J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

Delaney Nice Salesclerk

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

We don’t have segregated toilets in our house.

I don't doubt that for a moment. I'd say you probably would wear it like a badge of honour if you had a pangender intersex amorphous being... Toilets would be the last thing you'd be concerned about. I'd imagine none of you identify as being full of ****...

Gruffalux

FVP3 wrote: »

Yeh, most people don't because toilets are mostly single use in houses, not multiple occupancy.

What! The toilet in your house is not open to the public! Now I have heard the worst.

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

So you want disabled toilets to have a trans one, a female one and a male one?

Our very own Cathy Newman. 'So what your saying is...'

FVP3

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

So you want disabled toilets to have a trans one, a female one and a male one?

Are you sure you are not trolling the pro trans position?

Gruffalux

FVP3 wrote: »

Are you sure you are not trolling the pro trans position?

He has been having a laugh all afternoon painting himself as the most sensational swinger in the village. I kinda like the image though, a louche sixties leftover with shirt unbuttoned to the belt and a medallion nesting on a virile chest. Probably says groovy a lot. And hey man. But I do too...so theres that.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

FVP3 wrote: »

Are you sure you are not trolling the pro trans position?

There’s only one position in regards to human rights. And that is pro!

There’s a lot on this forum that are obviously used to the one position.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Gruffalox wrote: »

He has been having a laugh all afternoon painting himself as the most sensational swinger in the village. I kinda like the image though, a louche sixties leftover with shirt unbuttoned to the belt and a medallion nesting on a virile chest. Probably says groovy a lot. And hey man. But I do too...so theres that.

I don’t know if it’s the weather, the menopause or the thoughts of your hairy virile chest but I am moist














around the neck.

Gruffalux

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

I don’t know if it’s the weather, the menopause or the thoughts of your hairy virile chest but I am moist












around the neck.

Ohhhhhh... baby.

I think it's the weather. Fierce thundery.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

What! The toilet in your house is not open to the public! Now I have heard the worst.

The private/public toilets stuff is as silly as the housing prisoners stuff. In private dwellings of course one has every right to decide who has access to the facilities. Public places are just that - open to the public, and prisoners are housed in mixed and single sex facilities.

The central mental hospital where people who have committed serious violence were sent if they were found not guilty by reason of insanity - both sexes are housed in the facilities. They’re building a new facility because the old CMH building has been condemned as unfit for purpose since the 90’s.

Another poster mentioned earlier about the one prisoner who is housed in the women’s prison in Limerick, stating that women are vulnerable in prison, well yes, they are, by virtue of their being in prison with other women who are as dangerous as they are (and that’s not including the abuse by members of staff). The creation of separate facilities for prisoners who are transgender is just impractical.

What wasn’t mentioned in the article relating to the GRA is that the Minister for Social Protection also has it within their power to revoke a GRC, that has to be applied for in the first place and isn’t a matter as simple as someone self-declaring their preferred gender. Their claim would have no legal protection without a GRC -


Application for a gender recognition certificate

Revocation by Minister


What simply happens is the same as has always happened - each case is decided on its own merits. These decisions are not made by the public, they never were, so the idea that the public ever had a say in these decisions and should now get to decide the welfare of individuals who are transgender is as ridiculous as the idea that the public ever made decisions in the first place about the welfare of any individual in those circumstances, regardless of their gender or sex.

ceadaoin.

Im not going to quote massive wall of text posts but just want to point out that the vast majority of women in prison are there for non violent crimes and are not "dangerous" at all. Its ridiculous to suggest that a male sex offender presents just as much danger to them as the average female prisoner. The vast majority have also heen subjected to physical and sexual abuse at some point in their lives. They are extremely vulnerable.

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Im not going to quote massive wall of text posts but just want to point out that the vast majority of women in prison are there for non violent crimes. Its ridiculous to suggest that a male sex offender presents just as much danger to them as the average female prisoner. The vast majority have also heen subjected to physical and sexual abuse at some point in their lives. They are extremely vulnerable.

In prison it would be ridiculous to suggest that any prisoner presents as a danger to another prisoner if the staff are doing their jobs properly and the conditions weren’t shyte. What you’re saying is no different than pointing out that the vast majority of people who are transgender present no danger to women. The fact is that there are women who are dangerous in women’s prisons who would be just as likely to knock seven bells out of a sex offender as those in the male prison would, probably not if the sex offender was a woman though.

I never said btw that they aren’t vulnerable, but the idea that most of them have been the victims of sexual abuse and violence is neither here nor there, most people who have been victims of physical and sexual abuse and violence don’t engage in criminal behaviour that would have them see the inside of a prison cell in the first place.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In prison it would be ridiculous to suggest that any prisoner presents as a danger to another prisoner if the staff are doing their jobs properly and the conditions weren’t shyte. What you’re saying is no different than pointing out that the vast majority of people who are transgender present no danger to women. The fact is that there are women who are dangerous in women’s prisons who would be just as likely to knock seven bells out of a sex offender as those in the male prison would, probably not if the sex offender was a woman though.

I never said btw that they aren’t vulnerable, but the idea that most of them have been the victims of sexual abuse and violence is neither here nor there, most people who have been victims of physical and sexual abuse and violence don’t engage in criminal behaviour that would have them see the inside of a prison cell in the first place.

So why does our friend in Limerick need two prisoner officers with 'her' at all times? Likewise Karen White in Britain.

ceadaoin.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

So why does our friend in Limerick need two prisoner officers with 'her' at all times? Likewise Karen White in Britain.

We'll probably be told its to protect her from the other inmates. After all, womens prisons are chock full of violent female sex offenders according to some on here.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

So why does our friend in Limerick need two prisoner officers with 'her' at all times? Likewise Karen White in Britain.

To protect them from other inmates who would have ideas like the scissor sisters who would be only too happy to affirm the inmates preferred gender.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To protect them from other inmates who would have ideas like the scissor sisters who would be only too happy to affirm the inmates preferred gender.

:pac::pac::pac:

Slowyourrole

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Not all buildings have the space to create self-contained units. In those, sex-segregated spaces must be maintained.

It’s not even just about changing room and toilets. Prisons contain some of the most vulnerable women in society, something that middle class activists would probably never even consider. Here’s an interesting Law Soc article:

https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/male-bodied-transgender-inmate-housed-with-women-prisoners/

You're kind of missing the point though. When you look at prisons you should be asking how is anyone able to get raped at all? There is fundamentally something wrong there.Why shouldn't female and male prisoners be housed in the same prisons? Are there not supposed to be prison guards to stop the inmates hurting each other? Are there not policies for segregating the violent and dangerous prisoners? Sure, now we aren't in a position to house male and female together but instead of looking at why we should keep them apart, we should be looking at why we can't make it work. It's lazy as much as anything to just accept it couldn't work.

Gruffalox wrote: »

You described the third space when you described the single space. It is about practicalities. A self contained enclosed cubicle for all in single spaces would be grand if feasible - I said so earlier. Until it is feasible then the third space would also provide you an opportunity to avoid other mens dangly bits when not in the mood and also be a private space to look after oneself say if a woman was miscarrying or haemorrhaging.

Prisons need separate facilities. Sports needs separate competitions. Etc. It is not rocket science as I also said before - we do not have to hew these spaces out of rock with bone tools. Look at all the big changes for pandemic response - people are designing really innovative spaces for socially distancing in offices restaurants etc.
And.
We most certainly do not have to truthspeak on biological reality to facilitate ideology.

I would thing a properly designed single space would be cheaper and safer than a third space.

Girly Gal wrote: »

I once worked for a medium sized company with unisex toilets, all the toilets were in separate fully enclosed units with sink and hand dryer within each unit too.It was a little strange first, but, there was never any issues. The workforce would've been roughly 50:50 male, female and no it wasn't a very progressive PC company, it was probably just cheaper for the company instead of having a ladies & gents toilets.

A bit of imagination and innovation could sort a lot of these issues by making them moot.

Slowyourrole

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Im not going to quote massive wall of text posts but just want to point out that the vast majority of women in prison are there for non violent crimes and are not "dangerous" at all. Its ridiculous to suggest that a male sex offender presents just as much danger to them as the average female prisoner. The vast majority have also heen subjected to physical and sexual abuse at some point in their lives. They are extremely vulnerable.

But shouldn't violent sexual offenders be separated from gen pop in all prisons anyway?

utyh2ikcq9z76b

Slowyourrole wrote: »

You're kind of missing the point though. When you look at prisons you should be asking how is anyone able to get raped at all? There is fundamentally something wrong there.Why shouldn't female and male prisoners be housed in the same prisons? Are there not supposed to be prison guards to stop the inmates hurting each other? Are there not policies for segregating the violent and dangerous prisoners? Sure, now we aren't in a position to house male and female together but instead of looking at why we should keep them apart, we should be looking at why we can't make it work. It's lazy as much as anything to just accept it couldn't work.





I would thing a properly designed single space would be cheaper and safer than a third space.





A bit of imagination and innovation could sort a lot of these issues by making them moot.

Your living in fantasy land. The law of the jungle applies in prison, the strong rule and the weak get preyed upon.

Slowyourrole

Jacoby Cold Barbiturate wrote: »

Your living in fantasy land. The law of the jungle applies in prison, the strong rule and the weak get preyed upon.

Right. And that is the problem that needs to be fixed. You address that then it won't be an issue if men and women are in the same prison.

One eyed Jack

Jacoby Cold Barbiturate wrote: »

Your living in fantasy land. The law of the jungle applies in prison, the strong rule and the weak get preyed upon.

The same law applies inside of an Irish prison as on the outside, that’s why they have all sorts of policies and processes in place to protect the inmates from each other, and indeed to protect the inmates and staff from each other.

As I mentioned them earlier, the scissor sisters for example have a rather impressive history of their time in prison (Linda is out and has moved on with her life, more power to her), but Charlotte is still inside. I’m not sure who thought it was a good idea to tell her get back in the kitchen where she had access to knives and joking around held one to another male inmates throat, and had a male prison officer hiding in her en-suite so their clandestine relationship wouldn’t be discovered, among a litany of other violations of prison policies -

'Scissor Sister' Charlotte Mulhall in 'inappropriate sexual relationship' with member of prison staff

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

Jacoby Cold Barbiturate wrote: »

Your living in fantasy land. The law of the jungle applies in prison, the strong rule and the weak get preyed upon.

Own goal.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

FVP3 wrote: »

Yeh, most people don't because toilets are mostly single use in houses, not multiple occupancy.

Ha ha, yes. The “I don’t have segregated bathrooms in my house!” tack is always a winner. :pac:

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

This thread has been refreshing and mea culpa on my part - the mods have let it run. I expected it to be quickly closed.

JimmyVik

Slowyourrole wrote: »

Right. And that is the problem that needs to be fixed. You address that then it won't be an issue if men and women are in the same prison.

How many centuries have they been trying to fix that problem now?

FVP3

Before I ignore that poster, here was the exchange.

Me: We need to worry about shared public spaces like toilets.
Them: I have a uni-sex toilet in my house.
Me:Everybody does, but they are single occupancy.
Them: Are you saying that single occupancy toilets should be divided into male, female and trans?!!!!

No sense will ever be got out of that one. Probably not OEJ either but he tries. So to ignore.

FVP3

JimmyVik wrote: »

How many centuries have they been trying to fix that problem now?

Lets fix that utopian problem first then fix the other utopian problem, is my view.

AbusesToilets

Slowyourrole wrote: »

You're kind of missing the point though. When you look at prisons you should be asking how is anyone able to get raped at all? There is fundamentally something wrong there.Why shouldn't female and male prisoners be housed in the same prisons? Are there not supposed to be prison guards to stop the inmates hurting each other? Are there not policies for segregating the violent and dangerous prisoners? Sure, now we aren't in a position to house male and female together but instead of looking at why we should keep them apart, we should be looking at why we can't make it work. It's lazy as much as anything to just accept it couldn't work.





I would thing a properly designed single space would be cheaper and safer than a third space.





A bit of imagination and innovation could sort a lot of these issues by making them moot.

Also brings up uncomfortable questions about the purpose of imprisonment altogether. If we're not sending someone away for the rest of their life, they will be released. What effort is being made to actually reform them, ensure they can be productive members of society again. Too often seems as though prisoners are forever tarred for serving their sentences. Surely the point of a sentence is that you should be afforded a chance to live a full life once it's complete. I don't think that happens at all in most cases.

2u2me

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

This thread has been refreshing and mea culpa on my part - the mods have let it run. I expected it to be quickly closed.

I think it has many of the same themes as many threads on the go. The radicals constantly are trying to change things through claiming their safety is in danger.

One eyed Jack

2u2me wrote: »

I think it has many of the same themes as many threads on the go. The radicals constantly are trying to change things through claiming their safety is in danger.

It’s actually the opposite - most posters have tried to argue that things should remain the same (or be reverted) claiming women’s safety will be in danger if there is social change. After seeing these women on the news just now, social change can’t come fast enough IMO -

Man jailed for rape and sexual abuse of seven daughters and sister

Overheal

Transphobes everywhere should shudder a little.

The Supreme Court of the United States in a 6-3 decision rules that discrimination because of gender identity or sexual orientation is a violation of civil rights.

https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/liberal-and-conservative-justices-in-6-3-decision-agree-that-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-are-protected-by-civil-rights-act/

The court affirmed at length that it is impossible to discriminate against someone’s orientation or gender identity without necessarily discriminating against that persons sex, which is already illegal under Title VII of the civil rights act.

In such examples they gave: two employees of equal status identify as female, but the employer only fires the one who is genetically male because of behavior he accepts in the genetic female (identifying as female), the employer is inherently tolerating behavior of one and not the other on the basis of sex, and is therefore inexorably discriminating on the basis of sex:

“ [A]n employer who fires a woman, Hannah, because she is insufficiently feminine and also fires a man, Bob, for being insufficiently masculine may treat men and women as groups more or less equally. But in both cases the employer fires an individual in part because of sex. Instead of avoiding Title VII exposure, this employer doubles it.”

“ Consider, for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. The two individuals are, to the employer’s mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman. If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague. Put differently, the employer intentionally singles out an employee to fire based in part on the employee’s sex, and the affected employee’s sex is a but-for cause of his discharge. Or take an employer who fires a transgender person who was identified as a male at birth but who now identifies as a female. If the employer retains an otherwise identical employee who was identified as female at birth, the employer intentionally penalizes a person identified as male at birth for traits or actions that it tolerates in an employee identified as female at birth. Again, the individual employee’s sex plays an unmistakable and impermissible role in the discharge decision.”

“From the ordinary public meaning of the statute’s language at the time of the law’s adoption, a straightforward rule emerges: An employer violates Title VII when it intentionally fires an individual employee based in part on sex. It doesn’t matter if other factors besides the plaintiff ’s sex contributed to the decision. And it doesn’t matter if the employer treated women as a group the same when compared to men as a group. If the employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee’s sex when deciding to discharge the employee—put differently, if changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer—a statutory violation has occurred. Title VII’s message is “simple but momentous”: An individual employee’s sex is “not relevant to the selection, evaluation, or compensation of employees.”