New Zealand

[JohnD]

So in plain English the judge was saying that placing a man in a women's prison increases the risk of women being sexually assaulted.

 

[Captain Nemesis]

I'm referring to the biology of sex, as are all the other medical and scientific authors and articles that I have presented.

JohnD clearly doesnt want to be confused by that, as his mind is made up.

It is bizarre that you maintain your opinion in the face of and in opposition to the plethora of medical and scientific evidence that I have presented and more is available.

Its not bizarre at all - its what bigots do.

You have maintained your opinion, in opposition to that evidence and you have not presented one iota of evidence nor eminent opinion to support your view.

Of course he has - thats what bigots do.

I would respectfully suggest that you either accept that your opinion is based on some kind of belief system, unsupported by medical science,

A belief system aka bigotry.

or you accept that you are mistaken but refuse to acknowledge the fact.

He wont.

He is bigoted.

 

[JohnD]

I see you refuse to acknowledge the fact that there is such a thing as a "woman."

And it is not a man.

Not even a man who says the magic words "I am a woman."

Which side do you favour in the transubstantiation debate?

 

[JohnD]

"Very naively I still find it shocking that the MoJ argued in court for their right to place predatory male born rapists and sex offenders in prisons with vulnerable women. They think it's a good thing."

Said an actual woman.

 

[JohnD]

The judge said

"Many people may think it incongruous and inappropriate that a prisoner of masculine physique and with male genitalia should be accommodated in a female prison in any circumstances. More importantly for the Claimant's case, I readily accept that a substantial proportion of women prisoners have been the victims of sexual assaults and/or domestic violence.

I also readily accept the proposition ... that some, and perhaps many, women prisoners may suffer fear and acute anxiety if required to share prison accommodation and facilities with a transgender women who has male genitalia, and that their fear and anxiety may be increased if that transgender woman has been convicted of sexual or violent offences against women."

Does @Captain Nemesis agree?

 

[JohnD]

The Spectator article says:

"The debate about sex and gender is complicated and often fraught, not least when it reaches the courts. But there are two, fairly simple, points that I think everyone should draw from that court ruling.

The first is that the High Court has confirmed that accommodating the interests of transwomen and women leads, in some circumstances, to 'competing rights'. Sometimes, giving something to transwomen means taking something away from women. There is nothing transphobic or otherwise hateful about saying so. It is, as the court ruling shows, a simple statement of fact.

That leads to the second point. In this case, the state has given to some transwomen offenders the right to be imprisoned in the female prison estate. That decision, made to accommodate the interests of those transwomen, comes at the expense of women in the female estate. The court found that those women are exposed to an increased risk of sexual assault and to anxiety and fear of such sexual assault.

The court further found that, under the law as it stands, it is legal for ministers to implement a policy that exposes women prisoners to that increased risk and to 'understandable' fear, because – assuming proper mitigation is in place – that risk and that fear are an acceptable price to pay to accommodate the interests of transwomen prisoners.

I’m not going to bother saying what I think of this situation, because I suspect I don’t need to. I also note that the Ministry of Justice is already reviewing the policy in question, so I think this won’t be the last word on the matter.

Instead, I will conclude by saying that the High Court ruling has confirmed beyond doubt something that a great many women have been trying to say for several years, often meeting with aggressive rejection and accusations of bigotry. The court confirmed that in some circumstances, accommodating the interests of male-born transwomen means imposing costs and burdens on women.

And that raises a question that society as a whole still needs to answer: why should women pay and suffer to serve the interests of people who were born male?

Can @Scarlet Pimpernel answer?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

So after your non stop slating of transam, calling him a liar at every turn.

Suddenly he is the fountain of truth.............(When it suits your agenda, that is.)

Don't be silly, transam is incapable of differentiating the truth from his self-constructed parallel universe.
He's obviously changed his mind very recently. I can present multiple posts of transam's where he claims, agrees and comments on my supposedly multiple accounts.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Judge's comments:
"I can accept, at any rate for present purposes, that the unconditional introduction of a transgender woman into the general population of a women's prison carries a statistically greater risk of sexual assault upon non transgender prisoners than would be the case if a non-transgender woman was introduced."

So in reality, the Judge said today in a judgement regarding women's prisons and women's safety:

"I can accept, at any rate for present purposes, that the unconditional introduction of a transgender woman male into the general population of a women's prison carries a statistically greater risk of sexual assault upon non transgender prisoners women than would be the case if a non-transgender woman woman was introduced"

(lifted from another forum)

"I can accept" he said.

Then you need to go back to that other forum (which you don't identify) and tell them not to insert words, and rearrange the Judge's comments to suit their own agenda.
Here are the actual comments of the judge:

Lord Justice Holroyd accepted the statistical evidence showed proportion of trans prisoners convicted of sexual offences was "substantially higher" than for non-transgender men and women prisoners
But he said this specific claim was a "misuse of the statistics, which... are so low in number, and so lacking in detail, that they are an unsafe basis for general conclusions".
.....

"The unconditional introduction of a transgender woman into the general population of a women's prison carries a statistically greater risk of sexual assault upon non-transgender prisoners than would be the case if a non-transgender woman were introduced.
"However, the policies require a careful, case by case assessment of the risks and of the ways in which the risks should be managed," he said.
"Properly applied, that assessment has the result that non-transgender prisoners only have contact with transgender prisoners when it is safe for them to do so."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57692993​

Now if you are going to sink to the depths of inserting words and rearranging the judge's comments to support your argument, it illustrates how flimsy your argument is.
If you insist on such behaviour in this discussion it undermines your overall credibility.

​

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

So in plain English the judge was saying that placing a man in a women's prison increases the risk of women being sexually assaulted.

You're placing your own interpretation on the judge's comments.
What he actually said was:

"The unconditional introduction of a transgender woman into the general population of a women's prison carries a statistically greater risk of sexual assault upon non-transgender prisoners than would be the case if a non-transgender woman were introduced.
"However, the policies require a careful, case by case assessment of the risks and of the ways in which the risks should be managed," he said.
"Properly applied, that assessment has the result that non-transgender prisoners only have contact with transgender prisoners when it is safe for them to do so."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57692993​

He never said what you claim he said.
But it's obvious that if a sexually violent male was placed in a woman's prison, there would be an increased risk of sexual violence. Any fool would deduce that.

​

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I see you refuse to acknowledge the fact that there is such a thing as a "woman."

Don't be absurd. It's becoming a bit of a silly habit of yours lately.

And it is not a man.

Wow!

Not even a man who says the magic words "I am a woman."

Agreed. A man who simply says, "I am a woman." on a whim, is either an actor, a liar, a transvestite, someone masquerading, or a devious and deceitful person.
However, someone who was labelled a male at birth, has gender dysphoria and wishes to transition to become a woman, can do so.
There are obviously some who are devious and deceitful who might claim to be transitioning in order to increase the opportunity to commit violent sex offences. They invariably have a record of previous sexually violent behaviour. Surprisingly, these people tend to be in prison.
There are also many others who have no record of, nor any desire to be sexually violent. They have invariably suffered immensely with their gender dysphoria, but manage to transition to become a woman peacefully and without publicity. Surprisingly, these people tend not to be in prison.

You cannot vilify one group because of the existence of another group.
That would be pure bigotry, like calling all French people scoundrels because of a rumour that some pigeons were shot by a French man.

Which side do you favour in the transubstantiation debate?

WTF does transubstantiation have to do with transgenders?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

The Spectator article says:


Can @Scarlet Pimpernel answer?

Can you provide a link to your source because you have demonstrated a willingness to alter comments and quotes.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

The judge said

"Many people may think it incongruous and inappropriate that a prisoner of masculine physique and with male genitalia should be accommodated in a female prison in any circumstances. More importantly for the Claimant's case, I readily accept that a substantial proportion of women prisoners have been the victims of sexual assaults and/or domestic violence.

I also readily accept the proposition ... that some, and perhaps many, women prisoners may suffer fear and acute anxiety if required to share prison accommodation and facilities with a transgender women who has male genitalia, and that their fear and anxiety may be increased if that transgender woman has been convicted of sexual or violent offences against women."

Does @Captain Nemesis agree?

I'm not Captain Nemesis, but for me, can you provide a link to your source so that we can read the original, not your version of what you think the judge said.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

"Very naively I still find it shocking that the MoJ argued in court for their right to place predatory male born rapists and sex offenders in prisons with vulnerable women. They think it's a good thing."

Said an actual woman.

Are you inventing these comments?
Why not provide links to your sources, as that we can check that your quotes accurately reflect what you are reporting?
I highly suspect that your "actual woman" was not some anonymous person, as you deviously present, but the plaintiff who brought the case, a prisoner who claims she had been sexually assaulted, which the MoJ never accepted had really occurred.
So by her prison sentence, and the refusal of the MoJ to acknowledge the assault occurred, proves her to be a dishonest person.

 

[transam]

So can it be assumed that a woman self identifying as a bloke will be sent to a blokes prison ?

 

[Trazor]

Do you think some of these people may be suffering from dissociative identity disorder?

Some posters on here seem to.