Legal definition of woman is based on biological sex, UK supreme court rules

[seanie]

 

[Toni]

There was a Swedish study about offending patterns that suggested a similar rate of offending between trans women and other males, though I’ve not heard of anything else.

And data will now be skewed as crimes committed by males identifying males are now being recorded as women’s crimes in some jurisdictions.

What is true, both in the USA and UK, is that those prisoners identifying as trans women have a significantly higher rate of incarceration for sexual offences then the male prison population in general. However, I suspect that’s down to non trans male sexual offenders identifying as trans in the hope of transfer to women’s prisons. Not a reflection on trans women per se.

I’d guess another explanation is that trans people are more likely to be accused, arrested and convicted of crimes compared with cis gendered people but I don’t have any data to back that guess.

And here’s the thing: Prisons should be as safe and humane as possible for all incarcerated people. No one should be subjected to violence, sexual or otherwise as part of their sentence.

 

[seanie]

 

[seanie]

 

[seanie]

Can't argue with that logic. I can barely even call it logic.

it was just a suggestion to explain the significantly higher rate of sexual offences committed by those males identifying as trans women in prison.

I mean, I’m skeptical that the male double rapist sent to a women’s prison in Scotland, who only first identified as a trans woman after being charged with the two rapes, truly identifies as a woman.

I suspect he may be a chancing piece of shit, who hoped to be transferred to a women’s prison.

 

[seanie]

Am I not showing enough respect for the double rapist?

 

[seanie]

 

[seanie]

I mean, we’re dealing with small numbers, and as I said I’m skeptical about how genuine some sex offenders are when claiming to be trans, so you’d want to tread carefully.

But you shouldn’t be sending any males into female prisons.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can't argue with that logic. I can barely even call it logic.

it was just a suggestion to explain the significantly higher rate of sexual offences committed by those males identifying as trans women in prison.

Suggestions are wonderful.

I mean, I’m skeptical that the male double rapist sent to a women’s prison in Scotland, who only first identified as a trans woman after being charged with the two rapes, truly identifies as a woman.

What you think isn't particularly relevant.

I suspect he may be a chancing piece of shit, who hoped to be transferred to a women’s prison.

That's wonderful.

 

[seanie]

The “Swedish Study”.

 

[seanie]

Can't argue with that logic. I can barely even call it logic.

it was just a suggestion to explain the significantly higher rate of sexual offences committed by those males identifying as trans women in prison.

Suggestions are wonderful.

I mean, I’m skeptical that the male double rapist sent to a women’s prison in Scotland, who only first identified as a trans woman after being charged with the two rapes, truly identifies as a woman.

What you think isn't particularly relevant.

I suspect he may be a chancing piece of shit, who hoped to be transferred to a women’s prison.

That's wonderful.

Do you have substantive point?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But you shouldn’t be sending any males into female prisons.

Yes, now we get to the actual truth... what you believe. And I'm not talking about the males into female prison thing.

 

[seanie]

Scottish Police were recorded the “sex” of offenders on the basis of self-ID, though I think that practice has now stopped.

 

[seanie]

Yes, now we get to the actual truth... what you believe. And I'm not talking about the males into female prison thing.

What remarkable insight have you gained into what I believe?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can't argue with that logic. I can barely even call it logic.

it was just a suggestion to explain the significantly higher rate of sexual offences committed by those males identifying as trans women in prison.

Suggestions are wonderful.

I mean, I’m skeptical that the male double rapist sent to a women’s prison in Scotland, who only first identified as a trans woman after being charged with the two rapes, truly identifies as a woman.

What you think isn't particularly relevant.

I suspect he may be a chancing piece of shit, who hoped to be transferred to a women’s prison.

That's wonderful.

Do you have substantive point?

Not much of a point, other that calling your posts out for the lack of objectiveness they contain.

The reality is we really still don't get transgender issues at the moment. It is important to make decisions about it as such. Calling transgender women "men" or "males" belittles the real world mindset of transgender males. It implies an utter lack of empathy or care, in fact, it kind of suggests malice.

Should transgender males be in a women prisons? I think the answer is quite obviously yes... after a very complete examination and review of each individual case. It would seem absurd to toss people who are sexual predators into a prison of women. What I find quite telling is that you (and others) apparently think tossing people who are sexual predators into a prison of men is... okay.

 

[seanie]

I never said that. I’ve said third spaces.

Before you blunder into a subject, with no real understanding, do a bit of thinking first.

 

[seanie]

And calling trans women “male” or “men”, is an accurate description of reality.

You can pretend otherwise, but they are.

And it’s OK for men to identify as women. It really is. But there are some situations where they can’t be treated as women, because they’re not.

Females deserve some female only spaces.

 

[Emily Lake]

It's the consequence of giving men the legal right to use women's restrooms on the basis of their magic words.

It is a possible consequence in some cases.

In what cases is it NOT a consequence?

 

[Emily Lake]

Sex is determined at fertilisation by which chromosome the sperm contributes: an x or y.

Sex is usually first observed at the 12 week scan, because by that stage it’s obvious which developmental pathway an embryo has gone down: male or female.

And at birth sex is recorded, because 99.98%of the time it’s absolutely obvious.

None of this is hard.

So which is it: sex is solely chromosomal, or sex is solely sex assigned at birth?

Don't play games.

Sex is not assigned at birth, it's recorded at birth. Sex is "assigned" when the sperm breaches the egg wall. It's the sperm that dictates whether the fetus will follow a mullerian or a wolffian developmental pathway.

 

[Emily Lake]

The legal position isn't that sex is "assigned at birth" . It's that sex is a material fact that can be established. For the vast majority of people that will simply be their sex recorded at birth, but even if that isn't the case, and a person has a DSD, their sex can still be established, because sex is binary and immutable.

And since the law has long recognised there are situations where single sex spaces or services are required, for reasons of privacy, safety, dignity, or fairness, then sex in the Equality Act 2010 has to be understood as biological sex.

Otherwise the Act would be produce unworkable and perverse results.

If you define sex as strictly chromosomal and binary and require all law to follow that definition, many men and women will be forced by law to use bathrooms, showers, sporting facilities, etc, that correspond to the opposite of either their expressed or perceived gender. Emily's "horror scenario" of seeing a penis in a locker room is now what the law requires of many individuals.

Why are you so invested in forcing women to be subjected to male exhibitionism without consent?

I am, of course, not. You are the one trying to use the power of an authoritarian state to take away the right of citizens to choose what room is most appropriate for their situation, men and women alike. I would not support forcing anyone to do anything they do not choose to do, personally. Why do you?

When you give men with gender identity issues the right by law to use female sex-specific intimate spaces, you're using authoritarian power to take away the rights of women to have single-sex spaces at all, and you're giving men the special privilege of ignoring consent whenever the fuck they feel like it.

I mean, if you really want to give Tom* the right to Peep because that's what he chooses to do, you can hold that position. But it's an incredibly misogynistic one.


*Not you TomC. I didn't name the peeper.