Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

No indeed I didn't. What'd be the point in me bothering to find examples of men spying on women in public toilets etc when you've already said it wouldn't prove there was a problem anyway?

I didn’t say it wouldn’t prove there was a problem? I’d say it absolutely is a problem if there was a phenomenon of men who were pretending to be women in order to gain access to women’s single-sex spaces with the intention of committing sexual offences against those women.

volchitsa wrote: »

FWIW they wouldn't have to "pretend" to be women, one of the examples which I haven't bothered linking to but you could find easily enough if you were actually interested in women's safety (I know you aren't) is of men filming female students in a "gender neutral" bathroom. It isn't just, or even mainly, about trans gender women being a threat to women, it's about the elimination of single sex spaces in general.

Yes they would! In order to support the idea that the Gender Recognition Act which allows for self-ID, puts women at risk of harm by men making use of the Act to pretend they are women in order to commit sexual offences against women, the perpetrators would have to be men pretending to be women in order to access women’s single-sex spaces!

What you’re actually talking about though, is a very different phenomenon, where it’s not a single-sex but rather a unisex space - completely separate issue from anything this thread is discussing, because it bears no relation whatsoever to people who are transgender, or even men pretending to be women in order to access single-sex spaces. It’s absolutely a problem, but it’s not related to self-ID legislation, which is what I was expecting you to produce evidence in relation to the idea that men were using self-ID to infiltrate women’s single-sex spaces. In your example, you’re only showing evidence that men don’t need to pretend to be women in order to commit sexual offences against women and girls.

volchitsa wrote: »

But then you think that women should just toughen up and play rugby with men so obviously you aren't going to see a problem with women not being able to have single sex spaces either.

Rather the opposite really, I think men are going to have to toughen up in order to face the reality that more and more women are being given the choice and the freedom same as men in order to compete with men if they want to. I know a few men are terrified by the prospect in case they brush off a boob by accident and whatever else, seeing women their size coming at them for the ball is just unladylike and all the rest of it, but I’ve always said and I’ll say it again, that if anyone, whether they be men or women, wishes to maintain a safe space for themselves, they’re more than welcome to it. I’ll be more than happy to avoid their safe space. I suspect most people will be only too happy to avoid their safe space too given the freedom to have a choice in the matter.

Gruffalux

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Rather the opposite really, I think men are going to have to toughen up in order to face the reality that more and more women are being given the choice and the freedom same as men in order to compete with men if they want to. I know a few men are terrified by the prospect in case they brush off a boob by accident and whatever else, seeing women their size coming at them for the ball is just unladylike and all the rest of it,.

You are just utterly taking the p1ss, aren't you.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalux wrote: »

You are just utterly taking the p1ss, aren't you.

Nope, taking the piss would be trying to perpetuate prejudice and discrimination against any groups in society in spite of the lack of any evidence to support their fantastic claims that people are in some sort of immediate or impending mortal danger if any group are treated equally as everyone else.

Gruffalux

In other news, Fair Play For Women entered a Freedom of Information request and retrieved the information that as of March/April 2019 81 of the 163 transgender prisoners serving in the UK or Wales has been convicted of a sexual offense.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-sex-offences/

Data from March and April 2019 show that 17% of men in prison in England and Wales have been sentenced for a sexual offence (13234 out of a total of 78781 men in prison). However, only 3% of women in prison in England and Wales have been sentenced for a sexual offence (125 out of 3812 women in prison).

While this data may indicate that transgender people retain the offending pattern of their natal sex, I do not think it indicates that transgender people in general are likely to commit sex offenses at any higher rate than their natal sex cohort.

However what the data does indicate is that those 163 prisoners who choose to identify as transgender and may thus be placed in the female estate (in most cases) if they obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate via Self ID are 50% sex offenders.

There may be an element of identifying as transgender in order to attempt to get an easier place to serve the sentence. There may be a certain amount of piss taking going on. None of this is in play at the moment until GRC become available via self ID.

But regardless it shows that there is 1) a quantifiable danger to natal women prisoners from trans women prisoners if 50% of those who presently declare as transgender are sex offenders and if they can obtain GRCs by self ID
or 2) a possibility of opportunistic abuse of gender identification certification via self ID which also puts women prisoners in harms way. Exploitation is considered a likely possibility by experts.

The converse is the ever-increasing tide of referrals of patients in prison serving long or indeterminate sentences for serious sexual offences. These vastly outnumber the number of prisoners incarcerated for more ordinary, non-sexual, offences. It has been rather naïvely suggested that nobody would seek to pretend transsexual status in prison if this were not actually the case. There are, to those of us who actually interview the prisoners, in fact very many reasons why people might pretend this. These vary from the opportunity to have trips out of prison through to a desire for a transfer to the female estate (to the same prison as a co-defendant) through to the idea that a parole board will perceive somebody who is female as being less dangerous through to a [false] belief that hormone treatment will actually render one less dangerous through to wanting a special or protected status within the prison system and even (in one very well evidenced case that a highly concerned Prison Governor brought particularly to my attention) a plethora of prison intelligence information suggesting that the driving force was a desire to make subsequent sexual offending very much easier, females being generally perceived as low risk in this regard. I am sure that the Governor concerned would be happy to talk about this.
Dr. James Barrett

President, British Association of Gender Identity Specialists

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalux wrote: »

But regardless it shows that there is 1) a quantifiable danger to natal women prisoners from trans women prisoners if 50% of those who presently declare as transgender are sex offenders and if they can obtain GRCs by self ID
or 2) a possibility of opportunistic abuse of gender identification certification via self ID which also puts women prisoners in harms way. Exploitation is considered a likely possibility by experts.

Yes, whether it’s male prisoners taking advantage of self-declaration or not, it’s bad for female inmates. It’s a degradation of safeguarding. Self-declaration allows this loophole because under self-declaration rules, you apparently can’t question anyone who says they are a woman. Doubts were expressed by the Tavistock clinic about whether Barbie Kardashian was being genuine but yet, Barbie Kardashian is currently in the women’s quarters of Limerick prison. A very neat example of the massive flaws with self-declaration.

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yes, whether it’s male prisoners taking advantage of self-declaration or not, it’s bad for female inmates. It’s a degradation of safeguarding. Self-declaration allows this loophole because under self-declaration rules, you apparently can’t question anyone who says they are a woman. Doubts were expressed by the Tavistock clinic about whether Barbie Kardashian was being genuine but yet, Barbie Kardashian is currently in the women’s quarters of Limerick prison. A very neat example of the massive flaws with self-declaration.

And Barbie Kardashian is kept separate from the other female prisoners. She is of no risk to other prisoners.

GreeBo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, taking the piss would be trying to perpetuate prejudice and discrimination against any groups in society in spite of the lack of any evidence to support their fantastic claims that people are in some sort of immediate or impending mortal danger if any group are treated equally as everyone else.

What you want is for the law to allow for the scenario that is being pointed out to you.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

And Barbie Kardashian is kept separate from the other female prisoners. She is of no risk to other prisoners.

So they treat the trans inmate differently? Is that not transphobic? Also, does this not mean she is kept in some sort of solitary confinement, I would've thought that has the potential to be illegal.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalux wrote: »

While this data may indicate that transgender people retain the offending pattern of their natal sex, I do not think it indicates that transgender people in general are likely to commit sex offenses at any higher rate than their natal sex cohort.

That’s quite possibly the second most blatant bending of statistics I’ve ever seen in order to present just a shoddy and overwrought effort at an argument (the most blatant was the NWCI’s “1 in 4 homeless people are women”). Individuals can only be held responsible for their own behaviour, and while statistics are useful, there is no way you can infer what you’re implying from the data you’ve presented. What percentage of either men, women or children among the general population do you imagine commit sexual offences? Now how many of those people do you imagine are transgender?

The number of inmates of any given characteristics among any given prison population won’t tell you a whole lot about people among the general population who commit sex offences in and of itself, never mind any weird claims about anyone “retaining the offending pattern of their natal sex” or their “natal sex cohort”. It won’t even tell you anything about sex offences committed by inmates among the prison population. Your data just doesn’t support your claims.

Gruffalux wrote: »

However what the data does indicate is that those 163 prisoners who choose to identify as transgender and may thus be placed in the female estate (in most cases) if they obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate via Self ID are 50% sex offenders.

The data doesn’t indicate any such thing. Your statement is based upon your own assumptions about how or where inmates who are transgender are housed, rather than relying on the data you’re referring to.

There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that your assumptions regarding the welfare of inmates in prison are just wrong. Their gender identity is only one of the criteria in assessing each and every individual case -


Eleven transgender inmates sexually assaulted in male prisons last year

HMP Eastwood Park: Concern over segregated transgender women prisoners

Transgender prisoner found hanged 'after quitting suicide pact'

Trans prisoner Vikki Thompson 'let down by prison, NHS and family'

Transgender inmate found dead in Woodhill prison cell

Transgender prisoner Tara Hudson 'feared being raped'


And then there’s this example of a complete and utter failure to recognise prisoners while they are incarcerated, what they actually do retain, are their human rights -


The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) failed to prevent systemic breaches of inmates human rights when they were unlawfully strip searched at a privately-run jail.

The searches involved four inmates at HMP Peterborough in 2017, including one inmate who was menstruating.

Sodexo runs the prison and admitted it had breached MoJ privacy rules through its failure to properly train staff.

The MoJ should have had effective safeguards in place against privacy breaches, the High Court has ruled.

The inmates involved in the strip searches in July and September 2017 were three women and a transgender prisoner, who was transitioning from female to male.


HMP Peterborough inmates were illegally strip-searched

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

And Barbie Kardashian is kept separate from the other female prisoners. She is of no risk to other prisoners.

That's why she's kept separate from other prisoners because of the inherent danger to female prisoners ,
So let's remove any risk by transferring them to mount joy or Wheatfield men's prison where they can be kept

One eyed Jack

GreeBo wrote: »

What you want is for the law to allow for the scenario that is being pointed out to you.

The scenario I think you’re referring to is having it codified in law that people would be permitted to commit offences that are currently prohibited by Irish law and for there to be no consequences for their actions.

No, no that’s not what I want.

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

That's why he's kept separate from other prisoners because of the inherent danger to female prisoners ,
So let's remove any risk by transferring them to mount joy or Wheatfield men's prison where they can be kept

There's no need. They currently don't pose a risk. They are kept separate.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

They currently don't pose a risk.

They are a serious risk .

Why not send them to mount joy or Wheatfield men's prisons

suicide_circus

I wouldn't pose any risk to the other inmates if i were housed in a female prison because I'm a mild mannered sweetheart. But they wouldn't house me in a female prison because i'm a biological male.

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

They are a serious risk .

Why not send them to mount joy or Wheatfield men's prisons

Can you explain How someone with no access to women prisoners is a risk to women prisoners?

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Can you explain How someone with no access to women prisoners

No can you explain why a person who wants to rape and assault women is being housed in a women's prison , when they could be sent to a men's prison ,

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

No can you explain why a person who wants to rape and assault women is being housed in a women's prison , when they could be sent to a men's prison ,

Because they're a woman.

Necro

Gatling wrote: »

That's why she's kept separate from other prisoners because of the inherent danger to female prisoners ,
So let's remove any risk by transferring them to mount joy or Wheatfield men's prison where they can be kept

Mod:

Don't post in this thread again

Edit: Lifted after discussion, an autocorrect error

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Because they're a woman.

Tavistock don't agree they are trans and psychological reports say they are highly manipulative and dangerous to girls and women ,now sooner rather than later they will be released from Limerick back into society , what then ,
There was a recent case involving a psychotic murderer who's being held and will be released due to the fact there is no facility here to hold and treat them while they are on bail they same will happen in the other case

Gatling

Here's an interesting case from the UK involving a chap on twitter and an apparent victim of a crime that didn't happen



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-lincolnshire-51501202

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

Tavistock don't agree they are trans and psychological reports say they are highly manipulative and dangerous to girls and women ,now sooner rather than later they will be released from Limerick back into society , what then ,
There was a recent case involving a psychotic murderer who's being held and will be released due to the fact there is no facility here to hold and treat them while they are on bail they same will happen in the other case

They have no access to women prisoners. Once they are released from prison it makes no difference whether they're a dangerous trans individual or a dangerous cis individual. Presumably both should be dealt with it in the same way. Nothing to do with prisons and nothing to do with trans.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

They have no access to women prisoners.

They can't be held indefinitely in segregation ,all it would take is a court case along the lines of I demand to be treated like the other prisoners and the right to associate with them

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

They can't be held indefinitely in segregation ,all it would take is a court case along the lines of I demand to be treated like the other prisoners and the right to associate with them

How do you know they cannot be indefinitely held separately? How do you know a court case could be taken on this issue or that it would be successful?

Is the above simply your opinion? Or do you have any evidence to back it up?

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

How do you know they cannot be indefinitely held separately?

Can you give a reason why they would be held indefinitely separately exactly .

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

Can you give a reason why they would be held indefinitely separately exactly .

Because of their violent nature and specific threats of course. The same reason they are current held separately.

And it won't be indefinite. They will be released from prison.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Because of their violent nature and specific threats of course. The same reason they are current held separately.

And it won't be indefinite. They will be released from prison.

So you are happy for trans-person to be ecluded from the general population, and indeed all the population. Sounds very TERF-y to me

Daragh1980

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/trans-activist-trans-rights-5301941-Dec2020/

Aoife Martin has a column in The Journal now. Comments turned off like so many of their articles.

jam_mac_jam

Daragh1980 wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/trans-activist-trans-rights-5301941-Dec2020/

Aoife Martin has a column in The Journal now. Comments turned off like so many of their articles.

It's terrible to think anyone has to go through that from their family in this day and age. Just because of who they are.

Sir Oxman

Daragh1980 wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/trans-activist-trans-rights-5301941-Dec2020/

Aoife Martin has a column in The Journal now. Comments turned off like so many of their articles.

It's a generic alone/lonely at Xmas article (whether by choice or not)

Gruffalux

Sir Oxman wrote: »

It's a generic alone/lonely at Xmas article (whether by choice or not)

Yes seems like a description of the year most of us have had and a lot of people feel crap at Christmas. My best friend's husband died at Christmas so she can hardly drag herself to put up decorations. It can be a hard time of year for many.
I had never heard of Aoife at all so had a google, being relentlessly curious. In the first article they said they have blocked 100,000 twitter accounts due to relentless trolling. I thought Jesus that sounds terrible, whats going on there. Googled their twitter account and clicked on. I am blocked! Literally never ever heard of them before. Thats 99,999 accounts so, blocked for relentless trolling.