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

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can’t quite make out your point tbh, but it looks like you’re arguing that people should

I believe vulnerable women in women's prison need to be protected from violent male offenders ,just because they self identify as women it doesn't remove the risks of further violent attacks and rapes being committed against them .

I'm sure if you survey women in prison if they want a violent rapist housed within their prison because the violent offender said they self identify as a woman ,

I believe they would absolutely say no .

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

I believe vulnerable women in women's prison need to be protected from violent male offenders ,just because they self identify as women it doesn't remove the risks of further violent attacks and rapes being committed against them .

I'm sure if you survey women in prison if they want a violent rapist housed within their prison because the violent offender said they self identify as a woman ,

I believe they would absolutely say no .

We hardly need a survey to come to that conclusion, do we? I think it’s fairly safe to conclude that most inmates, whether they are male or female, would rather not be in the company of a violent rapist, whether that violent rapist was male or female. Everyone in prison needs protection, and that’s the job of the prison staff in the prison. Taking advantage of their positions of authority to abuse prisoners for their own sexual gratification isn’t in the job description, but that’s who most inmates are at risk from, not other inmates solely on the basis of their sex.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We hardly need a survey to come to that conclusion, do we? /quote]

The stating the obvious .

But we're not talking about other issues were discussing one point .

Women go to women's prison ,men go to men's prison .

The other topics can be dealt with various changes to prison governance

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

The stating the obvious .

But we're not talking about other issues were discussing one point .

Women go to women's prison ,men go to men's prison .

The other topics can be dealt with various changes to prison governance

That comes under prison governance too though and is dealt with under prison governance. That’s why I said that I don’t actually bother arguing it because as a member of the general public I don’t have any input into the decision. Members of the public generally don’t, so it’s pointless for the general public to argue over where individual prisoners should be housed or how they should be accommodated in any particular case, regardless of whether the prisoner is transgender or a violent offender or a sex offender who is in prison serving a sentence for sexually abusing children, not adults (ie - sex offenders who target children, they don’t target adults).

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

, regardless of whether the prisoner is transgender or a violent offender or a sex offender who is in prison serving a sentence for sexually abusing children, not adults.

Did you really post that .

Are you actually for real .

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

Did you really post that .

Are you actually for real .

I posted that, but when you’re choosing to take what I posted out of context to suit yourself, don’t bother asking me am I for real.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I posted that, but when you

It's there in black and white,

Nothing out of context .

One eyed Jack

Gatling wrote: »

It's there in black and white,

Yes, it is, and you’re choosing to present an edited version of what i said to suit your own purposes. That’s there in black and white too, but you’re choosing to ignore the point I was making which is that the general public don’t govern prison policies, so the general public arguing over prison policies is pointless.

Gatling

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, it is, and you’re choosing to present an edited version of what

You clearly posted it .

LLMMLL

volchitsa wrote: »

Well perhaps I misunderstood you then. Are you saying that trans women are normally put in women's prisons, in the same way as biological women are?

So do you mean that these individual assessments you mention, that led to these two exceptions to this rule, are carried out as standard for all women, or for trans women?

I have no idea what would happen if prison authorities were aware that a violent cis woman about to be imprisoned expressed a desire to kill women. I do believe that hypothetical woman should be kept separate to the others.

LLMMLL

volchitsa wrote: »

So the poster's earlier claim that transgender women were kept separate from biological women was inaccurate then?

The usual case would be that a transgender woman would just go into the normal female prison then? How much evidence do you think is needed for a transgender woman to be kept separate? We know that a far larger number of them are sex offenders than the average for women. Possibly even than compared to male prisoners.

I have always been referring to the 2 trans women currently kept separate. I have never claimed trans women in general are kept separate.

LLMMLL

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The point is though you were asked for proof of your assertion and you pretty much offered nothing other than "oh but Karen White" - No sorry that doesnt prove your assertion. I find it fascinating how in many cases there is a big sudden concern for women prisoners rights and safety and an emotive story all about "male" prisoners being subject to abuse by prowler trans women. Its fascinating because the people hopping on this havent really highlighted the issues around violence against female prisoners before, where is all the concern for female prisoners assaulted by male staff? Theres a skewed focus obsessisvely honed in on the imaginary trans predator but really couldnt care less about women subjected to abuse by cis men.

Of course they don't care about the female prisoners. They even claim to have an issue with trans prisoners (who they personally consider male) being in the same complex as female prisoners yet cis male and cis female prisoners have been housed in the same complex and even the same building basically forever.

Yet not a peep from our concerned citizens about this.

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

So why would a gay men be so interested in and pushing for the idea of violent sex offenders who self identify as women's be sent to women's prisons exactly .
Women in prison tend to have suffered years of sex abuse from Child hood ,and stuffer with addictions due to past trauma ,they come from suffering domestic violence at the hands of men .

So why this being pushed as ah sure they will be grand your man said he's a woman now .
Nothing whatsoever to worry about !!!

Violent sex offenders are kept completely separate from the women. They have no access to the women.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Of course they don't care about the female prisoners.

People do care but unfortunately a small chort want anyone discussing it drowned out,
mostly men for some reason

It's the reason why we have Mountjoy men's prison and the Dochas Centre women's facility .

LLMMLL

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Ahem.



Also, tell me, Joey, what do you know about the people making objections here and their concerns for vulnerable women? Me personally, I desperately wanted abortion to be legalised. I took part in marches. I wanted the vulnerable women and girls most in need of it to be able to avail of it easily. I wanted good aftercare available. All of this whilst knowing that I would probably never need an abortion myself.

People “suddenly” care about this because it’s a relatively new issue. Why would people be concerned about a problem when it didn’t exist? And people know that prisons aren’t 100% safe but it makes no kind of sense to make them even less safe and people are right to point that out.

The issues faced by vulnerable women will always be of interest and concern to me.

Frankly, how DARE you suggest otherwise. Who do you think you are?

I imagine he DARES (???) To suggest it because people are framing their interest in this as a concern for women when in fact it's all about portraying trans people in a negative light.

Trans women AND cis men have been held in the same building or complex (and kept separate) since the 50s. You've had 70 years to object to this but you only complain once it comes about due to trans women being considered to be women.

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

People do care but unfortunately a small chort want anyone discussing it drowned out,
mostly men for some reason

It's the reason why we have Mountjoy men's prison and the Dochas Centre women's facility .

Which are in the same complex. So earlier claims that they are concerned that women and transwomen (who they consider to be men) are held in the same complex are nonsense. They only care when transwomen are held in the same complex as cis women. Not when cis men are held in the same complex as cis women.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Iwomen AND men have been held in the same building or complex (and kept separate)

Kept separate like by walls and gates and complex

It's that surprising new information ,No

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

Kept separate like by walls and gates and complex

It's that surprising new information ,No

Again that implies that you have knowledge that the 2 trans inmates are not kept separate by walls and gates.

Can you show any evidence of that?

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

Again that implies that you have knowledge that the 2 trans inmates are not kept separate by walls and gates.

Limerick prison is a men's prison with a smaller complex housing about 20/25 women .
They are separated from each other .

Where the two others are I doubt they are in men's prison wasn't it confirmed they were in the womens prison

LLMMLL

Gatling wrote: »

Limerick prison is a men's prison with a smaller complex housing about 20/25 women .
They are separated from each other .

Where the two others are I doubt they are in men's prison

So where are they? Provide some evidence.

Gatling

LLMMLL wrote: »

So where are they? Provide some evidence.

Lol

Gruffalux

Interesting short interview by Cathy Newman with Dr David Bell, formerly of Tavistock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHNh7lx2Z4U

statesaver

Tulsi speaking sense

https://twitter.com/OkBiology/status/1353169380906037254

Dyr

Gruffalux wrote: »

Interesting short interview by Cathy Newman with Dr David Bell, formerly of Tavistock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHNh7lx2Z4U

Interview with one of the Whistleblowers from Tavistock, goes into a good deal of detail about what was going on there

Gruffalux

statesaver wrote: »

Tulsi speaking sense

https://twitter.com/OkBiology/status/1353169380906037254

I wish Tulsi was President of America. She is so fab.

statesaver

Abigail Shrier on Triggernometry at 7pm today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uqht5dcJAI

Abigail Shrier on the Trans Debate

Gruffalux

Such an excellent interview with Abigail Shrier.
On resisting gender theory ideology especially in schools -- "We can show transgender people compassion without indoctrinating a whole generation in gender confusion."

All those who have pushed this ideology constantly, right back to when they were defending poor abused Desmond Napoles simpering sexually all over the media, should have a listen.

suicide_circus

Gruffalux wrote: »

I wish Tulsi was President of America. She is so fab.

She sure is

LLMMLL

Gruffalux wrote: »

Such an excellent interview with Abigail Shrier.
On resisting gender theory ideology especially in schools -- "We can show transgender people compassion without indoctrinating a whole generation in gender confusion."

All those who have pushed this ideology constantly, right back to when they were defending poor abused Desmond Napoles simpering sexually all over the media, should have a listen.

She sure has a talent for hyperbole. Out of 4 million UK girls aged between 10 and 19, less than 0.05% are referred to the GIDS.

0.05% of a generation = a whole generation?

Sure.......

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

She sure has a talent for hyperbole. Out of 4 million UK girls aged between 10 and 19, less than 0.05% are referred to the GIDS.

0.05% of a generation = a whole generation?

Sure.......

Oh I know already from your opinions on the matter generally that you have quite a tolerance for collateral and irreversible damage, even on the very young it seems from the above. Even if the figure was as low as you suggest, which I do not know, it is still 2000 children. Would you say the same if lobotomy was the procedure in question?
So perhaps the video is not for you.
But regardless of your acceptance of this damage, I will not accept it, especially as an older women who knows how difficult puberty can be for young girls, how alien the societal hyper-sexualisation of the female body can make one feel, but also as a mother of daughters I will not accept this casual damage.
35 - 40% of those girls referred to GIDS in the UK have autism. Dr David Bell attests to this. Most he said have experienced trauma in their young lives and damaged family circumstances. Puberty blockers followed by testosterone permanently destroys their bodies - even if they change their minds later on, they have irreversibly a deep male voice, male pattern baldness, changed facial features, increased body and facial hair, perhaps have had radical double mastectomies and may even have had a hysterectomy to avoid uterine cancer risk increase which is caused by the use of cross sex hormones, or because their reproductive organs have shriveled or become damaged due to a sudden onset menopause. All before they barely get out of their teens.
I therefore do not find Ms Shrier hyperbolic in the least.