Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Lovely.

But answer my question first please before I answer yours.

Do you think that people should be able to assess and decide whether or not someone is genuine if they declare that they are transitioning in case they are doing so just to gain access to future victims or their sentence length?

I think the overall risk should be assessed based on the prisoners history, the crime they committed etc.

LLMMLL wrote: »

I think the overall risk should be assessed based on the prisoners history, the crime they committed etc.

That's not what I asked.

Are you able to answer the question I asked?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's not what I asked.

Are you able to answer the question I asked?

I have answered it. The role of The case conference is not to decide if someone is genuinely trans or not. It is to assess the risk of an individual transferring to a women's prison.

LLMMLL wrote: »

"In England and Wales, she can only be located in a women's prison if she's had a case conference.

Case conferences are told to watch out for evidence that the offender's decision to transition is related to their sentence length or a way of gaining access to future victims.

The report stated: "Any assessment of a transgender offender's risk of reoffending should be based on valid, evidenced factors that relate to that individual, as for any other offender. We have seen no evidence that being transgender is in itself linked to risk. Risk assessments must be free from assumptions or stereotyping."

So if it is the case that 1 in 10 travellers prisoners are faking being trans They are not going to be placed in women's prisons anytime soon.

You stated here that if 1 in 10 travellers are faking being trans, they would not be in women's prison any time soon.

How would that be the case if others couldn't decide that they were faking? And do you support it?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You stated here that if 1 in 10 travellers are faking being trans, they would not be in women's prison any time soon.

How would that be the case if others couldn't decide that they were faking? And do you support it?

There is no indication that they have requested access to a womens prison. It seems from the article that the issue there is access to privacy in male prisons.

LLMMLL wrote: »

There is no indication that they have requested access to a womens prison. It seems from the article that the issue there is access to privacy in male prisons.

Pulling teeth....

If they did request access to a women's prison, would you support the case conference being able to decide if the case was valid or not?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Pulling teeth....

If they did request access to a women's prison, would you support the case conference being able to decide if the case was valid or not?

I would not support them drawing a conclusion as to whether the individual was genuinely trans. I would support them drawing a conclusion as to the risk of transferring the individual to a women's prison.

hetuzozaho

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Pulling teeth....

If they did request access to a women's prison, would you support the case conference being able to decide if the case was valid or not?

What would this involve in practice?

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

But Jack, if self id becomes a thing over there, who are you or anyone to proclaim someone is 'taking the piss'. That is transphobic.

In the context of inmates self-identifying whatever way they choose Cteven, I’m nobody, same as any member of the public doesn’t get to determine prison policies, no matter if 100% of male inmates identify themselves as women, and frankly I don’t care.

I also don’t care if someone says I’m transphobic for whatever reason, not just because I’m a fully grown adult and name calling really doesn’t bother me, but because I have a spine. People are perfectly free to form their own opinions and think what they like.

Kinda reminds me of the lad trying to chat me up in the pub one night, I only realised it when he blatantly came out and said it (we must have been chatting for an hour at that stage, the poor bastard must have been exhausted dropping hints :pac:). I told him I wasn’t interested, he called me a homophobe, I simply retorted “what’s your point?” He stormed off incensed that I had just wasted his time and I was nothing more than a cocktease and all the rest of it. As far as I was concerned we were having a chat up to the point he turned nasty, that was on him, not me.

Sir Oxman

Gruffalox wrote: »

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/29/record-numbers-transgender-prisoners-transition-men-women/

They don't have self ID officially. But you will have to talk to Peter Clarke, Director of Prisons, who said people "self identifying" as trans in prison are growing in number, and he was not refering to the small number with GR Certs who are statistically measured differently. These are extra that the Minister called self identifying.

The following is a longish thing about GRC trans prisoners versus "case conference" trans prisoners (and the whole sex offender thing). You will see that GRC is not necessary in UK prison to identify as trans. So effectively in practise self ID is feasible.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-42221629

It is a bit complicated but between the two articles you can get a flavour.

*foggy glasses on*

That wouldn't have anything to do with stonewalluk plus fellow ngo's 'getting ahead of the law' in *their* seemingly mandatory 'training' of everywhere that wants one of those shiny 'stonewall champion' badges, is it? It's like they fail to mention sex as a protected characteristic or substitute it with gender identity as a protected category (which isn't)

Nah, couldn't possibly happen...;)

Sir Oxman

2u2me wrote: »

He's as terrible as Colbert, Oliver, Bee, etc...

I enjoy his 'change my mind' segments I remember this one in particular where a guy Yusuf pretty much destroys crowder in "Socialism is evil, change my mind" (7mins25seconds start very good watch).

To Crowder's credit he leaves everything up and many of his audience admonished him for this incident. (check the comments on that video).

It seems his fans aren't just blindly accepting everything he says. They just enjoy debate.

I remember that one!

Crowder got very annoyed and tried derailing the argument he was losing and played the man not the ball, something very common lately on threads that disrupt the loud activist led narratives.

Oops, my lefty credentials must be shot now.;)

Thankfully, I've left purity politics behind - it really is the dumbest game in town.

LLMMLL wrote: »

There is no indication that they have requested access to a womens prison. It seems from the article that the issue there is access to privacy in male prisons.

The issue is they identify as women. Full stop.

Everyone knows it is an abuse, a pisstake, an attempt (however unsuccessful) to use a loophole. Whether to secure cushier cells in the male joint or access to the female prison, it happens.
Therefore it is eminently illustrative of how identifying as the opposite sex is being abused, despite people saying 1) it never happens or 2) it is so very extremely rare why would you focus in like a weirdo on it. It happens. It has happened. It will happen. That is a problem.

Gruffalox wrote: »

The issue is they identify as women. Full stop.

Everyone knows it is an abuse, a pisstake, an attempt (however unsuccessful) to use a loophole. Whether to secure cushier cells in the male joint or access to the female prison, it happens.
Therefore it is eminently illustrative of how identifying as the opposite sex is being abused, despite people saying 1) it never happens or 2) it is so very extremely rare why would you focus in like a weirdo on it. It happens. It has happened. It will happen. That is a problem.

It will indeed happen. And the Prison service will manage it.

So what's the problem again?

Sittingpretty

But...

What is a problem?

What is a prison?

Define traveller.

How many angels fit atop a pin?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It will indeed happen. And the Prison service will manage it.

So what's the problem again?

That it can happen.

Again you have an acceptable level of collateral damage whereas I see no reason to create extra risks. These are conflicting fundamentals.

Gruffalox wrote: »

That it can happen.

Again you have an acceptable level of collateral damage whereas I see no reason to create extra risks. These are conflicting fundamentals.

You seem to be conflating two different things.

There is no extra risk from a prisoner declaring their identity.

Stark

And there are people who get married purely to get round immigration and tax laws. What is "love" anyway? Can anyone define it for me? Is there a hormone level requirement we can check? Maybe we should just scrap the whole thing as a minority of people might abuse it.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There is no extra risk from a prisoner declaring their identity.

Declaring identity would not be an issue at all were it not for the factually untrue ideology that says once a man declares they are a woman then they ARE a woman. ( same with woman declaring as man etc).

Once a male prisoner has literally become a woman by this miraculous transubstantiation then the authorities must deal with them differently to males.

Which has led to some being transferred to womens wings. In many countries. Which has led to increased risk to women there and the collateral damage of sex assaults and rapes. See the appropriate conflation?

This is without my even going near the statistics about the strangely high level of sexual offenders among those male bodied prisoners who actually HAVE Gender Recognition Certs. That is a rock you may prefer left unturned.

Stark wrote: »

And there are people who get married purely to get round immigration and tax laws. What is "love" anyway? Can anyone define it for me? Is there a hormone level requirement we can check? Maybe we should just scrap the whole thing as a minority of people might abuse it.

Marriage for immigration purposes is a crime and there are somewhat regular routs of such fraudulent marriage rings.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/residency-permit-refusals-rise-after-sham-marriage-clampdown-1.3788972%3fmode=amp

Gruffalox wrote: »

Marriage for immigration purposes is a crime and there are somewhat regular routs of such fraudulent marriage rings.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/residency-permit-refusals-rise-after-sham-marriage-clampdown-1.3788972%3fmode=amp

Yes, and assault is a crime too, and the fact that the assailant is in prison already doesn’t make them immune from prosecution. The problem is that the victims don’t want to report other women who assault them in prisons so it’s more difficult to secure a conviction against the assailant.

hetuzozaho

Stark wrote: »

And there are people who get married purely to get round immigration and tax laws. What is "love" anyway? Can anyone define it for me? Is there a hormone level requirement we can check? Maybe we should just scrap the whole thing as a minority of people might abuse it.

People take advantage of things all the time alright. But as a society we manage

Gruffalox wrote: »

Declaring identity would not be an issue at all were it not for the factually untrue ideology that says once a man declares they are a woman then they ARE a woman. ( same with woman declaring as man etc).

Once a male prisoner has literally become a woman by this miraculous transubstantiation then the authorities must deal with them differently to males.

Which has led to some being transferred to womens wings. In many countries. Which has led to increased risk to women there and the collateral damage of sex assaults and rapes. See the appropriate conflation?

This is without my even going near the statistics about the strangely high level of sexual offenders among those male bodied prisoners who actually HAVE Gender Recognition Certs. That is a rock you may prefer left unturned.

Yes, I again see the conflation of rare events from other countries to stir up the FUD factor here in Ireland, despite that fact that no difficulties have arisen here in the five years of self-ID.

BTW, there are many, many rocks that I've left unturned here. But if you'd like to turn over any rocks yourself, you're welcome to do so. Let's not play the silenced victim card here please.

hetuzozaho wrote: »

People take advantage of things all the time alright. But as a society we manage

As a society that makes any claim to being civilised we constantly seek to lower risks to vulnerable people. In any situation. Thus my argument that transwomen and transmen deserve protection in prisons in their own spaces. And women deserve not to have their risk in any way increased by having male bodied people abuse an ideological stance that claims simply identifying as a woman makes one an actual woman. It is about being rational.

Here is something I saw very recently that got almost no attention, which I found odd. It is one example of where a radical ideological proposition was allowed to infiltrate public services out of what was basically an excess of political correctness. Other examples that spring to mind in passing would be the Swedish sterilisation practices or indeed Iran's practice presently of pushing the transitioning homosexual people. Another is the medical brutality presently playing out with respect to gender non conforming and often autistic children. At the time in Germany the sexual liberation movement was regarded as golden in all ways. Ideology trumped reason. In this case it involves the placement of very vulnerable foster children into the care of known paedophiles in Germany in what is called the Kentler Experiment.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/berlin-paedophile-foster-parent-hermut-kentler-a9573026.html

Prof. Dr. Volker Epping, President of Leibniz University Hannover commented: "Leibniz University Hannover clearly stated its position in 2018, condemning Kentler's unacceptable work that trivialised paedophilia. It is shocking that in those days executive and judicial authorities allowed themselves to be convinced by the report commissioned by Berlin's Senate, facilitating foster care in the homes of paedophiles."

https://www.uni-hannover.de/en/universitaet/aktuelles/online-aktuell/details/news/report-on-the-case-of-helmut-kentler/

On Iranian issue re homosexuals - https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29832690

On Sweden's sterilisation that lasted for 40 years to 1975, including on transgender people - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/sweden-admits-to-racial-purification-1247261.html

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, I again see the conflation of rare events from other countries to stir up the FUD factor here in Ireland, despite that fact that no difficulties have arisen here in the five years of self-ID.

BTW, there are many, many rocks that I've left unturned here. But if you'd like to turn over any rocks yourself, you're welcome to do so. Let's not play the silenced victim card here please.

I am not a silenced victim - much to your discomfort

And yet again we see a poster who has taken their user name from a US cop show and probably discusses BLM and endemic racism and has uttered the word Trump more times in the past few years than is reasonable and listens to International music and watches shows from abroad and still repeatedly tells us on this single issue we may not look outside our own picket fence. LOL, as the youth say these days. I won't be stopping using international precedence on this issue.

Gruffalox wrote: »

As a society that makes any claim to being civilised we constantly seek to lower risks to vulnerable people. In any situation. Thus my argument that transwomen and transmen deserve protection in prisons in their own spaces. And women deserve not to have their risk in any way increased by having male bodied people abuse an ideological stance that claims simply identifying as a woman makes one an actual woman. It is about being rational.

Yes, it is, and that’s why the law does not presume guilt which is what you’re trying to do with floating all your statistics out there and letting them hang in the ether, and when that hasn’t convinced anyone you’ll post the usual rogues gallery, and when that doesn’t work you’ll appeal to concerns about the safety of people who are transgender themselves.

Meanwhile the other way to assess a civilised society is by assessing people’s freedom, rather than your idea of “constantly lowering risk to vulnerable people”. Were your argument ever to have any weight it would mean institutionalising people “for their own protection”, and society has determined that institutionalising people for their own protection meant that they were more likely to be abused by the people who claimed to be protecting them.

Your own ideological stance is just that too btw, it’s not based upon anything factual, it’s simply based upon hoping you can appeal to people who already think the same way you do.

Dotsie~tmp

Lineman was perfectly happy to be going after others when he was in tune with this Cult. Now it turned on him. F*ck him.

On assessing "freedoms" in a civilised society - rights and freedoms are very often circumscribed where there is a conflict of rights and freedoms.
Eg planning laws circumscribe my right to build as I please on my land as it may interfere with anothers right to privacy or peaceful occupation.
Parents may be taken to court by medics if they refuse treatment for a sick child on religious freedom grounds.
Citizens cannot refuse to pay tax to govt on the basis that it conflicts with their rights to withhold all their income.

Etc

The claim of rights and freedoms often set up competing rights and freedoms. This is normal.
It is also normal that people will argue against their rights being infringed by competing rights.

Gruffalox wrote: »

On assessing "freedoms" in a civilised society - rights and freedoms are very often circumscribed where there is a conflict of rights and freedoms.
Eg planning laws circumscribe my right to build as I please on my land as it may interfere with anothers right to privacy or peaceful occupation.
Parents may be taken to court by medics if they refuse treatment for a sick child on religious freedom grounds.
Citizens cannot refuse to pay tax to govt on the basis that it conflicts with their rights to withhold all their income.

Etc

The claim of rights and freedoms often set up competing rights and freedoms. This is normal.
It is also normal that people will argue against their rights being infringed by competing rights.

Absolutely, and that’s why I said your methods amount to nothing more than attempting to appeal to people who think like you do. In reality nobody’s rights are being infringed upon in legislation, but rather everyone in society is granted more freedom by the introduction of the gender recognition act which supports everyone’s right to self-determination for starters, as well as recognising many more freedoms, and protecting everyone from unlawful discrimination.

In circumstances where there is a conflict of interest in terms of rights, that’s what Courts of Law are for, and that’s where determinations should be made, not on social media by popular vote.

Put it this way - would you rather be a conservative in a liberal democratic society, or a liberal democratic in a conservative society?

At least in a liberal democratic society you’d have a choice in the matter.

CtevenSrowder

Sir Oxman wrote: »

I remember that one!

Crowder got very annoyed and tried derailing the argument he was losing and played the man not the ball, something very common lately on threads that disrupt the loud activist led narratives.

Oops, my lefty credentials must be shot now.;)

Thankfully, I've left purity politics behind - it really is the dumbest game in town.

God, a lot of people who watch Steven Crowder on this thread. Must be a bunch of transphobes who support every position he does.