Trans woman convicted rapist sent to female prison
Discussion
RobbieTheTruth said:
chrispmartha said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
HM-2 said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
Yet the usual suspects on here would strongly argue that is hate speech and misgendering and want to see you charged for such language.
Where has anyone said or suggested this? You don't half make up some ridiculous nonsense. Between that and you apparently talking to yourself above, I really think you should probably call it a night and return when you're in better control of your faculties. Hey ChrispMartha/b
hStewie/ZedLeg.When asked if someone identifying as a female is really female, is it ok to say "no, he's a lying sack of s
t"?t.Either way, who on here has mentioned anyone being charged with anything?
Your making things up in your head again
You're ok with someone identifying and saying they live as a female being deliberately misgendered?
Yes?
No?
Only if they are a rapist?
Gecko1978 said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
HM-2 said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
Yet the usual suspects on here would strongly argue that is hate speech and misgendering and want to see you charged for such language.
Where has anyone said or suggested this? You don't half make up some ridiculous nonsense. Between that and you apparently talking to yourself above, I really think you should probably call it a night and return when you're in better control of your faculties. Hey ChrispMartha/b
hStewie/ZedLeg.When asked if someone identifying as a female is really female, is it ok to say "no, he's a lying sack of s
t"?So self ID is irrelevant to a degree.
If someone insists they are a woman but others disagree, you call them a 'he'?
Not saying you're wrong, just clarifying.
You can ask that question fairly only if you ask it of Bryson, I call him a he and a lying sack of s
t because people who know more about the issue and him have said he was "at it".Blair White who I referred to earlier as she / her etc is she a women no not in the adult human female.sense. is she a trans women 100% does she believe she is female yes but accepts she is different to biological.women.
You can disagree but you don't have to make one judgement.apply to.all other cases
chrispmartha said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
chrispmartha said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
HM-2 said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
Yet the usual suspects on here would strongly argue that is hate speech and misgendering and want to see you charged for such language.
Where has anyone said or suggested this? You don't half make up some ridiculous nonsense. Between that and you apparently talking to yourself above, I really think you should probably call it a night and return when you're in better control of your faculties. Hey ChrispMartha/b
hStewie/ZedLeg.When asked if someone identifying as a female is really female, is it ok to say "no, he's a lying sack of s
t"?t.Either way, who on here has mentioned anyone being charged with anything?
Your making things up in your head again
You're ok with someone identifying and saying they live as a female being deliberately misgendered?
Yes?
No?
Only if they are a rapist?
If it was up to you, would misgendering be allowed?
RobbieTheTruth said:
Well let's just ask them directly here now.
Hint - they won't actually answer.
A fairly absurd display of poor decorum and logic on display here. A true gem of RobbieTheTruth (that username keeps getting funnier) logic:Hint - they won't actually answer.
Assert poster X does or believes something theres no evidence of them doing- let's say for the sake of a representative argument you state poster X engages in intercourse with farmyard animals. Call on them to come and publicly deny it, and if they don't assert their failure to deny your egregious slander, then they must enjoy a bit of jiggy-jiggy with a piggy-piggy.
I have no words.
RobbieTheTruth said:
Which is often going to be opinion based - as Bryson claims they are female.
You're ok with someone identifying and saying they live as a female being deliberately misgendered?
Yes?
No?
Only if they are a rapist?
Your question is essentially ‘is it ok to call a liar a liar’You're ok with someone identifying and saying they live as a female being deliberately misgendered?
Yes?
No?
Only if they are a rapist?
You clearly want to build this up into some argument that because a convicted rapist was found to be lying, that all trans people should be considered deviants and liars. That has to be ok to assume they are lying.
It’s ok to say some one is lying if they are found to be lying. For the same reason we can say Bryson is a rapist. It would be ridiculous to say that because Bryson is a man and a rapist, and it’s ok to call him a rapist because he has been found to be a rapist, that all men should be considered rapists and it’s fine to just go around calling men rapists.
There is no ‘got cha’ here. It is an absurd argument you are trying to build.
RobbieTheTruth said:
chrispmartha said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
chrispmartha said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
HM-2 said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
Yet the usual suspects on here would strongly argue that is hate speech and misgendering and want to see you charged for such language.
Where has anyone said or suggested this? You don't half make up some ridiculous nonsense. Between that and you apparently talking to yourself above, I really think you should probably call it a night and return when you're in better control of your faculties. Hey ChrispMartha/b
hStewie/ZedLeg.When asked if someone identifying as a female is really female, is it ok to say "no, he's a lying sack of s
t"?t.Either way, who on here has mentioned anyone being charged with anything?
Your making things up in your head again
You're ok with someone identifying and saying they live as a female being deliberately misgendered?
Yes?
No?
Only if they are a rapist?
If it was up to you, would misgendering be allowed?
Ive just said I don’t care who you misgender and never said you or anyone else should be ‘charged’ unless you were bullying or harassing someone.
I would think your a bit of a horrible prick if you were doing it in a way to demean, bully or harass someone. And if you were harassing them then there are rightly laws against harassment.
HM-2 said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
Well let's just ask them directly here now.
Hint - they won't actually answer.
A fairly absurd display of poor decorum and logic on display here. A true gem of RobbieTheTruth (that username keeps getting funnier) logic:Hint - they won't actually answer.
Assert poster X does or believes something theres no evidence of them doing- let's say for the sake of a representative argument you state poster X engages in intercourse with farmyard animals. Call on them to come and publicly deny it, and if they don't assert their failure to deny your egregious slander, then they must enjoy a bit of jiggy-jiggy with a piggy-piggy.
I have no words.
You admitted you believe it's the correct decision that Bryson is in a male prison.
They would never do that, and answer a different question.
You couldn't work out how to do it, yet you're here praising them for their avoidance tactics.
TonyToniTone said:
Only available in PDF;
https://www.sps.gov.uk/Corporate/Publications/Publ...
said:
Where the person in custody is permanently living in their new social gender
instead of the gender they were assigned at birth, then establishment allocation
should usually be the new gender in which they are living.
instead of the gender they were assigned at birth, then establishment allocation
should usually be the new gender in which they are living.
said:
There is a high likelihood
that decisions about whether the person in custody needs to be transferred to a
different gender of establishment may not be able to be made before the first night in
custody.
that decisions about whether the person in custody needs to be transferred to a
different gender of establishment may not be able to be made before the first night in
custody.
said:
Within 72 hours of people in custody’s reception into the establishment, the Unit
Manager must carry out the following actions ...
arrange the time and attendance for an initial gender reassignment case
conference taking place within seven days of reception of the person in
custody. For full details see Section 6 of this policy.
Manager must carry out the following actions ...
arrange the time and attendance for an initial gender reassignment case
conference taking place within seven days of reception of the person in
custody. For full details see Section 6 of this policy.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 20th March 20:10
RobbieTheTruth said:
HM-2 said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
Well let's just ask them directly here now.
Hint - they won't actually answer.
A fairly absurd display of poor decorum and logic on display here. A true gem of RobbieTheTruth (that username keeps getting funnier) logic:Hint - they won't actually answer.
Assert poster X does or believes something theres no evidence of them doing- let's say for the sake of a representative argument you state poster X engages in intercourse with farmyard animals. Call on them to come and publicly deny it, and if they don't assert their failure to deny your egregious slander, then they must enjoy a bit of jiggy-jiggy with a piggy-piggy.
I have no words.
You admitted you believe it's the correct decision that Bryson is in a male prison.
They would never do that, and answer a different question.
You couldn't work out how to do it, yet you're here praising them for their avoidance tactics.
Based on what I have read and know about the case I think Bryson being in a Male prison is the correct decision.
chrispmartha said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
HM-2 said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
Well let's just ask them directly here now.
Hint - they won't actually answer.
A fairly absurd display of poor decorum and logic on display here. A true gem of RobbieTheTruth (that username keeps getting funnier) logic:Hint - they won't actually answer.
Assert poster X does or believes something theres no evidence of them doing- let's say for the sake of a representative argument you state poster X engages in intercourse with farmyard animals. Call on them to come and publicly deny it, and if they don't assert their failure to deny your egregious slander, then they must enjoy a bit of jiggy-jiggy with a piggy-piggy.
I have no words.
You admitted you believe it's the correct decision that Bryson is in a male prison.
They would never do that, and answer a different question.
You couldn't work out how to do it, yet you're here praising them for their avoidance tactics.
Based on what I have read and know about the case I think Bryson being in a Male prison is the correct decision.
RobbieTheTruth said:
chrispmartha said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
HM-2 said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
Well let's just ask them directly here now.
Hint - they won't actually answer.
A fairly absurd display of poor decorum and logic on display here. A true gem of RobbieTheTruth (that username keeps getting funnier) logic:Hint - they won't actually answer.
Assert poster X does or believes something theres no evidence of them doing- let's say for the sake of a representative argument you state poster X engages in intercourse with farmyard animals. Call on them to come and publicly deny it, and if they don't assert their failure to deny your egregious slander, then they must enjoy a bit of jiggy-jiggy with a piggy-piggy.
I have no words.
You admitted you believe it's the correct decision that Bryson is in a male prison.
They would never do that, and answer a different question.
You couldn't work out how to do it, yet you're here praising them for their avoidance tactics.
Based on what I have read and know about the case I think Bryson being in a Male prison is the correct decision.
chrispmartha said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
chrispmartha said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
HM-2 said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
Well let's just ask them directly here now.
Hint - they won't actually answer.
A fairly absurd display of poor decorum and logic on display here. A true gem of RobbieTheTruth (that username keeps getting funnier) logic:Hint - they won't actually answer.
Assert poster X does or believes something theres no evidence of them doing- let's say for the sake of a representative argument you state poster X engages in intercourse with farmyard animals. Call on them to come and publicly deny it, and if they don't assert their failure to deny your egregious slander, then they must enjoy a bit of jiggy-jiggy with a piggy-piggy.
I have no words.
You admitted you believe it's the correct decision that Bryson is in a male prison.
They would never do that, and answer a different question.
You couldn't work out how to do it, yet you're here praising them for their avoidance tactics.
Based on what I have read and know about the case I think Bryson being in a Male prison is the correct decision.
Male prisons?
RobbieTheTruth said:
You couldn't work out how to do it, yet you're here praising them for their avoidance tactics.
What are you on about? Your grasp of my views and posts is just woeful. It really isn't any wonder that nobody wants to speak to you.You've clearly misjudged the views of other posters as badly as you have mine, too.
Edited by HM-2 on Monday 20th March 20:33
chrispmartha said:
said:
I have very little knowledge of the prison system and how it works, why would i have an opinion on hypothetical cases that I know nothing about.
You don't know what prison you want a female who is dangerous to women to go to.
Why the significant distinction?
RobbieTheTruth said:
chrispmartha said:
said:
I have very little knowledge of the prison system and how it works, why would i have an opinion on hypothetical cases that I know nothing about.
You don't know what prison you want a female who is dangerous to women to go to.
Why the significant distinction?
I don’t know what prison your hypothetical criminals should go to because they are hypothetical and as Ive said i know pretty much nothing about the prison system and why or who gets put where.
In the actual real situation that this thread is about it seems that the prison system has deemed Bryson should be housed in a male prison, which I have zero issues with.
Now please don’t say you never get answers because i have answered your question.
RobbieTheTruth said:
You want a trans female in a male prison because they are a danger to women
You don't know what prison you want a female who is dangerous to women to go to.
Why the significant distinction?
Dude I'm genuinely a bit worried about you You don't know what prison you want a female who is dangerous to women to go to.
Why the significant distinction?
HM-2 said:
...
Biological women incarcerated in male prisons don't magically become men because the prison service deemed them to be too great a risk to other women
...
Not only did the answer to your hypothetical get answered tens of posts (several by yourself) ago, it even has the added bi product of summarising the importance of you asking strangers on the internet about somebody's gender identity or pointing a politicians comments; Being housed in a men's estate is no an indictment of whether someone is a woman or not, be they cis or trans, so pointing a posters/politicians opinion that by being held in the men's estate "proves" Bryson is trans or not is ultimately meaningless.Biological women incarcerated in male prisons don't magically become men because the prison service deemed them to be too great a risk to other women
...
And yet around we go again?
RobbieTheTruth said:
chrispmartha said:
said:
I have very little knowledge of the prison system and how it works, why would i have an opinion on hypothetical cases that I know nothing about.
You don't know what prison you want a female who is dangerous to women to go to.
Why the significant distinction?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff