’s an ineffective policy at any rate if the intent is to prevent harm to women and girls. People would know that if they chose to actually visit these places themselves instead of just using a caricature of a woman whom they imagine is resident in these places.

Muddying the waters is arguing that any group in society should be denied rights on the basis of a carefully pointed selection of examples of ill behaviour by people who should rightfully have their liberties curtailed - not as a consequence of their biology, but as a consequence of their behaviour towards others. Basing arguments that people should be denied rights and freedoms and be discriminated against based upon prejudice is just that - prejudice.

It’s no different from arguing that because a girl was wearing a short dress, that’s why she was raped, or because she was drunk, that’s why she was raped. Such arguments are based upon correlation after the fact, and have fcukall to do with prevention of the cause, which is that a person chooses to commit rape. It has nothing to do with their biological characteristics.

ProfessorPlum

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No exceptions except where there are exceptions then. Cool.

You’re not very good at judging context are you?
Read Neyite’s question again. It referred to prisons and hospitals as possible exceptions to accommodating transgender people.

Not if Irish legislators had mistakenly forgotten to include a clause that would mean that trans women could rape women with their lady dick, and transmen could be raped in their man pussy with impunity.

Either you won’t accept that you misread the legislation, or your are trolling.


(I haven’t bothered to read your next paragraphs - a quick scan suggests more irrelevance)

One eyed Jack

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

You’re not very good at judging context are you?
Read Neyite’s question again. It referred to prisons and hospitals as possible exceptions to accommodating transgender people.

Nothing wrong with my understanding of context Prof, I simply provided further context in which discrimination is not considered unlawful under certain circumstances and exceptions in Irish law. Of course there are exceptions to how people who are transgender are accommodated in the context of prisons and hospitals, and these are not decreed by law, but rather decided by policy.

There is no law which suggests that an organisation has to refer to “people with a cervix” in it’s literature for example. That was the organisations own policy (not sure have they rolled back on it yet, but it was some clanger!). In the same way, it’s the IPS will decide the circumstances under which they can accommodate prisoners - they are no more obligated to house a male prisoner in a male prison, than they can be obligated to do vice versa. Hospitals will do the same - decision by policy, not by law, and even then those policies will never prevent a person who chooses to commit rape from doing so -


Healthcare assistant jailed for 11 years for rape of woman with Alzheimer's

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Not if Irish legislators had mistakenly forgotten to include a clause that would mean that trans women could rape women with their lady dick, and transmen could be raped in their man pussy with impunity.

Either you won’t accept that you misread the legislation, or your are trolling.

How about I just don’t accept either of your arguments?

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

(I haven’t bothered to read your next paragraphs - a quick scan suggests more irrelevance)

At least you have the good grace to admit you don’t care for context, that a quick scan is sufficient. On that basis you’re on shaky ground accusing anyone else of being unable to understand context, misreading legislation or trolling, none of which have anything to do with the the substance of the discussion. You’re just getting personal because you have nothing to add to the discussion apart from your concerns for the sites bandwidth. That was definitely a new one.

ProfessorPlum

Your problem Jack is that you waffle continuously, quote irrelevant articles that have nothing to do with the discussion point, and generally bore people into giving up debating with you.

So congratulations. I give up.

One eyed Jack

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Your problem Jack is that you waffle continuously, quote irrelevant articles that have nothing to do with the discussion point, and generally bore people into giving up debating with you.

So congratulations. I give up.

Sounds like your problem Prof. Don’t be projecting your issues onto me at all. You wouldn’t accept other people projecting their issues onto you, any more than anyone should have to accept your projecting your issues onto them.

Given you haven’t the stamina for a robust discussion on a social media platform that isn’t restricted to 140 characters, I don’t imagine anyone has anything to fear from your lack of determination to influence legislation. JK too seems to imagine she has more power to influence legislation than she does in reality, so you’re in good company for what amounts to nothing more than a whine, as her good friend Stephen Fry would have observed.

ingalway

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sounds like your problem Prof. Don’t be projecting your issues onto me at all. You wouldn’t accept other people projecting their issues onto you, any more than anyone should have to accept your projecting your issues onto them.

Given you haven’t the stamina for a robust discussion on a social media platform that isn’t restricted to 140 characters, I don’t imagine anyone has anything to fear from your lack of determination to influence legislation. JK too seems to imagine she has more power to influence legislation than she does in reality, so you’re in good company for what amounts to nothing more than a whine, as her good friend Stephen Fry would have observed.

Well since the JK Rowling backlash there has been a huge interest in what it is really all about from people who previously thought that it was nasty feminists being mean to those stunning and brave men who claim to be women, and in many cases, lesbians.

Many began to realise there is a lot more involved than women just keeping quiet and being kind to everyone and anyone who tells you they are a woman.

The interest generated by the childish and vile response to the non transphobic remarks by JK no doubt had influence in the UK Govt decision to not allow gender Self ID without a medical diagnosis. No medical diagnosis is needed in Ireland - nothing, no Dr or therapist needs to discuss with you, no hormones need to be taken. Even discussing surgery is now seen as transphobic as no one should need to have any surgery to prove they are magically the opposite biological sex, hence lady penis is a thing and must not be questioned.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/sep/22/uk-government-drops-gender-self-identification-plan-for-trans-people

One eyed Jack

ingalway wrote: »

The interest generated by the childish and vile response to the non transphobic remarks by JK no doubt had influence in the UK Govt decision to not allow gender Self ID without a medical diagnosis.

Before anyone breaks out the pussyhats in celebration, I’d encourage them to read in your own article what the UK Government has committed to, based upon their information that self-ID is not the biggest issue for people who are transgender in the UK. Sure, they haven’t committed to self-ID, instead what they’ve promised is that more clinics will be opened to reduce the waiting lists for the number of people seeking treatment -


In an attempt to combat lengthy NHS waiting lists for transgender people, Truss said the government was opening three new gender clinics this year. Truss said she was “deeply concerned at the distress” the long waiting lists could cause and the move should result in them being cut by about 1,600 patients by 2022.

Truss said: “We have also come to understand that gender recognition reform, though supported in the consultation undertaken by the last government, is not the top priority for transgender people. Perhaps their most important concern is the state of trans healthcare. Trans people tell us that waiting lists at NHS gender clinics are too long. I agree, and I am deeply concerned at the distress it can cause.”


I would suggest that’s enough to have considerable doubt about any impact JK may or may not have had in relation to Government policy regarding people who are transgender.

ingalway wrote: »

Even discussing surgery is now seen as transphobic

By whom? Some weirdo on Twitter?

ingalway wrote: »

as no one should need to have any surgery to prove they are magically the opposite biological sex, hence lady penis is a thing and must not be questioned.

Well nobody should need to have surgery IMO, and they certainly shouldn’t be pushed into having surgery in order to prove themselves to anyone else or to satisfy anyone else’s opinion that they should at least look a certain way. Would you appreciate a complete stranger approaching you in the ladies room and asking you to leave because to them you don’t look like a woman? I doubt it.

Lady penis was never a thing either in all fairness, it’s just not. There’s no reason to even question it as though it actually is a thing. It’s as real as the mythical gender pay gap - not even worth entertaining.

Meanwhile, just out of curiosity, and since I referenced the HSE website earlier with regard to their “people with a cervix” stuff (entry not due for review until Dec 2022), I took a look at what the current situation is in Ireland with regard to the numbers of women actually availing of the services provided by the HSE. I knew it was bleak, but this is grim -


'People are afraid': Only tenth of women invited for cervical cancer screenings made appointments


Similar story in the UK -


Cervical cancer progress falters as screening uptake hits record lows


For all their being put out at the language used, I don’t think a drop like that can actually be attributed to the language used. I guess it depends on what’s important to the individual. Personally I know I couldn’t give a shìte what language a person uses or how they describe themselves, I’d still prefer that they had proper access to healthcare, which was the point being made by the global organisation led by women that JK chose to mock for not using their words. JK was equally immature and frankly spiteful as the people she knew she would get a rise out of, no different from what Graham Linehan was at, so I wouldn’t be holding her up as a champion of women who are able to discuss these issues without resorting to immature nonsense.

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.

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.

I think that 'those people' are protesting about the protection of areas that are designated specifically for women in general - women's toilets, where there are several in one room (if it's just one toilet in one room then only one person at a time can use it - in which case whether it's a male or a female doesn't affect the safety of other people), women's changing rooms, women's prisons.

One eyed Jack

political analyst wrote: »

I think that 'those people' are protesting about the protection of areas that are designated specifically for women in general - women's toilets, where there are several in one room (if it's just one toilet in one room then only one person at a time can use it - in which case whether it's a male or a female doesn't affect the safety of other people), women's changing rooms, women's prisons.

I get that much. What I don’t get is how the self-appointed sex police intend to impose their ideas for society on other people who don’t share their ideas?

Lillyfae

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What I don’t get is how the self-appointed sex police intend to impose their ideas for society on other people who don’t share their ideas?

Exactly!!

Gervais08

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I get that much. What I don’t get is how the self-appointed sex police intend to impose their ideas for society on other people who don’t share their ideas?

By not allowing “self appointed” men to pretend to be women would be job one.

Sittingpretty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I get that much. What I don’t get is how the self-appointed sex police intend to impose their ideas for society on other people who don’t share their ideas?

You do see the irony dripping from this statement yes?

Lillyfae

In fact, fyp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I get that much. What I don’t get is how the self-appointed sex police intend to impose their ideas for society on other people who don’t share are negatively affected by their ideas?

suicide_circus

The Sex Police? You mean biology?