Trans woman convicted rapist sent to female prison

[Rufus Stone]

HM-2 said:

That's not quite what it actually says though, is it? The figures for trans women explicitly exclude anyone who has a GRC (IE is legally recognized as their gender) which seems rather like cherry picking to fit a particular narrative.

That's covered in the first part of the report, The Swedish study. It concludes:

The researchers state:
‘male-to-females . . . retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was
true regarding violent crime.’
MtF transitioners were over 6 times more likely to be convicted of an offence than female
comparators and 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violent offence. The group had
no statistically significant differences from other natal males, for convictions in general or
for violent offending. The group examined were those who committed to surgery, and so
were more tightly defined than a population based solely on self-declaration.

[Rufus Stone]

irc said:

HM-2 said:

It's not an argument that requires "evidence", trans women are legally women under the Equalities Act 2010 and Gender Recognition Act 2004.

Nice red herring, though.

Edited by HM-2 on Saturday 4th February 08:54

Being legally a woman does not actually make them women though. Women are born not made.

Even Nicola Sturgeon has recognised that being a transwomen does not mean you get to go to a female jail. Why? Beause a transwoman is not the same as an actual woman.

Same as why sports authorities are ruling that only those who were women at birth can compete in women's sports.

https://news.sky.com/story/british-athletics-call-...

I would also comment that the legislation does not even make them legally women, it just affords trans women the some of the rights and protection from discrimination that women enjoy.

[Rufus Stone]

HM-2 said:

If you argue this, then you're wrong.
Which "rights and protections" are trans women denied?

Woman = adult human female. Legislation does not change your sex.

Maternity leave/pay.

[Rufus Stone]

HM-2 said:

Legally speaking, nothing precludes a trans woman from receiving maternity pay on the basis of their identity. Similarly, it is perfectly possible (and has happened) for someone who is legally a man to receive maternity pay. It's not actually a provision that's gender exclusionary.

Clearly needs to be renamed birthing parent leave/pay.

[Rufus Stone]

HM-2 said:

Ah back in the halcyon days of gay bashing being a national sport and "no blacks or Irish"?

No, just the common sense that men can't give birth.

[Rufus Stone]

Driller said:

Genuinely out of interest, how does the law define a woman?

The Equality Act 2010 defines it as 'a female of any age'.

[Rufus Stone]

HM-2 said:

It's in my post at the top of the page.

The EA defined a woman as "a female of any age"; it doesn't then define "female" but does define "sex" as the biological sex recorded on the individual's birth certificate. Which means either sex at birth, or sex according to GRC.

A new born baby girl is a 'woman' according to the law. Do you not see how absurd that is?

[Rufus Stone]

HM-2 said:

Driller said:

So, to answer your questions, I believe the definition must be in terms of the person’s biological makeup.

And what exactly does this mean?

Octoposse said:

So biological woman is an unambiguous term

Actually it's rather more ambiguous than you might think.

You are just trolling or are so pro trans blinkered that you cannot entertain any alternative point of view.

[Rufus Stone]

HM-2 said:

Driller said:

Adult human female with female being someone with XX chromosomes and naturally developing female secondary sex characteristics

So your definition requires someone to meet both the "female" phenotype and karyotype? Does this preclude people who are 47-XXY, who are generally anatomically male (despite having XX chromosomes but may present as anatomically female (despite having Y chromosomes) from being either?

That's a biologocal anomaly. Sadly, nature is not perfect.

[Rufus Stone]

gregs656 said:

Everything about a person is biological.

You clearly haven't met my ex.

[Rufus Stone]

irc said:

HM-2 said:

Yes, and how is how a midwife might decide to define a woman remotely relevant? Apparently it's "not hard" even though the provided definition doesn't work...but so what?

Biology doesn't change the law, does it? Do you think it should?

The law can't change biology.

Which is the issue here. The law is just pandering to peoples desires. A piece of paper does not trump biology. The fact that the law enables a trans person to be treated (in certain circumstances) as the opposite sex to which they were born doesn't change the fundamental biological fact that they were born one of two sexes (yes, yes, biological anomalies accepted).

[Rufus Stone]

HM-2 said:

Do you think the law should be derived from biological definitions, then? There seems to be a great reticence on the part of those championing biological definitions to say whether or not they think these should forn the basis of law. Either you don't think they should, in which case most of this line of discussion is irrelevant in practical terms, or you do, in which case the question becomes whether such law produces better outcomes.

The law, quite rightly, has created the ability for someone to officially change their gender and even recorded sex. However, you simply cannot change your biological sex. I see no reason why both cannot run in parallel.

[Rufus Stone]

HM-2 said:

Again, and I fear I'm sounding like a broken record here, where has anyone said or suggested you can? And how is this remotely relevant?

Perhaps because you appear to want to ignore the biological aspect because it doesn't fit your bias. The biological aspect is very relevant to housing trans women prisoners.

[Rufus Stone]

HM-2 said:

So you keep saying, but you've consistently struggled to say why or how. In fact, I would go so far as to say this argument is contradictory to common sense. It is abundantly clear that a post-operative trans woman is, in the vast majority of circumstances, likely to present a lower overall balance of harm (both in terms of risk to themselves and to others) within a women's prison than a men's one. An argument from biology forming the basis of where to house them is therefore net negative in its outcomes. Moreover, it also quietly ignores the fact that women who are judged to pose grave risks to other women can be housed within male prisons.

Nobody has said that a trans woman who has had certain biological parts removed shouldn't be housed in a women's peison. Why do you keep making stuff up?

[Rufus Stone]

HM-2 said:

That's absolutely what you say when you simultaneously argue that you "can't change biology", state that trans women are biologically men, and propose biology as a significant factor in where prisoners should be housed, isn't it?

Stop trolling.

[Rufus Stone]

At last, a little bit of common sense.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11734311/...

[Rufus Stone]

8.4L 154 said:

Do you know why the policy was the way it was. It was in response to a series of deaths in custody as a result of trans women being put in the male estate.

Trans lives are expendable again.

No, they just don't have precedence over other prisoners.

[Rufus Stone]

It appears that England got in with the stupid woke decisions before Scotland.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11790105/...

[Rufus Stone]

Has he transitioned back yet?

[Rufus Stone]

WorldBoss said:

Ignore Bot. They are as thick as tar and twice as dense.

Personally ladies, I'd advise not bothering to engage with any of the transphobic tripe that get posted on here; This lot don't want to have a measured debate, they want to be the embodiment of the chess playing pigeon, struting about like they won.

Case in point is bumping an ancient thread with some lame arse "gotcha" of a politician saying a thing.

Thanks for the label.

I appreciate that you are disappointed that not everyone agrees with you, but hey, that's life.