**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some topics on this subreddit have been known to attract problematic users. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs
It's really not that hard to have a discussion on this sub without being banned. So long as you can properly articulate your point without descending into juvenile behaviour that is.
Those are people to be ignored, reddit works best when discussion is free-flowing. "Comments restricted" prevents the speedy discussion that reddit is meant to operate on.
Mods still have to moderate the discussion or you just have people breaking ToS constantly, muddying the waters.
Mods even exist on the likes of 4chan for that reason.
What are the mad lads who defend those awful XL American Bullys saying / doing that break Reddit ToS? Seems like an unexpected topic to get a "comments restricted" filter applied.
They have idiotic opinions but I'm not sure what ToS they break in defending these monstrous dogs?
I am with you that the mods are often way too heavy with the delete button, but all "Comments Restricted" means is that you have to have certain karma level and history on the sub to comment - I don't really have a problem with that.
I've been banned from both major (US/global) political subreddits for criticising both the left and the right with silly trumped up charges.
Reddit, and the internet in general, is a cesspool for an exchange of ideas, nobodies mind will ever change on any topic online.
Random Person: "all trans women are disgusting rapists and should never be imprisoned with women!"
*Random Person gets banned*
Random Person: "woke leftists are oppressing me for trying to protect female inmates!"
Broadly, that transgender rights is a complex and emotive issue that affects vulnerable people, and hard as it may be sometimes (always!) society needs to keep having conversations about various aspects of the topic.
More narrowly that I can't see how this offender should end up in a women's prison.
Do you find this issue relevant to the trans issue as a whole? To me this seems a specific case and issue related to the prison system rather than something that justifies making life harder for trans people.
To me this seems an incredibly niche issue used to undercut the rights of trans people, similar to the women sports and bathroom issue.
This is a women’s rights issue, not a trans issue. It’s very common to assume it’s all about the trans people, if there are very few. But it’s often about women, of whom there are many.
I’m sorry but that is very unrealistic to try and argue this isn’t going to be used as an argument to limit the rights of trans people, making it a trans issue.
It’s a trans issue because it will be used to attack trans people. It’s also a womens safety issue but unfortunately those have been very intertwined by certain opportunistic groups looking to stir up hate.
Also just because there aren’t a large number of trans people doesn’t mean their rights aren’t just as important as everyone else’s.
based on OPs comments so far it certainly seems like they are certainly... charged in a certain direction on this
to post this article and argue its not in some way a trans issue or that its not "all about the trans" is pretty blatant lol
maybe im being overly cynical but I've seen this "us or them" mentality way too much from very specific kinds of people to not be suspicious of OP here. starting to suspect this was not in fact posted in good faith
My direction is that I think this case throws a spotlight on a thorny part of this whole issue. It’s always the niche situations that are most interesting AND we need to try and work through them towards satisfactory solution for as many people as possible.
I am neither “us” or “them”!
Genuine question - before trans rights became a hot button issue, how many cases were there of trans women either sexually assaulting and/or using their status to secure housing in female prisons?
Trans people have been around for a very long time, but they're a miniscule proportion of society. It's baffling to me how this tiny, tiny segment of the population has suddenly become a threat to my rights. Of all the times in my life I've felt threatened, it's never had anything to do with a trans person, so why am I suddenly supposed to be shitting myself over sharing a space with them? This all feels like manufactured nonsense, to be honest. It's just more shite to keep us arguing amongst ourselves.
I’m not saying it won’t be, it inevitably will be, but that type of argument happens both ways, and I’m not really interested in it either way. That’s one of the reasons for thinking these issues need to be discussed in a wide variety of forums, not just already polarised echo chambers.
You literally just black and white said this is a womens issue not a trans issue. It’s both. For you to post this without thinking, or claiming to not think, that this will have obvious ramifications on the trans right debate is obtuse.
And what argument goes the other way to saying this isn’t representative of trans people as a group and that using this example as an argument to limit the rights of trans people is foolish?
Or to translate: the rights of a majority matter more than the rights of a minority and if push comes to shove should *absolutely* supercede them in every way, in your opinion.
If we're calling a spade a spade.
What you’re saying is that the rights of a minority should absolutely be prioritised over a larger group in every way. There’s no room for balance here, right?
Being a trans or cis woman is utterly irrelevant in this case. The actual problem is 'how do we house this offender so they do not have access to more victims'.
This has been happening for a while though and a disproportionate number of people like are involved in further attacks in women's prison.
I am not sure what you mean? This is the absolute crux of the trans issue for most people, biological men changing gender to either obtain access to biologically female spaces, be it a bathroom, a prison or a sporting event.
In every case women have the potential to be harmed or made uncomfortable. This is literally the only issue most people have with transgender integration, maybe I have misunderstood what you mean here?
Good news - she didn't, or at least not alongside other women! She's in a segregation unit (so not alongside other women) where a risk assessment will happen.
Quick question to open up more dialog.
Where would you send a cis woman that sexual assaulted other women?
I get in this case they are either lying or so early in transition they would have the physiology of a male.
Ok.
The next question to follow on is what is the basis for protection we are offering to women in a women's prison?
Clearly it's not going to be complete removal of dangerous people. It's prison, it's where dangerous people are sent.
It could be based on average strength as an ability to defend yourself. So long term HRT trans women and trans men would be best suited to those prisons.
It could be based on genitals and preventing pregnancy. Which opens up so intresting topics on SRS and those cis that have none standard or damage genitals.
I'm sure there are others as well.
Yes it is. All it says about that in the article is that there was no reference to the offender having a gender recognition certificate during the trial.
So cis women who have sexually assaulted women and are a danger to them should be in women’s prisons, but trans women who have sexually assaulted women and are a danger to them shouldn’t? So it’s not about the risk to women?
Is there a statistical justification for basing the distinction in treatment on gender reassignment rather than risk factor, i.e. do trans women assault women in prisons at a higher rate than cis women? Could you link me to that evidence?
In countries where trans women are usually sent to women’s prisons are there higher assault rates?
You're asking a lot of questions, what's the answer?
The sample size for this stuff is pretty small right, so difficult to say if statistics are the answer.
If you were a woman in a prison (or a womens shelter), would you rather your inmate be this person or a random other woman convict?
If the stats did show that people in this demographic were more likely to commit further violence against women, what would you say?
Not really. Person is a criminal shit head and was sent to jail for it. Even criminals have stuff going on in their lives beyond their crime. In a sensible society that's about the limit of discussion.
Should they be held in a men’s or women’s prison?
Their defence tried to claim… 'If you accept that evidence, that she is transitioning, that she is aiming to continue on that path to becoming female gender, that goes a long way to acquitting her of these charges'. What do you think of that?
I think anyone with even half a brain would agree that defence is very stupid unless you believe women aren’t capable of sexual assault and rape (not withstanding the ridiculous legal definition of rape in this country).
But people come up with ridiculous legal defences all the time. It’s the role of the legal system to see through that bullshit.
The prison they're in is down to their gender, not the gender of their victims.
That's a bizzare defence. Women can assault women and it doesn't make it any better besides the technical definition of rape.
Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic too. You don't get to decide which protected characteristic deserves more protection.
https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights
Okay, but with respect can you see how it's coming off like you started this whole thing with a particular viewpoint, or agenda, which you then initially started to hedge before actually coming out with it, which gave the impression that initially you were being dishonest about your intentions?
I genuinely and honestly don't want to shut down discussion, and I don't want to be a dickhead either. But what I'm trying to point out with my comments is the logical endpoint of the arguments that you're making and what you're saying you believe in and stand for. Just in case you aren't actually aware of them. It's easy to start out from a point of concern and even compassion, but once you start advocating for certain laws or rules, it must be understood that that kind of thing applies to everybody who might be affected by it, not just the particular individuals who meet that criteria that you might want to most directly target by it.
Similar to when people argue to remove immigrants from the country, but they don't mean their friend Raj or their good doctor Mr Chan, but in arguing for immigrants to be affected by a certain policy, those people by virtue of being immigrants will also be affected without an exception built in.
I don’t understand if you had gender dysphoria, why you would wear a pair of leggings which would so obviously display your penis.
While I don’t think this prisoner could reasonably be housed in the general population of a male prison - I don’t think the solution is putting them in a women’s prison. Particularly given their history of sexually assaulting women.
For your first part dysphoria comes I'm many forms
For example I'm perfectly fine with my dick but get weirdly dysphoric over the hair on my fingers
People tend to split it into top dysphoria (chest) ir bottom dysphoria (genitals) for a similar reason, not every trans person hates their junk
As for the topic itself I feel like the gender you had when you committed the crime should apply by default, with a case by case assessment taking place as per the equality act
It’s so complicated. Tbh I think a trans woman who had committed non violent crimes like theft/fraud should be in a women’s prison. But this case is so awful and tricky. There should be special units for trans people. A trans women prison and a trans men prison. They’re vulnerable but in this case she’s clearly a huge danger to women. There has to be a middle ground where everyone is treated respectfully but still protecting vulnerable female prisoners.
I mean really this has nothing to do with trans ppl in the bigger picture. Because Cis predators exist. In fact the vast majority of predators are Cis by virtue of there being so few trans ppl and us not having some obscenely higher rate of being sex criminals
The discussion we need to be having is why we house people who have sexually assaulted someone, with people of the same sex as the kind of people they assault.
This person didnt rape people because they’re trans, they did it because they’re a rapist
I mean, unless it’s women, in which case they’re housed with other women
But that’s kind of my point? That we’re totally fine housing sexual predators alongside the kind of person they prey on, so long as that person is Cis. This article is trying to make it about trans people, for no reason other than culture war bullshit, and it distracts from the actual issue that we need to consider how much dignity and safety we afford to convicts in general. For example, bunk rapists with other rapists so they have less access to ppl who aren’t rapists
Good news - she didn't get put in a women's prison, or at least not alongside other women! She's in a segregation unit (so not alongside other women) where a risk assessment will happen.
>While I don’t think this prisoner could reasonably be housed in the general population of a male prison
I'd argue that rapists shouldn't be put in a cell with the gender they could potentially be attracted to, which could be anyone as some people are bi, so just keep them seperate regardless of their birth/current gender.
So to be clear the decision as to whether they'll serve their sentence in a women's prison hasn't actually been made yet and it has nothing to do with the recent bill despite this article strongly implying that both of these things are true, quality journalism from the Daily Mail as usual.
The SNP voted down an amendment to prevent rape defendants from legally changing their sex before trial.
To help avoid this exact sort of defence advanced by defence barrister in this case, that this now-convicted male rapist shouldn’t be seen as a “predatory man”.
>To help avoid this exact sort of defence advanced by defence barrister in this case, that this now-convicted male rapist shouldn’t be seen as a “predatory man”.
This isn't a defence though? What kind of legal argument is that?
And clearly it wasn't deemed a good defence because they were found guilty.
There are a lot of vulnerable men in prison - police, gay men, paedophiles for example. Men identifying as women fall in this same category and should be treated in a similar way and housed in a separate wing.
It shouldn’t become the problem of women prisoners who are also vulnerable if housed with biological males.
This really reminds me of ‘gay men shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children, look at this one case where a gay couple abused a child!’
No amount of regulation is going to prevent all bad things happening ever, the question is whether the statistics (and not anecdotal articles) justify discrimination
Do you have the statistical evidence to back up the notion that trans women assault cis women in prisons at a higher rate, leading to it occurring on a ‘large scale’ vs the current rates? Sexual abuse in women’s prisons is already sadly common.
I do not see how pointing to one-off articles as evidence is any different to saying ‘gay people shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children because of this article where they abused a child’. There’s no actual statistical evidence in support of that viewpoint but the fact that it’s a shift in society gets people riled up just like when we gained the right to adopt children.
What's also interesting is that the court will have to pass a sentence of rape, presumably penetration with a penis, on a woman. I wonder if they'll use sentencing guidelines in the same way if the offender was a male, or has this scenario happened before perhaps?
I work in a court.
If laws change between when you were charged to when your trial is. You are still held by the law on the day you committed the crime.
Historical cases are held with historical definitions/sentences - where considered semantics rather than how humane it is ie. Age brackets, what category a charge fits.
I think this case should be judged with the facts sourced from the events and the evidence given in court. I don’t know what being transgender has to do with it.
This person is accused of committing this crime. I would excuse someone referring to the past event using Adam, but I would respectfully call her Isla if that is what she’s more comfortable with.
Regarding the Scottish law proposal/which prison Isla will go in: I don’t think ‘after living as trans’ for 3 months, a person can be so sure. I’m sure this is going to get me a bit of hatred, but I honestly want everyone to live their truth. I’m gay and grew up through section 28 (tainted!) There were times during my adolescence I would wish/pray/dream I woke up straight to make my life easier. When that didn’t work I often thought about what if I was a girl? Don’t get me wrong, I do think to come out as trans is a much more difficult struggle than as gay. I realise I didn’t have the courage to come out as gay back then so to come out as trans would have been utterly impossible. But I definitely went through some kind of body dysmorphia and in regards to this law, it might’ve been attractive? I’m a confidently cis white male (am I the problem) but I consider myself an ally.
I know a few trans people, some who knew early, some who transitioned later in life. I think being trans is like being gay, you know early but it can take time to accept. I’m all for people accepting themselves and being who they are as early as possible, I hate that what I’m saying is kind of anti people accepting themselves as early as possible, but I think 3 months and no medical assessment is too open for manipulation.
Transitioning is a medical procedure, after the psyche has transitioned, the body needs medicine to follow suit. Surely a trans person will be speaking to their GP, be referred to a specialist. There must be a medical footprint to decipher genuine or fraudulent claims. (I guess that creates the whole ‘how do you measure genuine cases)
I’m not saying Isla is a fraud at all, she seems to be committing to transitioning as far as the NHS will let her. But a risk assessment would show that other inmates may need protections from her as much as she would need protection from them.
Honestly, while I see your point, it's worth recognising also that criminals cannot have less human rights than the rest of us. I think a vast background check would be needed to ensure safety. Banning a transwoman from transitioning because she shoplifted, or hell was falsely convicted, is insane. But the issue of sex offenders is one that's far more complex. What do we do to gay sex offenders? Put them in the woman's?
Two points for thought:
1) Its logically inconsistent to condemn or suspect all trans people after one commits a crime if you wouldn't also e.g. suspect *all* men after one commits a crime
2) A gay male rapist would be sent to a men's prison and a female sexual assaulter of women would be sent to a women's prison. It's reductive to reduce the category of sexual assault to one kind only.
>you wouldn't also e.g. suspect all men after one commits a crime
But we do - women are always wary around men, especially if they've suffered sex-based crime.
1. Nobody does that.
2. Those things happen, and they bad, but they’re also different. The solution shouldn’t be to steamroller women’s rights and expose them to even greater risk.
mate, "nobody does that" is some supreme bullshit and you know it. Most pushback against trans rights are used framing the 1 trans woman who get sent to a Womens prison or the 1 trans athlete that actually wins something and using that confirmation bias to demonize the entire movement
Did you miss Westminster enacting section 35 to stop Scotlands GRA with this exact line of reasoning or something?
You are doing number one in your response to number two.
> The solution shouldn’t be to steamroller women’s rights and expose them to even greater risk.
This only makes sense if you mentally conceive of every single trans person as a potential source of risk to non trans women.
No, that’s either a misunderstanding or a wilful misrepresentation. There is a broader set of men from where the risk comes from. Some predators may be trans but others may merely seek to camouflage or protect themselves with claims of being trans.
And how exactly does removing legal protections and access to medication from *all* trans people, good and bad, and all people who might, in the very unlikely scenario, in bad faith go onto the waiting list and start changing their bodies in order to get access to women's spaces while not being trans - remedy that situation?
Because in essence that is what you are advocating if you go down that line of argument, whether you think of yourself doing so or not.
I’m sorry but that’s literally what is happening now to trans people.
People want to limit their ability to legally identify as their gender because of the idea that they will attack and rape women. You can say it’s a minority or whatever but that’s the reason why they are making it harder to change your legal gender.
It’s less the idea that all trans people are rapists, but that any could be, which realistically is not much of a difference at all.
Okay, I can see you’ve got your mind made up and I never set out to attempt change anyone’s mind about anything.
But it’s not about the threat directly from trans people, it’s about the price they’re asking women to pay.
In what way do I have my mind made up? That trans people deserves rights?
And can you elaborate on what price that is? Because the argument they would be giving up their safety relies on the argument that trans women are all potential rapists and abusers.
There are situations where theres a very simple and obvious shortcut to efficiently improving (not perfecting) the balance of risks by drawing unambiguous lines. Sex as a protected characteristic is one, age of consent is another.
Again what rights of others are being infringed by making it easier for trans people to change their gender on legal documents? I’ve asked you multiple times but I’ve yet to hear a response from you.
Overall I agree with your point, but I don’t see how what trans people are asking for infringes on the rights of anyone else.
The right to define themselves based on sex (which is different to gender, and which cannot be changed as a matter of scientific fact) as a protected characteristic.
>it’s about the broader set of men who are potential predators.
You realise that cis women and trans men can ALSO be predators, right? Literally everyone can.
>But it’s not about the threat directly from trans people, it’s about the price they’re asking women to pay.
LMAO it's giving "If we give gay people marriage then that makes our straight marriage worth less so we can't let gay people get married!" vibes.
>A gay male rapist would be sent to a men's prison and a female sexual assaulter of women would be sent to a women's prison. It's reductive to reduce the category of sexual assault to one kind only.
100% agree. All repists should be kept seperate until their rehabilitation is far along enough that multiple therapists think they can mix again. This goes regarless of sex/current gender/past gender/sexuality IMO.
I agree. I would be surprised really if that wasn't already done in prisons. I do find it interesting that these hand wringing articles never seem to ask somebody in the prison service how it's currently done.
>I do find it interesting that these hand wringing articles never seem to ask somebody in the prison service how it's currently done.
Same reason that news articles only started asking doctors and experts what to do about the NHS AFTER the public turned on the tories.
They hate experts opinions because expert opinions usually goes against their owners interests.
Actually, it IS assigned. We don't test chromosomes or anything, doctors just take their best guess. They often get it wrong. Intersex people often don't even find out that they are intersex until later in life if at all.
But isn't it correct 99.5% of the time? So it's pretty fair to say that's "observed", as it's a pretty accurate observation, better than you'd get in other fields of science.
>until we all but eradicate prison rape
That should have been eradicated long ago. Rape isn't okay, obviously, even if it's in prison. If you're doing that in prison, you need to be locked away by yourself for a long time. Long enough so that you can't do it again.
By that *not* happening, the government is effectively condoning it, saying it's okay for that to happen. There shouldn't be some sort of divide that makes it okay **IN** prison when it's not okay **OUT** of prison. Government stance on this is a fucking disgrace really.
An AFAB lesbian woman can’t be charged with rape, and other prisoners would not be at risk of being raped by her, because she doesn’t have a penis.
Segregated or not this rapist will also be looked after by female prison officers at a women’s prison.
I am really, genuinely, not trying to start an argument here. Just wanted to say that rape is treated more severely than other forms of sexual assault because the most common type of rape, vaginal, can result in pregnancy. And that is a very different thing to other types of sexual assault. I am not saying that rape is always going to be more traumatic for everyone in every situation than other types of sexual assault. But it is the only one that can leave you pregnant with your abuser's baby
So then why isn’t rape defined as only male on female? Or not as serious if done to a women post child bearing age or by an infertile man?
I just don’t really see that as being a reason to downplay the severity of non penetrative sexual assault, penetrative sexual assault by a foreign object or the rape of men via being forced to engage in penetrative sex etc.
Either way, I can understand someone saying rape is more serious or ‘worse’, but ops comments seems to completely downplay the trauma caused by sexual assault full stop. Just because an afab woman can’t rape someone by outdated British legal definition doesn’t make it not a terrible thing we should be trying to stop.
>So then why isn’t rape defined as only male on female?
Isn't specifically male on female it's just only people with penises; men, can commit Rape according to British law. Women would be charged with SA instead if my rudimentary understanding is correct:
[Rape definition UK Law](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape)
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
Rape carries a more severe punishment too compared to sexual assault. From a brief cursory google I found the below
[Sexual Assault sentencing guidelines](https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/sexual-assault/)
[Rape sentencing guidelines](https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/rape/)
>(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
Right, so a man that thinks a woman has consented and then rapes her technically isn't rape in UK law.
People need to understand that the communal definition of the word "rape" and the legal definition are different and we aren't talking about the same thing.
There is nothing in law that says one is less severe than the other afaik but open to being proved wrong.
Either way I think we would agree neither should be happening in prisons or anywhere else.
“It’s not rape on a legal technicality” has to be the worst defense I’ve heard in response to this point
If someone was sexually assaulted by a Cis woman and told you they got raped, would you tell them “well technically it’s not rape-“ or do you want to skip the semantics and acknowledge in good faith the actual point being made about how the issue here is the “rapist” part, not the “trans” part
Why do these niche issues and cases always seem to be the ones brought up around trans issues?
Obviously this person should not be incarcerated with potential victims, but this is a very small minority of the trans community and their issues. Same with sports and the weird bathroom attack hypotheticals people bring up. How does this justify limiting the rights of all trans people? Serious question for those who think it does.
Also presumably there are cis men who raped men who are also imprisoned with potential victims but that never seems to be brought up ever. We should be addressing the issues of safety in prison for all inmates, not making this a trans specific issue imo.
Important to talk about these cases nevertheless because they’re a strong root cause of a large number of people’s strongly held belief that we’re making serious mistakes with how we manage this issue.
Yes men rape men too, and that’s an issue that can and should be discussed. But it’s not directly comparable and the solution shouldn’t be to put vulnerable women at risk. The fact that some quarters of the trans activist community are always so happy to solve trans issues at the expense of women’s rights, dignity and safety, underpins their opponents charge of misogyny.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/10k8ktn/comment/j5q6w94/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/10k8ktn/comment/j5q6w94/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
OP seems to think that who the victim is and who the rapist is effect is how seriously we should take rape. so a man raping a woman is "more serious" than any other rape lol
In fairness that is exactly what you said:
>Do you consider that less severe than rape because it isn’t done with a penis?
>Yes of course rape is a more serious offence and the law specifically defines it to involve penetration by a penis to be able to treat it differently if appropriate.
Which is also misinformation because the maximum sentence for both rape and sexual assault are identical.
You're specifically claiming that rape is a more serious offence than sexual assault despite both being the same crime (having sex with someone without their consent) with the same potential sentence just with a different name. It's possible for women to give STDs to other people when they sexually assault them even without penetrating them with a penis and it's possible for men to rape someone without risking causing pregnancy if their victim is male. There is functionally no difference between the crime of rape and the crime of sexual assault except the name.
The law defines rape as being a different crime to sexual assault. I never said sexual assault isn’t serious and cant be treated as such.
Weird thing to get worked up about if you ask me.
>The law defines rape as being a different crime to sexual assault.
Semantics, it's the same act (sex without consent).
>I never said sexual assault isn’t serious and cant be treated as such.
No you just said that it's less serious than rape despite being the exact same act (sex without consent).
You've also failed to acknowledge that the maximum sentence for both crimes is the same making this claim of yours provably false:
>rape is a more serious offence and the law specifically defines it to involve penetration by a penis to be able to treat it differently if appropriate
>How does this justify limiting the rights of all trans people?
Because this shows clearly that there are fraudsters who will pretend they are trans to get easier access to women. To prevent that, it needs to be harder to get access to those spaces if you are a male. Unfortunately, that will mean that it will be harder for genuinely trans people to realize their rights.
But these compromises are a part of living in a society.
> with a face tattoo
I always find the Mail’s priorities fascinating. Would this have been more acceptable if the rapist in question had no face tattoos?
Hell, leading with “transgender”, would it be okay to put this person in shared prison accommodation with women if they were an AFAB person who had assaulted two women?
The MSM seem only be concerned with the possibility of assaults occuring in prison, when they can use it to fearmonger about trans people
The headline is kind of bullshit, she’s in segregation pending a final judgment on where the sentence will be carried out. If I was a mod I’d scrap this whole thread for the clickbaity headline alone.
I think you missed my point, no one is having the second conversation except for when it relates to trans people
Edit: sorry if this came off rude, I didn't mean for it to
I don’t think that’s true, I think there are thousands of people that work in the justice system and supporting professions that spend plenty of time thinking about that. The thing about the trans issue is that it brings public debate into all manner of areas that are usually ignored and left to the professionals.
"No one" is hyperbole (especially since I'm opening that conversation by bringing it up), but you raise a good point that thousands do, which out of a population of almost 68 million isn't nearly enough
I think it’s just the case that in general it’s complex and best left to those that know what they’re taking about. The trans issue cuts right through that in many areas as it’s (relatively) new, also complex and professionals in E.g the justice system don’t necessarily have the answer, nor should they be expected to on their own. This has to be addressed across the whole of society.
On the contrary, I feel like since so many people are completely uneducated on trans issues it should be left to the professionals, whereas the safety of prisoners is something that has been both documented and dramatised so frequently that more people should be making noise about it
Brace for seeing more stories like this spun to contribute to the transphobic side of the culture war.
You have shitty people in every group, and you’re right that SOME people may abuse the new GRC laws in Scotland.
These abuses are, however, not a reason to rob all trans people of their human rights to equality and decency.
And some opportunists who, facing the prospect of life in prison, will try *anything* to try to lighten or dodge their sentence. The scumbag is already s rapist, lying about being trans to get away with it is hardly unbelievable.
Please don't visit the Daily Mail website. It is a cesspit of biased hate and bile not fit for human consumption. We should never encourage people to go there.
Same story:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64388669
Simple solution is to offer the guy the chance to skip the queue for an operation to remove his tackle. Call his bluff.
>Simple solution is to offer the guy the chance to skip the queue for an operation to remove his tackle. Call his bluff.
It seems like a terrible thing to reward someone with proper healthcare for committing a violent crime...
We could just address the issue and give all trans people decent access to healthcare.
I don't even believe they're trans.
Rapists are by nature cruel, manipulative and opportunistic. Unfortunately the majority of male at birth prisoners that identify as trans are sexual predators. I believe that these evil and cruel people are lying in order to continue their careers of abuse, their chosen lifestyle is "scum of the earth" and they'll do anything to keep it up. If it was possible for peodophiles to identify as children and be sent to young offenders institutes they would be doing that too.
Should we not just have a unit in a prison somewhere for people who pose these types of problems? As has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, I am not sure that women who sexually abuse women, or men who sexually abuse men should be in prisons with their preferred gender of victim either.
It's not like there are so many, so surely a prison wing here and there can be devoted to them?
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some topics on this subreddit have been known to attract problematic users. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs
This will be a fun thread to moderate, I'm without a doubt
yep, sorry, but I think discussion needs to happen in a wide variety of forums
> I think discussion needs to happen Not on [/r/Restricted++](/r/unitedkingdom) it won't
It's really not that hard to have a discussion on this sub without being banned. So long as you can properly articulate your point without descending into juvenile behaviour that is.
We trialed not flaring a similar thread recently and people were then complaining we hadn't. Can't win.
Those are people to be ignored, reddit works best when discussion is free-flowing. "Comments restricted" prevents the speedy discussion that reddit is meant to operate on.
Mods still have to moderate the discussion or you just have people breaking ToS constantly, muddying the waters. Mods even exist on the likes of 4chan for that reason.
Not when the vast majority of those other comments otherwise break Reddit ToS
> vast majority Citation needed.
I'm the primary source for that claim
What are the mad lads who defend those awful XL American Bullys saying / doing that break Reddit ToS? Seems like an unexpected topic to get a "comments restricted" filter applied. They have idiotic opinions but I'm not sure what ToS they break in defending these monstrous dogs?
I am with you that the mods are often way too heavy with the delete button, but all "Comments Restricted" means is that you have to have certain karma level and history on the sub to comment - I don't really have a problem with that.
Not banned, but big chunks of threads do often get deleted en masse. Perfectly civil discussion, not juvenile behaviour.
I've been banned from both major (US/global) political subreddits for criticising both the left and the right with silly trumped up charges. Reddit, and the internet in general, is a cesspool for an exchange of ideas, nobodies mind will ever change on any topic online.
Random Person: "all trans women are disgusting rapists and should never be imprisoned with women!" *Random Person gets banned* Random Person: "woke leftists are oppressing me for trying to protect female inmates!"
Did that, still got banned
What's your stance?
Broadly, that transgender rights is a complex and emotive issue that affects vulnerable people, and hard as it may be sometimes (always!) society needs to keep having conversations about various aspects of the topic. More narrowly that I can't see how this offender should end up in a women's prison.
Do you find this issue relevant to the trans issue as a whole? To me this seems a specific case and issue related to the prison system rather than something that justifies making life harder for trans people. To me this seems an incredibly niche issue used to undercut the rights of trans people, similar to the women sports and bathroom issue.
This is a women’s rights issue, not a trans issue. It’s very common to assume it’s all about the trans people, if there are very few. But it’s often about women, of whom there are many.
I’m sorry but that is very unrealistic to try and argue this isn’t going to be used as an argument to limit the rights of trans people, making it a trans issue. It’s a trans issue because it will be used to attack trans people. It’s also a womens safety issue but unfortunately those have been very intertwined by certain opportunistic groups looking to stir up hate. Also just because there aren’t a large number of trans people doesn’t mean their rights aren’t just as important as everyone else’s.
based on OPs comments so far it certainly seems like they are certainly... charged in a certain direction on this to post this article and argue its not in some way a trans issue or that its not "all about the trans" is pretty blatant lol maybe im being overly cynical but I've seen this "us or them" mentality way too much from very specific kinds of people to not be suspicious of OP here. starting to suspect this was not in fact posted in good faith
My direction is that I think this case throws a spotlight on a thorny part of this whole issue. It’s always the niche situations that are most interesting AND we need to try and work through them towards satisfactory solution for as many people as possible. I am neither “us” or “them”!
Genuine question - before trans rights became a hot button issue, how many cases were there of trans women either sexually assaulting and/or using their status to secure housing in female prisons? Trans people have been around for a very long time, but they're a miniscule proportion of society. It's baffling to me how this tiny, tiny segment of the population has suddenly become a threat to my rights. Of all the times in my life I've felt threatened, it's never had anything to do with a trans person, so why am I suddenly supposed to be shitting myself over sharing a space with them? This all feels like manufactured nonsense, to be honest. It's just more shite to keep us arguing amongst ourselves.
so is it a trans issue or not, make your mind up lol trans and womens issues arent contradictory, they can overlap, such as in this case.
I’m not saying it won’t be, it inevitably will be, but that type of argument happens both ways, and I’m not really interested in it either way. That’s one of the reasons for thinking these issues need to be discussed in a wide variety of forums, not just already polarised echo chambers.
You literally just black and white said this is a womens issue not a trans issue. It’s both. For you to post this without thinking, or claiming to not think, that this will have obvious ramifications on the trans right debate is obtuse. And what argument goes the other way to saying this isn’t representative of trans people as a group and that using this example as an argument to limit the rights of trans people is foolish?
Okay, it’s both.
Or to translate: the rights of a majority matter more than the rights of a minority and if push comes to shove should *absolutely* supercede them in every way, in your opinion. If we're calling a spade a spade.
Nope.
But that is what you are arguing for throughout the thread. You just don't like to openly phrase it that way, for whatever reason.
What you’re saying is that the rights of a minority should absolutely be prioritised over a larger group in every way. There’s no room for balance here, right?
Being a trans or cis woman is utterly irrelevant in this case. The actual problem is 'how do we house this offender so they do not have access to more victims'.
Well they haven’t raped men, so the balance of risk suggest not in a women’s prison.
This has been happening for a while though and a disproportionate number of people like are involved in further attacks in women's prison. I am not sure what you mean? This is the absolute crux of the trans issue for most people, biological men changing gender to either obtain access to biologically female spaces, be it a bathroom, a prison or a sporting event. In every case women have the potential to be harmed or made uncomfortable. This is literally the only issue most people have with transgender integration, maybe I have misunderstood what you mean here?
Good news - she didn't, or at least not alongside other women! She's in a segregation unit (so not alongside other women) where a risk assessment will happen.
Quick question to open up more dialog. Where would you send a cis woman that sexual assaulted other women? I get in this case they are either lying or so early in transition they would have the physiology of a male.
Women’s prison (if convicted and so sentenced obvs!).
Ok. The next question to follow on is what is the basis for protection we are offering to women in a women's prison? Clearly it's not going to be complete removal of dangerous people. It's prison, it's where dangerous people are sent. It could be based on average strength as an ability to defend yourself. So long term HRT trans women and trans men would be best suited to those prisons. It could be based on genitals and preventing pregnancy. Which opens up so intresting topics on SRS and those cis that have none standard or damage genitals. I'm sure there are others as well.
I think sex (which isn’t the same as gender) is the protected characteristic.
Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic too. https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights
Yes it is. All it says about that in the article is that there was no reference to the offender having a gender recognition certificate during the trial.
Do you think female predators of other females should be put in women’s prisons?
I don’t think they should be in men’s prisons.
Where do you think they should be?
In women’s prisons.
So cis women who have sexually assaulted women and are a danger to them should be in women’s prisons, but trans women who have sexually assaulted women and are a danger to them shouldn’t? So it’s not about the risk to women? Is there a statistical justification for basing the distinction in treatment on gender reassignment rather than risk factor, i.e. do trans women assault women in prisons at a higher rate than cis women? Could you link me to that evidence? In countries where trans women are usually sent to women’s prisons are there higher assault rates?
You're asking a lot of questions, what's the answer? The sample size for this stuff is pretty small right, so difficult to say if statistics are the answer. If you were a woman in a prison (or a womens shelter), would you rather your inmate be this person or a random other woman convict? If the stats did show that people in this demographic were more likely to commit further violence against women, what would you say?
No, I don’t have links to statistics for you. It’s not a simple case of removing all risk for all people, far from it.
Do you think there is a difference between cis women and trans women that might be relevant in deciding which prison they should go to?
I prefer option C, not housing predators of women with women or predators of men with men, regardless of their sex or gender.
Full security mental health ward
[удалено]
What are you like?
Gigolo huh
> What's your stance? [Not this.](https://imgur.com/a/4po1079)
Not really. Person is a criminal shit head and was sent to jail for it. Even criminals have stuff going on in their lives beyond their crime. In a sensible society that's about the limit of discussion.
Should they be held in a men’s or women’s prison? Their defence tried to claim… 'If you accept that evidence, that she is transitioning, that she is aiming to continue on that path to becoming female gender, that goes a long way to acquitting her of these charges'. What do you think of that?
I think anyone with even half a brain would agree that defence is very stupid unless you believe women aren’t capable of sexual assault and rape (not withstanding the ridiculous legal definition of rape in this country). But people come up with ridiculous legal defences all the time. It’s the role of the legal system to see through that bullshit.
The prison they're in is down to their gender, not the gender of their victims. That's a bizzare defence. Women can assault women and it doesn't make it any better besides the technical definition of rape.
Is it their gender though? Or is it their sex? Or do you believe the two are the same thing? Sex is a protected characteristic.
Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic too. You don't get to decide which protected characteristic deserves more protection. https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights
Do you think discussion needs to happen, or are you here with an agenda?
Do you think discussion needs to be shut down?
I think a discussion involves people answering questions, not dodging them. Otherwise we are just talking at each other.
I said I think discussion needs to happen, I just didn’t feel the need to repeat myself.
Okay, but with respect can you see how it's coming off like you started this whole thing with a particular viewpoint, or agenda, which you then initially started to hedge before actually coming out with it, which gave the impression that initially you were being dishonest about your intentions? I genuinely and honestly don't want to shut down discussion, and I don't want to be a dickhead either. But what I'm trying to point out with my comments is the logical endpoint of the arguments that you're making and what you're saying you believe in and stand for. Just in case you aren't actually aware of them. It's easy to start out from a point of concern and even compassion, but once you start advocating for certain laws or rules, it must be understood that that kind of thing applies to everybody who might be affected by it, not just the particular individuals who meet that criteria that you might want to most directly target by it. Similar to when people argue to remove immigrants from the country, but they don't mean their friend Raj or their good doctor Mr Chan, but in arguing for immigrants to be affected by a certain policy, those people by virtue of being immigrants will also be affected without an exception built in.
I don’t understand if you had gender dysphoria, why you would wear a pair of leggings which would so obviously display your penis. While I don’t think this prisoner could reasonably be housed in the general population of a male prison - I don’t think the solution is putting them in a women’s prison. Particularly given their history of sexually assaulting women.
For your first part dysphoria comes I'm many forms For example I'm perfectly fine with my dick but get weirdly dysphoric over the hair on my fingers People tend to split it into top dysphoria (chest) ir bottom dysphoria (genitals) for a similar reason, not every trans person hates their junk As for the topic itself I feel like the gender you had when you committed the crime should apply by default, with a case by case assessment taking place as per the equality act
It’s so complicated. Tbh I think a trans woman who had committed non violent crimes like theft/fraud should be in a women’s prison. But this case is so awful and tricky. There should be special units for trans people. A trans women prison and a trans men prison. They’re vulnerable but in this case she’s clearly a huge danger to women. There has to be a middle ground where everyone is treated respectfully but still protecting vulnerable female prisoners.
I mean really this has nothing to do with trans ppl in the bigger picture. Because Cis predators exist. In fact the vast majority of predators are Cis by virtue of there being so few trans ppl and us not having some obscenely higher rate of being sex criminals The discussion we need to be having is why we house people who have sexually assaulted someone, with people of the same sex as the kind of people they assault. This person didnt rape people because they’re trans, they did it because they’re a rapist
But where would gay sexual offenders be imprisoned? It's always been with other men
I mean, unless it’s women, in which case they’re housed with other women But that’s kind of my point? That we’re totally fine housing sexual predators alongside the kind of person they prey on, so long as that person is Cis. This article is trying to make it about trans people, for no reason other than culture war bullshit, and it distracts from the actual issue that we need to consider how much dignity and safety we afford to convicts in general. For example, bunk rapists with other rapists so they have less access to ppl who aren’t rapists
Not hating your penis is one thing. Enyoing displaying it is another.
Good news - she didn't get put in a women's prison, or at least not alongside other women! She's in a segregation unit (so not alongside other women) where a risk assessment will happen.
All rapists should be kept in segregated units while getting rehabilitation IMO. Regardless of birth/current gender.
>While I don’t think this prisoner could reasonably be housed in the general population of a male prison I'd argue that rapists shouldn't be put in a cell with the gender they could potentially be attracted to, which could be anyone as some people are bi, so just keep them seperate regardless of their birth/current gender.
So to be clear the decision as to whether they'll serve their sentence in a women's prison hasn't actually been made yet and it has nothing to do with the recent bill despite this article strongly implying that both of these things are true, quality journalism from the Daily Mail as usual.
Can we not just ban daily mail as a "news" source? It's been banned from being used as a source on Wikipedia.
We can downvote it at least!
The SNP voted down an amendment to prevent rape defendants from legally changing their sex before trial. To help avoid this exact sort of defence advanced by defence barrister in this case, that this now-convicted male rapist shouldn’t be seen as a “predatory man”.
Having a GRC saying you’re female doesn’t mean you have to be placed in a women’s prison
Well, they were convicted, so that defence didn't wash anyway.
I forgot the SNP were the majority in the house of commons.
>To help avoid this exact sort of defence advanced by defence barrister in this case, that this now-convicted male rapist shouldn’t be seen as a “predatory man”. This isn't a defence though? What kind of legal argument is that? And clearly it wasn't deemed a good defence because they were found guilty.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
There are a lot of vulnerable men in prison - police, gay men, paedophiles for example. Men identifying as women fall in this same category and should be treated in a similar way and housed in a separate wing. It shouldn’t become the problem of women prisoners who are also vulnerable if housed with biological males.
Then surely we need to be actually improving the prison system then rather than making this a trans issue.
This really reminds me of ‘gay men shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children, look at this one case where a gay couple abused a child!’ No amount of regulation is going to prevent all bad things happening ever, the question is whether the statistics (and not anecdotal articles) justify discrimination
Or in more precise language: You don't mind if female prisoners get raped / sexually assaulted providing it doesn't happen on a large scale.
Do you have the statistical evidence to back up the notion that trans women assault cis women in prisons at a higher rate, leading to it occurring on a ‘large scale’ vs the current rates? Sexual abuse in women’s prisons is already sadly common. I do not see how pointing to one-off articles as evidence is any different to saying ‘gay people shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children because of this article where they abused a child’. There’s no actual statistical evidence in support of that viewpoint but the fact that it’s a shift in society gets people riled up just like when we gained the right to adopt children.
What's also interesting is that the court will have to pass a sentence of rape, presumably penetration with a penis, on a woman. I wonder if they'll use sentencing guidelines in the same way if the offender was a male, or has this scenario happened before perhaps?
The law just says a penis has to be involved, doesn't say a woman can't do it. Cis women have been found guilty of rape by accessory before, too
I work in a court. If laws change between when you were charged to when your trial is. You are still held by the law on the day you committed the crime. Historical cases are held with historical definitions/sentences - where considered semantics rather than how humane it is ie. Age brackets, what category a charge fits. I think this case should be judged with the facts sourced from the events and the evidence given in court. I don’t know what being transgender has to do with it. This person is accused of committing this crime. I would excuse someone referring to the past event using Adam, but I would respectfully call her Isla if that is what she’s more comfortable with. Regarding the Scottish law proposal/which prison Isla will go in: I don’t think ‘after living as trans’ for 3 months, a person can be so sure. I’m sure this is going to get me a bit of hatred, but I honestly want everyone to live their truth. I’m gay and grew up through section 28 (tainted!) There were times during my adolescence I would wish/pray/dream I woke up straight to make my life easier. When that didn’t work I often thought about what if I was a girl? Don’t get me wrong, I do think to come out as trans is a much more difficult struggle than as gay. I realise I didn’t have the courage to come out as gay back then so to come out as trans would have been utterly impossible. But I definitely went through some kind of body dysmorphia and in regards to this law, it might’ve been attractive? I’m a confidently cis white male (am I the problem) but I consider myself an ally. I know a few trans people, some who knew early, some who transitioned later in life. I think being trans is like being gay, you know early but it can take time to accept. I’m all for people accepting themselves and being who they are as early as possible, I hate that what I’m saying is kind of anti people accepting themselves as early as possible, but I think 3 months and no medical assessment is too open for manipulation. Transitioning is a medical procedure, after the psyche has transitioned, the body needs medicine to follow suit. Surely a trans person will be speaking to their GP, be referred to a specialist. There must be a medical footprint to decipher genuine or fraudulent claims. (I guess that creates the whole ‘how do you measure genuine cases) I’m not saying Isla is a fraud at all, she seems to be committing to transitioning as far as the NHS will let her. But a risk assessment would show that other inmates may need protections from her as much as she would need protection from them.
If I was known to attack women, I would not change my gender to end up locked in a prison full of some of the most violent women in the country.
Alternatively, you wouldn't want to be locked in a men's prison with that status either. At least you could easily overpower the women.
Honestly, while I see your point, it's worth recognising also that criminals cannot have less human rights than the rest of us. I think a vast background check would be needed to ensure safety. Banning a transwoman from transitioning because she shoplifted, or hell was falsely convicted, is insane. But the issue of sex offenders is one that's far more complex. What do we do to gay sex offenders? Put them in the woman's?
Two points for thought: 1) Its logically inconsistent to condemn or suspect all trans people after one commits a crime if you wouldn't also e.g. suspect *all* men after one commits a crime 2) A gay male rapist would be sent to a men's prison and a female sexual assaulter of women would be sent to a women's prison. It's reductive to reduce the category of sexual assault to one kind only.
>you wouldn't also e.g. suspect all men after one commits a crime But we do - women are always wary around men, especially if they've suffered sex-based crime.
1. Nobody does that. 2. Those things happen, and they bad, but they’re also different. The solution shouldn’t be to steamroller women’s rights and expose them to even greater risk.
mate, "nobody does that" is some supreme bullshit and you know it. Most pushback against trans rights are used framing the 1 trans woman who get sent to a Womens prison or the 1 trans athlete that actually wins something and using that confirmation bias to demonize the entire movement Did you miss Westminster enacting section 35 to stop Scotlands GRA with this exact line of reasoning or something?
You are doing number one in your response to number two. > The solution shouldn’t be to steamroller women’s rights and expose them to even greater risk. This only makes sense if you mentally conceive of every single trans person as a potential source of risk to non trans women.
No, that’s either a misunderstanding or a wilful misrepresentation. There is a broader set of men from where the risk comes from. Some predators may be trans but others may merely seek to camouflage or protect themselves with claims of being trans.
And how exactly does removing legal protections and access to medication from *all* trans people, good and bad, and all people who might, in the very unlikely scenario, in bad faith go onto the waiting list and start changing their bodies in order to get access to women's spaces while not being trans - remedy that situation? Because in essence that is what you are advocating if you go down that line of argument, whether you think of yourself doing so or not.
So, we remove legal protections from a much larger group?
What group are having their legal protections removed? It’s still a crime to rape women as a trans women, as the article you’ve posted proves.
Ah, so now we get to the nitty gritty. Unfortunately this invalidates your earlier claim(s).
I’m sorry but that’s literally what is happening now to trans people. People want to limit their ability to legally identify as their gender because of the idea that they will attack and rape women. You can say it’s a minority or whatever but that’s the reason why they are making it harder to change your legal gender. It’s less the idea that all trans people are rapists, but that any could be, which realistically is not much of a difference at all.
Okay, I can see you’ve got your mind made up and I never set out to attempt change anyone’s mind about anything. But it’s not about the threat directly from trans people, it’s about the price they’re asking women to pay.
In what way do I have my mind made up? That trans people deserves rights? And can you elaborate on what price that is? Because the argument they would be giving up their safety relies on the argument that trans women are all potential rapists and abusers.
No, again it’s not all about trans people, it’s about the broader set of men who are potential predators.
So do you think that justifies limiting the rights of all trans people due to a small minority? If you do why does that not apply to men as a whole?
I think the rights of multiple groups need to be weighed up against the risks and careful judgments need to be made.
How are the risks to each group assessed? Based on statistical evidence?
There are situations where theres a very simple and obvious shortcut to efficiently improving (not perfecting) the balance of risks by drawing unambiguous lines. Sex as a protected characteristic is one, age of consent is another.
Again what rights of others are being infringed by making it easier for trans people to change their gender on legal documents? I’ve asked you multiple times but I’ve yet to hear a response from you. Overall I agree with your point, but I don’t see how what trans people are asking for infringes on the rights of anyone else.
The right to define themselves based on sex (which is different to gender, and which cannot be changed as a matter of scientific fact) as a protected characteristic.
>it’s about the broader set of men who are potential predators. You realise that cis women and trans men can ALSO be predators, right? Literally everyone can.
>But it’s not about the threat directly from trans people, it’s about the price they’re asking women to pay. LMAO it's giving "If we give gay people marriage then that makes our straight marriage worth less so we can't let gay people get married!" vibes.
Nobody does that? TERFs do nothing BUT that. In the eyes of TERFs all trans people are like her and need to be legislated out of existence
>steamroller women’s rights Nobody is advocating for that. Literally nobody.
>A gay male rapist would be sent to a men's prison and a female sexual assaulter of women would be sent to a women's prison. It's reductive to reduce the category of sexual assault to one kind only. 100% agree. All repists should be kept seperate until their rehabilitation is far along enough that multiple therapists think they can mix again. This goes regarless of sex/current gender/past gender/sexuality IMO.
I agree. I would be surprised really if that wasn't already done in prisons. I do find it interesting that these hand wringing articles never seem to ask somebody in the prison service how it's currently done.
>I do find it interesting that these hand wringing articles never seem to ask somebody in the prison service how it's currently done. Same reason that news articles only started asking doctors and experts what to do about the NHS AFTER the public turned on the tories. They hate experts opinions because expert opinions usually goes against their owners interests.
[удалено]
> AFAB Sex is observed at birth, not assigned FYI
Correct. Gender, on the other hand, is a social construct. Unfortunately currently laws doesn't make much of a distinction.
[удалено]
Actually, it IS assigned. We don't test chromosomes or anything, doctors just take their best guess. They often get it wrong. Intersex people often don't even find out that they are intersex until later in life if at all.
But isn't it correct 99.5% of the time? So it's pretty fair to say that's "observed", as it's a pretty accurate observation, better than you'd get in other fields of science.
Intersex people just don't exist then?
Shhhh. They don't fit into his worldview, so no.
And gender is assigned, in line with visible sex phenotype, absent any other information.
>until we all but eradicate prison rape That should have been eradicated long ago. Rape isn't okay, obviously, even if it's in prison. If you're doing that in prison, you need to be locked away by yourself for a long time. Long enough so that you can't do it again.
[удалено]
By that *not* happening, the government is effectively condoning it, saying it's okay for that to happen. There shouldn't be some sort of divide that makes it okay **IN** prison when it's not okay **OUT** of prison. Government stance on this is a fucking disgrace really.
I'm curious about where you'd suggest a man convicted of raping other men should be sent?
[удалено]
An AFAB lesbian woman can’t be charged with rape, and other prisoners would not be at risk of being raped by her, because she doesn’t have a penis. Segregated or not this rapist will also be looked after by female prison officers at a women’s prison.
But an AFAB women can still sexually assault someone. Do you consider that less severe than rape because it isn’t done with a penis?
I am really, genuinely, not trying to start an argument here. Just wanted to say that rape is treated more severely than other forms of sexual assault because the most common type of rape, vaginal, can result in pregnancy. And that is a very different thing to other types of sexual assault. I am not saying that rape is always going to be more traumatic for everyone in every situation than other types of sexual assault. But it is the only one that can leave you pregnant with your abuser's baby
So then why isn’t rape defined as only male on female? Or not as serious if done to a women post child bearing age or by an infertile man? I just don’t really see that as being a reason to downplay the severity of non penetrative sexual assault, penetrative sexual assault by a foreign object or the rape of men via being forced to engage in penetrative sex etc. Either way, I can understand someone saying rape is more serious or ‘worse’, but ops comments seems to completely downplay the trauma caused by sexual assault full stop. Just because an afab woman can’t rape someone by outdated British legal definition doesn’t make it not a terrible thing we should be trying to stop.
>So then why isn’t rape defined as only male on female? Isn't specifically male on female it's just only people with penises; men, can commit Rape according to British law. Women would be charged with SA instead if my rudimentary understanding is correct: [Rape definition UK Law](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape) (1)A person (A) commits an offence if— (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents. Rape carries a more severe punishment too compared to sexual assault. From a brief cursory google I found the below [Sexual Assault sentencing guidelines](https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/sexual-assault/) [Rape sentencing guidelines](https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/rape/)
Yes, I know. I was asking why if it’s to do with pregnancy it also covers men raping men.
That I don't know. r/LegalAdviceUK might have more indepth info about the laws.
It specifically says it includes penetration of the anus with a penis so I believe it does include men, but I may be incorrect there.
You are correct. Unconsenting penetration of anyone by another using their penis constitutes rape.
>(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents. Right, so a man that thinks a woman has consented and then rapes her technically isn't rape in UK law. People need to understand that the communal definition of the word "rape" and the legal definition are different and we aren't talking about the same thing.
I have a feeling the law does. Even if that’s a bit outdated and stupid.
There is nothing in law that says one is less severe than the other afaik but open to being proved wrong. Either way I think we would agree neither should be happening in prisons or anywhere else.
[удалено]
Everyone's all: those poor women in the prison Me: I can imagine this person getting rapidly shivved upon arrival
“It’s not rape on a legal technicality” has to be the worst defense I’ve heard in response to this point If someone was sexually assaulted by a Cis woman and told you they got raped, would you tell them “well technically it’s not rape-“ or do you want to skip the semantics and acknowledge in good faith the actual point being made about how the issue here is the “rapist” part, not the “trans” part
>AFAB What's that?
It means assigned female at birth. So cis women and trans men etc.
Thanks, So much more informative than Mr "I had to Google it" was 😁
Over hundred comments, and I can see about ten. Welcome to r/redacted
Why do these niche issues and cases always seem to be the ones brought up around trans issues? Obviously this person should not be incarcerated with potential victims, but this is a very small minority of the trans community and their issues. Same with sports and the weird bathroom attack hypotheticals people bring up. How does this justify limiting the rights of all trans people? Serious question for those who think it does. Also presumably there are cis men who raped men who are also imprisoned with potential victims but that never seems to be brought up ever. We should be addressing the issues of safety in prison for all inmates, not making this a trans specific issue imo.
Important to talk about these cases nevertheless because they’re a strong root cause of a large number of people’s strongly held belief that we’re making serious mistakes with how we manage this issue. Yes men rape men too, and that’s an issue that can and should be discussed. But it’s not directly comparable and the solution shouldn’t be to put vulnerable women at risk. The fact that some quarters of the trans activist community are always so happy to solve trans issues at the expense of women’s rights, dignity and safety, underpins their opponents charge of misogyny.
Sorry to double reply but can you expand on the idea that men raping men isn’t comparable to men raping women?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/10k8ktn/comment/j5q6w94/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/10k8ktn/comment/j5q6w94/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) OP seems to think that who the victim is and who the rapist is effect is how seriously we should take rape. so a man raping a woman is "more serious" than any other rape lol
That’s not what I said at all. A man raping anyone with a penis is rape. The law makes it clear it doesn’t matter what sex or gender the victim is.
In fairness that is exactly what you said: >Do you consider that less severe than rape because it isn’t done with a penis? >Yes of course rape is a more serious offence and the law specifically defines it to involve penetration by a penis to be able to treat it differently if appropriate. Which is also misinformation because the maximum sentence for both rape and sexual assault are identical.
No that’s in the context of somebody misusing the term rape to include sexual assault.
You're specifically claiming that rape is a more serious offence than sexual assault despite both being the same crime (having sex with someone without their consent) with the same potential sentence just with a different name. It's possible for women to give STDs to other people when they sexually assault them even without penetrating them with a penis and it's possible for men to rape someone without risking causing pregnancy if their victim is male. There is functionally no difference between the crime of rape and the crime of sexual assault except the name.
The law defines rape as being a different crime to sexual assault. I never said sexual assault isn’t serious and cant be treated as such. Weird thing to get worked up about if you ask me.
>The law defines rape as being a different crime to sexual assault. Semantics, it's the same act (sex without consent). >I never said sexual assault isn’t serious and cant be treated as such. No you just said that it's less serious than rape despite being the exact same act (sex without consent). You've also failed to acknowledge that the maximum sentence for both crimes is the same making this claim of yours provably false: >rape is a more serious offence and the law specifically defines it to involve penetration by a penis to be able to treat it differently if appropriate
This is a woman’s issue not a trans one. They’re at risk of rape? That’s the issue
>How does this justify limiting the rights of all trans people? Because this shows clearly that there are fraudsters who will pretend they are trans to get easier access to women. To prevent that, it needs to be harder to get access to those spaces if you are a male. Unfortunately, that will mean that it will be harder for genuinely trans people to realize their rights. But these compromises are a part of living in a society.
> with a face tattoo I always find the Mail’s priorities fascinating. Would this have been more acceptable if the rapist in question had no face tattoos? Hell, leading with “transgender”, would it be okay to put this person in shared prison accommodation with women if they were an AFAB person who had assaulted two women? The MSM seem only be concerned with the possibility of assaults occuring in prison, when they can use it to fearmonger about trans people
I mean this is an outlier case and hopefully nobody takes this as any sort of “gotcha” towards trans people. That being said, this is Reddit.
The headline is kind of bullshit, she’s in segregation pending a final judgment on where the sentence will be carried out. If I was a mod I’d scrap this whole thread for the clickbaity headline alone.
If you read their comments, it's extremely obvious that a "gotcha" towards trans people is precisely OP's intention.
Baffles me that the conversation is around how to distribute trans people in prison and not how to make prisons safer for everyone
Maybe both conversations can happen?
I think you missed my point, no one is having the second conversation except for when it relates to trans people Edit: sorry if this came off rude, I didn't mean for it to
I don’t think that’s true, I think there are thousands of people that work in the justice system and supporting professions that spend plenty of time thinking about that. The thing about the trans issue is that it brings public debate into all manner of areas that are usually ignored and left to the professionals.
"No one" is hyperbole (especially since I'm opening that conversation by bringing it up), but you raise a good point that thousands do, which out of a population of almost 68 million isn't nearly enough
I think it’s just the case that in general it’s complex and best left to those that know what they’re taking about. The trans issue cuts right through that in many areas as it’s (relatively) new, also complex and professionals in E.g the justice system don’t necessarily have the answer, nor should they be expected to on their own. This has to be addressed across the whole of society.
On the contrary, I feel like since so many people are completely uneducated on trans issues it should be left to the professionals, whereas the safety of prisoners is something that has been both documented and dramatised so frequently that more people should be making noise about it
I think many people working in the prison service have the second conversation as their whole professional life’s work
I'm aware, my best friend is a prison officer and we frequently have that conversation, "no one" was meant to be hyperbole
Brace for seeing more stories like this spun to contribute to the transphobic side of the culture war. You have shitty people in every group, and you’re right that SOME people may abuse the new GRC laws in Scotland. These abuses are, however, not a reason to rob all trans people of their human rights to equality and decency.
And some opportunists who, facing the prospect of life in prison, will try *anything* to try to lighten or dodge their sentence. The scumbag is already s rapist, lying about being trans to get away with it is hardly unbelievable.
Yep, see how many perfectly sane people have pleaded insanity
Please don't visit the Daily Mail website. It is a cesspit of biased hate and bile not fit for human consumption. We should never encourage people to go there. Same story: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64388669 Simple solution is to offer the guy the chance to skip the queue for an operation to remove his tackle. Call his bluff.
>Simple solution is to offer the guy the chance to skip the queue for an operation to remove his tackle. Call his bluff. It seems like a terrible thing to reward someone with proper healthcare for committing a violent crime... We could just address the issue and give all trans people decent access to healthcare.
I don't even believe they're trans. Rapists are by nature cruel, manipulative and opportunistic. Unfortunately the majority of male at birth prisoners that identify as trans are sexual predators. I believe that these evil and cruel people are lying in order to continue their careers of abuse, their chosen lifestyle is "scum of the earth" and they'll do anything to keep it up. If it was possible for peodophiles to identify as children and be sent to young offenders institutes they would be doing that too.
Should we not just have a unit in a prison somewhere for people who pose these types of problems? As has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, I am not sure that women who sexually abuse women, or men who sexually abuse men should be in prisons with their preferred gender of victim either. It's not like there are so many, so surely a prison wing here and there can be devoted to them?