Trans rights: a perspective

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

And do you want a professional evaluation on a case by case basis of whether a biological man in a woman's prison was actually likely to be any more risk than any other prisoner? If not, why not? Do you think all men are rapists? If you don't think all men are rapists what is the rational for not letting men, even those who don't identify as women, be housed in women's prisons?

What on earth are you talking about? We were talking about transitioned women here, and in any case I'd want all incoming prisoners to be risk assessed for the potential harm they could do to the inmates. Unless I had an evidential basis to think trans women as a category posed higher risks than any other women, why would I treat them any differently from non-trans women?   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I would say that the risk evaluation had failed, just as it would have failed if a non-trans woman had attacked another female prisoner. You seem to be carving out transitioned women as a special risk category here, whereas I’d have thought all incoming prisoners should be assessed for their potential risk to the inmates. A violent non-trans woman is as capable of knifing someone as White was as capable of her/his assault – why wouldn’t you just risk assess all incoming prisoners, albeit fully aware that the process isn’t perfect no matter what their status?

I would want to address whether their concern was just a prejudice, or instead grounded in evidence that transitioned women are statistically more of a threat than any other type of prisoner.   
 

No more than if, say, an expert had said that a non-trans woman with a history of knife crime was ok.

Some people are more dangerous that other people – trans and non-trans alike. I don’t see why you think trans women should be treated as a different category of risk for this purpose. Is there any evidence for that?   

None of this by the way has anything to do with your unqualified opinions about labelling people as mentally ill.         

Yes I am separating men who say they are women out from women in a women's prisons.

And in terms of safeguarding the indications are that men who say they are women maintain male rates of offending.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-sex-offences/

If you want to put men who say they are women into women's prisons and change the basis of safeguarding, then it would be your duty of proof.

As to trying to see of women in prisons are prejudiced then I think are just telling the women to shut up.
 

Perhaps like Mridhal Wadhwa, you just want rape victims to reframe their trauma for men who say they are women

https://thecritic.co.uk/reframe-your-trauma/

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Just on that point - what do you think about the law restricting access to sunbeds for tanning to over 18s due to their link to cancer? https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/get-involved/our-campaigning-successes/sunbeds

I don’t think anything about it as I haven’t given it any thought, and in any case it has nothing to do with expressing unqualified opinions about people’s mental wellness or illness status.

Do you think it is ok that the NHS, the Tavistock clinic in particular and lobby groups were allowed to be more cavalier about children's safety when allowing them access to hormones such as puberty blockers than society is about allowing children access to sunbeds?

I wouldn’t have thought being cavalier about anyone’s safety was a good idea, but see above.

Especially given the sudden huge percentage jump in teenage girls identifying as trans boys and wanting puberty blockers? And what a coincidence - it was happening in a time when teenage boys have easy access and are showing worrying levels of addiction to explicit pornography that dehumanises girls to nothing more than sexting images and mindless orifices and receptacles for the boys' sexual gratification - do you think the 2 could be linked somehow?

Again, see above. If you want to argue that as a group trans women pose higher risks to non-trans women than other non-trans women do then tell what evidence there is for that.

And if you want to bandy around labels like “mentally ill” then tell me how you’d justify that conclusion without any of the skills or training necessary for your opinion be other than worthless.     

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

What on earth are you talking about? We were talking about transitioned women here,

It's perfectly clear what I am talking about - I am talking about your lack of a rational evidential basis for treating trans women differently from men. Are you having trouble understanding the requirement for evidence to support your belief that biological men should be housed in prisons with biological women?

What is your definition of transitioned? If they have gone through puberty as a boy and are therefore on average physically bigger and stronger than the average woman, on what basis are you going to decide whether they are transitioned?

and in any case I'd want all incoming prisoners to be risk assessed for the potential harm they could do to the inmates.

Are you saying you want men risk-assessed on a case by case basis for the harm they could do women before housing them with women in a prison. If not, why not?

Unless I had an evidential basis to think trans women as a category posed higher risks than any other women, why would I treat them any differently from non-trans women?

What evidential basis are you using to treat trans women differently from men in terms of the risk they pose to biological women?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

I don’t think anything about it as I haven’t given it any thought, and in any case it has nothing to do with expressing unqualified opinions about people’s mental wellness or illness status.

I wouldn’t have thought being cavalier about anyone’s safety was a good idea, but see above.

Again, see above. If you want to argue that as a group trans women pose higher risks to non-trans women than other non-trans women do then tell what evidence there is for that.

And if you want to bandy around labels like “mentally ill” then tell me how you’d justify that conclusion without any of the skills or training necessary for your opinion be other than worthless.     

You seriously can't be admitting to being that ignorant that you don't know the stats for sexual offending amongst men pretending to be blokes a.k.a. trans women are far higher than real women.

As I told my MP, the reason I find myself unable to vote Labour is that I am concerned about Labour’s position in relation to the evidence given to Parliament https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/ about the following crime statistics:

MOJ stats show 76 of the 129 male-born prisoners identifying as transgender (not counting any with GRCs) have at least 1 conviction of sexual offence. This includes 36 convictions for rape and 10 for attempted rape. These are clearly male type crimes (rape is defined as penetration with a penis).

Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (most recent official count of transgender prisoners):

76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Yes I am separating men who say they are women out from women in a women's prisons.

Trans women aren’t just men who say they are women. You do know that right? Just a few replies ago you referred to “ones who have gone through extreme surgery and take massive hormones to mimic women”, not to men who just rock up and claim to be women.   

And in terms of safeguarding the indications are that men who say they are women maintain male rates of offending.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-sex-offences/

And what is the evidence base for people born male who have actually transitioned doing that – ie, the “ones who have gone through extreme surgery and take massive hormones to mimic women”?

If you want to put men who say they are women into women's prisons and change the basis of safeguarding, then it would be your duty of proof.

I don’t, and nor have I suggested that I do.

As to trying to see of women in prisons are prejudiced then I think are just telling the women to shut up.

No. You referred to “…women in prison traumatised by the very idea of a man being imprisoned with them?”. If there was no evidence basis for thinking a fully transitioned woman (ie, not a man) was any more dangerous than any other woman, then I’d address their fear as I would any other prejudice – as I would re a prisoner traumatised by the idea of sharing a cell with a black person for example.
 

Perhaps like Mridhal Wadhwa, you just want rape victims to reframe their trauma for men who say they are women

https://thecritic.co.uk/reframe-your-trauma/

That’s unfair. If a fully transitioned woman has undergone “extreme surgery” (your phrase) then presumably she no longer has a penis. Is there any evidence that this group overall is any more likely to rape someone with an implement than “born” women?

If there isn’t, then what are you talking about?   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Trans women aren’t just men who say they are women. You do know that right? ...

No, I don't know that. There are men who say they are women who have taken none, some, extreme efforts to say they are women but they are men saying they are women.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

It's perfectly clear what I am talking about - I am talking about your lack of a rational evidential basis for treating trans women differently from men. Are you having trouble understanding the requirement for evidence to support your belief that biological men should be housed in prisons with biological women?

What is your definition of transitioned? If they have gone through puberty as a boy and are therefore on average physically bigger and stronger than the average woman, on what basis are you going to decide whether they are transitioned?

I was referring the to the category NS described as “ones who have gone through extreme surgery and take massive hormones to mimic women”. What category are you talking about?
 

Are you saying you want men risk-assessed on a case by case basis for the harm they could do women before housing them with women in a prison. If not, why not?

Because to the best of my knowledge men don’t go to women’s prisons.

You seem to be confused about this.

What evidential basis are you using to treat trans women differently from men in terms of the risk they pose to biological women?

See above. The question of what risks male prisoners would pose to female inmates doesn’t arise.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

You seriously can't be admitting to being that ignorant that you don't know the stats for sexual offending amongst men pretending to be blokes a.k.a. trans women are far higher than real women.

As I told my MP, the reason I find myself unable to vote Labour is that I am concerned about Labour’s position in relation to the evidence given to Parliament https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/ about the following crime statistics:

MOJ stats show 76 of the 129 male-born prisoners identifying as transgender (not counting any with GRCs) have at least 1 conviction of sexual offence. This includes 36 convictions for rape and 10 for attempted rape. These are clearly male type crimes (rape is defined as penetration with a penis).

Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (most recent official count of transgender prisoners):

76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%

Er, you’re still missing the point. Is there any evidence or not that the trans women “who have gone through extreme surgery and take massive hormones to mimic women” that NS was describing pose any more risk to female prisoners than anyone else?

Yes or no?

If you want to change the subject to “men pretending to be women” that’s fine, but it’s a different conversation to the one NS and I were having (albeit that he’s now shifted ground about that).   

[Nearly Sane]

VG,
 

Er, you’re still missing the point. Is there any evidence or not that the trans women “who have gone through extreme surgery and take massive hormones to mimic women” that NS was describing pose any more risk to female prisoners than anyone else?

Yes or no?

If you want to change the subject to “men pretending to be women” that’s fine, but it’s a different conversation to the one NS and I were having (albeit that he’s now shifted ground about that).   

Again to change safeguarding which is the reason for having women's prisons, then it's your burden of proof, and as you have already admitted you have no evidence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, I don't know that. There are men who say they are women who have taken none, some, extreme efforts to say they are women but they are men saying they are women.

But to drag you back to the category you were actually referring to of "ones who have gone through extreme surgery and take massive hormones to mimic women” is there any evidence to your knowledge that this group poses a greater risk to female prisoners than "born" females?

If there is no such evidence, why do you want them treated differently from other female prisoners?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

But to drag you back to the category you were actually referring to of "ones who have gone through extreme surgery and take massive hormones to mimic women” is there any evidence to your knowledge that this group poses a greater risk to female prisoners than "born" females?

If there is no such evidence, why do you want them treated differently from other female prisoners?

Because they are males, and the reason for the safeguarding is male behaviour, and you have no evidence that it changes as you have admitted.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Again to change safeguarding which is the reason for having women's prisons, then it's your burden of proof, and as you have already admitted you have no evidence.

No - the law recognises fully transitioned women as women, with all the attendant rights that entails. If nonetheless you want to carve out one sub-set of this category as especially high risk then the burden of proof to justify that claim is yours, not mine.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Because they are males, and the reason for the safeguarding is male behaviour, and you have no evidence that it changes as you have admitted.

What makes you think "ones who have gone through extreme surgery and take massive hormones to mimic women” are males when the law says otherwise, and I haven't "admitted" anything because the burden of proof for treating some women differently from other women is still yours?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No - the law recognises fully transitioned women as women, with all the attendant rights that entails. If nonetheless you want to carve out one sub-set of this category as especially high risk then the burden of proof to justify that claim is yours, not mine.   

This started on here on the subject of the law not being clear, and that there being the possibility of sex segregated areas so that's incorrect in legal terms as it doesn't recognise the lack of clarity. You say men who get extreme surgery and take huge amounts of hormones are safe - prove it.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

What makes you think "ones who have gone through extreme surgery and take massive hormones to mimic women” are males when the law says otherwise, and I haven't "admitted" anything because the burden of proof for treating some women differently from other women is still yours?

So when Robert Winston says that you can't change sex

https://youtu.be/pFHVV_GcykI?si=Gy7KIT20apY9u3wr

You are saying the law proves him wrong?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

This started on here on the subject of the law not being clear, and that there being the possibility of sex segregated areas so that's incorrect in legal terms as it doesn't recognise the lack of clarity. You say men who get extreme surgery and take huge amounts of hormones are safe - prove it.

The Equality Act 2010 seems pretty clear to me:

"7 Gender reassignment

(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

(2) A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

(3) In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—

(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;

(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

Notwithstanding this legal protection against discrimination you seem to think that such people should be discriminated against in respect of prisons, but I don't know why.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So when Robert Winston says that you can't change sex

https://youtu.be/pFHVV_GcykI?si=Gy7KIT20apY9u3wr

You are saying the law proves him wrong?

First, no - I'm saying that the law says what the rules are regarding (in this case) discrimination. If nonetheless you want to argue for discrimination, then I suggest you need an evidence base to justify your position.

Second, notwithstanding the good Professor's position does he also suggest that transitioned women pose a greater threat to female prisoners than women born female? If not, what point do you think you're making?   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

The Equality Act 2010 seems pretty clear to me:

"7 Gender reassignment

(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

(2) A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

(3) In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—

(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;

(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

Notwithstanding this legal protection against discrimination you seem to think that such people should be discriminated against in respect of prisons, but I don't know why.

The Equality Act has exceptions that allow for single sex spaces, and the confusion is whether that means that people who have a GRC are defined in all sense as of the sex women, or not. Hence the Tories suggesting it needs redrafted, and Labour saying it needs more guidance issued to ensure that sex can mean sex and not gender.

Oh and just for info a GRC can be issued with no surgery or hormones.


https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010/sex-discrimination

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

First, no - I'm saying that the law says what the rules are regarding (in this case) discrimination. If nonetheless you want to argue for discrimination, then I suggest you need an evidence base to justify your position.

Second, notwithstanding the good Professor's position does he also suggest that transitioned women pose a greater threat to female prisoners than women born female? If not, what point do you think you're making?

That the law can't change science. So no matter the surgery or hormones, they are still blokes saying they are women.

Women's prisons were set up because of the safeguarding threat of men. You have no evidence to show that a specific group of men aren't but yet you want the women to be put at risk on the evidence free basis.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

NS,

The Equality Act 2010 seems pretty clear to me:

"7 Gender reassignment

(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

On what rational evidential basis is a man who is proposing to undergo gender reassignment a woman? Because he says he is a woman? You're just going to take his word for it are you?

If someone's say so is enough for you then I assume over on the Searching for God thread you'll just be taking Alan's word for it that he has had several encounters with God through prayer. If not, why not?

[Outrider]

On what rational evidential basis is a man who is proposing to undergo gender reassignment a woman?

On the basis that 'woman' has two meanings, and whilst one of those is immutable and determined at birth - the one you're relying on - the other is malleable and an artefact of the individual's interaction with society.

Because he says he is a woman? You're just going to take his word for it are you?

No, because she says she's a woman; and, yes, I'm going to take her word for it. And until and unless there's a strong, specific reason that biological sex is important - and here are circumstances where that's the case - what sex someone is should be irrelevant.

If someone's say so is enough for you then I assume over on the Searching for God thread you'll just be taking Alan's word for it that he has had several encounters with God through prayer. If not, why not?

Because, whilst women have been shown to exist, so has femininity. Femininity, though, varies by culture, and is therefore not an inherent trait, but a social one, and therefore isn't intrinsically tied to biological sex. Gods, meanwhile, have not been shown to exist.

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

I was referring the to the category NS described as “ones who have gone through extreme surgery and take massive hormones to mimic women”. What category are you talking about?

The category of men with gender dysphoria - you'll find that category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders because it's a condition that requires treatment.

https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Practice/DSM/APA_DSM-5-Gender-Dysphoria.pdf
 

Because to the best of my knowledge men don’t go to women’s prisons.

Almost there BHS - and why don't men go into women's prisons? Try really hard to think it through and look at the evidence rather than repeating what you really, really want to believe in, while providing absolutely no evidence to support your beliefs.

See above. The question of what risks male prisoners would pose to female inmates doesn’t arise.

What evidence are you basing your belief on that men who have physically gone through puberty but have fully transitioned do not still retain the aggression of men who have not transitioned. If you are going to put women at risk presumably you are basing your opinion on something more than wishful thinking and a misogynistic disregard for women's safety.

[Nearly Sane]

On the basis that 'woman' has two meanings, and whilst one of those is immutable and determined at birth - the one you're relying on - the other is malleable and an artefact of the individual's interaction with society.


No, because she says she's a woman; and, yes, I'm going to take her word for it. And until and unless there's a strong, specific reason that biological sex is important - and here are circumstances where that's the case - what sex someone is should be irrelevant.

Because, whilst women have been shown to exist, so has femininity. Femininity, though, varies by culture, and is therefore not an inherent trait, but a social one, and therefore isn't intrinsically tied to biological sex. Gods, meanwhile, have not been shown to exist.

O.

women reduced to stereotypes . How misogynist.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

On the basis that 'woman' has two meanings, and whilst one of those is immutable and determined at birth - the one you're relying on - the other is malleable and an artefact of the individual's interaction with society.

Nope - there is just one meaning of woman. It's up to the majority of women to decide if that meaning changes. Men pretending to be women i.e. trans women and other men in general including you - don't get a say. Trans women are trans women i,e. men pretending to be women.

No, because she says she's a woman; and, yes, I'm going to take her word for it. And until and unless there's a strong, specific reason that biological sex is important - and here are circumstances where that's the case - what sex someone is should be irrelevant.

Nope, you as a man do not get to decide for women whether biological sex is important. What you get to do is go back to your world of male privilege and stay there without making a fool of yourself expressing your view on the importance of biological sex for a woman. 

Because, whilst women have been shown to exist, so has femininity. Femininity, though, varies by culture, and is therefore not an inherent trait, but a social one, and therefore isn't intrinsically tied to biological sex. Gods, meanwhile, have not been shown to exist.

O.

Femininity is an idea like Gods. Are you saying femininity exists biologically? How are you using the word "exists" here?

When we're discussing women's safety and fairness in sport we're not discussing femininity, we're discussing biology. If you prioritise the feelings of men pretending to be women over female safety and fairness, that's just you expressing your male privilege - which is why your opinion is irrelevant.