Gender Identity

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Not within the scope of this discussion, but I'd possibly agree with one of those three attributes being quite common.

I wasn't attempting to embarrass anyone, just more creatively highlight and remind people how each of the things above have previously been treated in the way we now look at gender identity.

There are severely mentally ill people who will take advantage of anything that they can to cause harm and danger to others, but that's sort of irrelevant. They'll take advantage of anything. It's a really weak and dangerous argument, though quite powerful in rhetoric, to use.

It's been suggested to me that I could never be a teacher, because of my sexuality. That I might pass it on. That I'm somehow perverted for it. It's a really horrible accusation, upsets me deeply and causes undue harm.

It is no more statistically likely that a homosexual will do "unpalatable, sadistic, dangerous" things, compared to a heterosexual person. It is no more statistically likely that someone who identifies on an alternative gender spectrum will do "unpalatable, sadistic, dangerous" things, compared to a cisgender person. To suggest so is hateful, hurtful and quite honestly mean spirited.

 

[Ryan]

I'd agree that gender identity is a social construct, but this has built over hundreds or maybe even thousands of years. What some of the more intensely liberal people should realise is that attempting to deconstruct such an established social construct over a rapid and relatively very short period is obviously going to be met with social resistance.

Gender identity isn't a social construct, it's a part of how we work, exacerbated and needing discussion because of exterior social constructs. We have our own, personal, deep felt understanding of what our gender is. We always have.

Gender norms, typical or stereotypical gender expressions, linked solely to biological sex, ARE a social construct. And the idea that they've been consistently built, in the same direction and with the same flavour, for hundreds of thousands of years, isn't correct.

When society needs something different, we can turn around gender norms incredibly quickly, and we have over and over again through history.

We got those meek, quiet, hard working housewives out of the kitchen and into the workplace bloody quickly, didn't we? But we didn't need to change their biology, we just changed the social construct of what it means to be a woman.

 

[Tom]

I wasn't attempting to embarrass anyone, just more creatively highlight and remind people how each of the things above have previously been treated in the way we now look at gender identity.

There are severely mentally ill people who will take advantage of anything that they can to cause harm and danger to others, but that's sort of irrelevant. They'll take advantage of anything. It's a really weak and dangerous argument, though quite powerful in rhetoric, to use.

It's been suggested to me that I could never be a teacher, because of my sexuality. That I might pass it on. That I'm somehow perverted for it. It's a really horrible accusation, upsets me deeply and causes undue harm.

It is no more statistically likely that a homosexual will do "unpalatable, sadistic, dangerous" things, compared to a heterosexual person. It is no more statistically likely that someone who identifies on an alternative gender spectrum will do "unpalatable, sadistic, dangerous" things, compared to a cisgender person. To suggest so is hateful, hurtful and quite honestly mean spirited.

The issue is the relative newness of this, what you describe are more established issues whereby the law and society have largely (or certainly more so than gender identify) caught up.

In Scotland last year (I think it was), there was a a transgender double rapist who was initially sent to a female prison. Authorities had to u-turn and make legal changes/clarifications as a result.

This sort of thing is an argument for time and consideration on all sides, not for a permanent roadblock as many fascists and populists would like.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

In Scotland last year (I think it was), there was a a transgender double rapist who was initially sent to a female prison. Authorities had to u-turn and make legal changes/clarifications as a result.

The issue with this is how the Scottish criminal justice system, and government, legally recognises gender. Scotland has self ID laws, which means that for all intents and legal purposes the person you're referring to was legally a woman and so was processed in the corresponding institution. Once the person had been convicted, they were transferred to a male establishment as the risk of keeping them in a female establishment was deemed too high.

England has stricter rules, regarding trans* identities in prisons. If a resident in a male institution comes out as trans*, that resident will remain in a male institution but will have a certain amount of space and separation. They will be moved to a single cell, they will have their own designated shower time / space, they will be treated as the gender they identify as but will remain in male establishments.

In order for a custodial resident, who was born as male at birth, to transfer or be in a female establishment, they need to be legally recognised as female. The only way for them to do this (in England) is to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate, which takes over 2 years and has to be signed off by a board of professionals. The same would apply for a formerly female custodial resident transferring to a male establishment.

 

[Ryan]

If Isla Bryson needs to be in a men's prison because of the nature of her crimes..

..then Reynhard Sinaga needs to be in a woman's prison because of the nature of his crimes.

Strangely, it didn't cause a huge media storm that Sinaga did end up in a men's prison.

I wonder why they're treated differently?

 

[Deleted member 17985]

I'm sure I'll get banned or something for this, but I like this place because it's usually a place where adults are able to talk like adults, so it is what it is. This subject means a lot to me for various reasons, and as much as I'd love to provide my Lefty Progressive CV to prove I'm not an evil far right fascist or something, it's not needed.

Part of the issue is that "gender identity" doesn't actually mean anything to anyone but those who claim to have one or those who support the idea. I have precisely zero clue what it is to feel like a Man, I just am one. I spent 2/3 years as a kid thinking I was a girl because I liked dolls and was a blossoming wee homo, as well as growing up in a difficult household with experience of sexual assault. I didn't feel like a girl, I just thought I was one because of social markers and stereotypes I was too young to understand and because I wanted to escape. Had I been growing up in the years up to 2024, this would be labeled a gender identity and I could have been on a pathway to being medicalised for the rest of my life, or not, simply based on stereotypes, trauma and same-sex attraction. Thank the lawd the affirmation only model is out the window, and I fully support the findings of the Cass report.

I met my first transexual when I was like 14 (38 now), still know and love her, and have since known countless more. I've lived with them, worked with them, loved them, partied with them, protested with them, the whole nine yards. I fully believe in adults having the right to express themselves however they see fit and that it's absolutely fine for children to be gender nonconforming, it is the healthiest thing in the world because gender is entirely made-up nonsense, so let them be creative with it.

Where I stop is the need for me to validate gender identity, because it's not something I personally believe in. I don't give any weight to concepts of gender outside of the trans bubble, so to me it's just another stop on an elevator I don't need to get off on. If that was an acceptable stance, things would be grand, but apparently that makes me ignorant, or a bigot, or a Tory, or etc. It's not my responsibility to validate a myriad of niche identities. If you identify as trans and pass, I'll she/her and he/him for you, of course. If you don't pass and clearly identify in a way which seems to imply you don't feel the need to pass, good for you but that's not on me to validate you. If you identify as non-binary, I'm happy for you but I believe in it just as much as I believe that Jesus turned water into wine. I don't believe god speaks to people while they pray, but Christians don't tend to think I'm contributing to genocide.

When it became important for the modern LGBTQ+ movement to push medicalisation onto often same-sex attracted, autistic, and/or mentally unwell children, I stepped out. I've since been called a nazi, told I'm far right, that I'm doing the bidding of "christian conservatives", simply for being a gay man who, as it turns out, took a side now echoed by our health service, having been one of those kids myself. When my wider former community started to peddle the idea that the NHS is now transphobic, storming medical conferences, calling anyone and everyone who disagrees with even the smallest parts of the movement bigoted and phobic, I stepped out permanently.

It was never about "I identify as a Woman, So I'm Literally a Woman Now and you're akin to a Nazi if you disagree". It was never "I identify as a Man so you must see me as a Man in every way, including within your same sex attraction or you'll be blasted as a transphobe". It was never "punch a terf in the fucking face" being screamed at trans pride, cheered on by thousands. It was never Isla Bryson causing Sturgeon to have a giant wobble at the hands of the ideology and gender evangelism she pushed and never understood. It was never "JK Rowling is the most horrific evil person on Earth, even more so than the African warlords forcing genital mutilation onto Women and murdering LGBT people as we speak!". It all went a little bit batshit, and lots of the older generation of trans people and a minority of the modern movement are wanting nothing to do with it.

And FWIW, Isla Bryson is not a Woman nor has he ever been or will be a Woman. The vast majority of TW are not "Men in wigs", but that Male rapist in a wig is just that. Raping another human being means you lose the right to have your made-up identity respected and you'd struggle to find many within the general public who would call a male rapist She. If we're all to call him She, then his victims need to as well and in a civil society, that is not acceptable to anyone but those just too deeply invested in gender.

 

[Plastic Person]

I work in a typically very queer industry, and like to think I maintain some of the broad values and philosophies associated with that. Naturally, I have thought about this issue lots, particularly over the last decade, over which it's gathered momentum to become the titanic social issue it is today. But apart from a consistent belief that people should be able to live a dignified life as they please, I think I'm further from any rock solid conclusions on this stuff than ever. I have seen people, privately and publicly, go off the deep end at both sides of the pool. I've witnessed queer allies politely asked to respect non-binary pronouns for teenagers, then end up at the Conservative party conference, and I've observed activists who were once keen to secure billions of funding for the NHS deride the whole operation as an anti-trans conspiracy network.

Trans issues in relation to kids, especially gender blockers, were always going to be a tough sell to the general public. I was schooled in the Judith Butler era of gender theory, which espouses fluidity, and I can't always frame this recent medical revolution within a philosophy of freedom. I've personally become more sympathetic to the idea (with some reservations), but the number of referred cases for gender reassignment in teens had rocketed so stratospherically, it would always raise some eyebrows and beg questions. I also respect the idea of the body being inherently political, and the intersection on the left between this and reproductive rights, etc. but this issue has become literally, explicitly political to a sometimes stifling, self-defeating extreme.

Overall, and despite the intensity of the current discourse, I am glad that we do not live in the stiflingly rigid gender landscape of the 90s and 00s. Despite the 'battle' seemingly being waged in this arena, there is a trickle down effect in culture underway that will benefit us all.

 

[DistortAMG]

Gender is a construct.

Sex (as in what you are assigned at birth) is what you are thinking of. Doesn't say gender on my passport.

This is not something new, but like with many things over history, those who had things like gender/body dysmorphia or were homosexual were either locked up or put in an asylum. People also seem to think that autism and ADHD are new developments as well but that's also incorrect. The world does surprisingly move forward.

Being non-binary for example doesn't mean you stop procreation. Even some trans relationships I'm sure could continue to do so if they so wished. All depends on the person, which funnily enough also extends to those who keep their "assigned at birth".

Lol at the "look at the animal kingdom" argument. Also used by those who think that homosexuality isn't natural and that's been disproved. I doubt there's much research on body dysmorphia in animals though. Perhaps there is?

I'm just gonna finish with this.





Showed your true colours there.

Why can't we challenge it? People do have the right to be whatever they want to be, that is perfectly fine. That does not automatically equate to their choices being unchallengable, why is that just assumed? Infact that is half the issue full stop, so many assumptions that are made. That literally right there is half the problem. My points can and do co exist.

 

[Benzin]

You can challenge theories, but when you essentially call a number of people "mentally ill" for not conforming to your views then don't be surprised that you get called out on it.

There are many theories across many things in existence. Flat Earth, Lizard people governments and so on. Doesn't necessarily mean they have any true standing or merit.

 

[DistortAMG]

You can challenge theories, but when you essentially call a number of people "mentally ill" for not conforming to your views then don't be surprised that you get called out on it.

There are many theories across many things in existence. Flat Earth, Lizard people governments and so on. Doesn't necessarily mean they have any true standing or merit.

You know what I agree. That was a bit uncalled for and I apologise to anyone that I may have offended. I am actually reading alot into this today and I have learnt a great deal more than I thought I would.

 

[Craig]

Thank you @Benzin for putting it better than I could, and also thank you @DistortAMG for apologising.

I know this is a heated discussion topic for many, and it’s fine to debate and disagree. But whatever you views, please remember there are others on the other side who may have valid points being made. Everyone has a right for their points to be heard, without demeaning the other.

What is merely a talking point for some, for others it’s a subject that has and continues to impact their lives on a daily basis. All I’d ask is to be mindful of that with the language you use and the responses/points you’re making. Thanks

 

[rob666]

Can I add, I love this place for the general high level of debate, and the very high quality of the monitoring, reporting and discussion.
My own family background is well known, but in my humble personal experience...
Do what you like, where you like, when you like, but please, for gods sake, find someone to do it with.
Physically, contact with other people is essential to a happy life.
Single and internet together is a very poor second best.
To those who didn't know...

My eldest sister ...straight, teacher in one class for life, two kids, one gay.

Elder brother, gay, closeted for years, but a bully I always steered clear of to avoid being battered.
Absolutely supported and understood his sexuality, had no problems with it at all...just part of the family freakshow, and I loved it.
This was the sixties and seventies remember.
But we were polar opposites, and I admit, I became what he wasn't...even down to failing the eleven plus to duck following him to the grammar, all my mates were going to the shiny new comprehensive, in glorious grounds close to a lot of friends. homes...no question.

Next sister is gay, completely academic, ran the dykes disco in leeds uni, horses, country living in Vancouver now.
Favourite Leeds gag from the day...
"You got Karma Chamelion???"
"Karma what?
"Karma Chamelion...It's only number one...Call yourself a clucking dj,,,"
Most repeated family gag of all time.
Hardly saw her in childhood, she was always out, smoking dope and listening to dylan.
We are close, but I don't travel.

Next sis has four kids, two very early, then a big gap to twins...only one gay, the gaydar kicked in around three, no question.
We all knew.
One of twins, topped teacher training, then went pop and is now married in Berlin.
Lucky lad, fantastic couple, we still haven't done the Beach yet, but we will.

Then there is me, oh wow, with all those role models out there, lost my dad very young, I had the widest choice of elder sibling pornography from an early age, and quiet support for all, and the queers and fellow freaks at school ( sorry old fashioned old man with massive respect, but an old git after all)...from around the start of secondary school.
Loved it all, quietly supported people out of their closet professionally many times, often relating my family experiences with a smile.
Who gives a shit...is often the best response.

Protect children, but...
Do what you like.
Blind Faith.
(Bad bad cover!!!)
Harm nobody.

Oops, forgot...
Personally, straight, always knew, and have enjoyed the company of my brothers and sisters partners and friends, but thirty odd years of very happy together thank you.

 

[Benzin]

Bringing this from the GE topic. @cloudburster since the quote thing is weird.

You can call JK Rowling whatever you like, I’d just like to think you wouldn’t send her a rape or death threat, just as you wouldn’t want a female family member or friend or partner or boss or bank manager or baker or candle stick maker to be on the receiving end of such a hideous thing. It’s got nothing to do with feeling sympathy or bank balances and more to do with rejecting the normalisation of such hideous acts.

I wouldn't, because I'm a half decent human being.

But why are we ignoring the abuse directed towards trans people? The rhetoric nonsense spouted by a number of figures across the world that is essentially what was being said about homosexuals years ago (and still today)?

Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequences. If I call someone an arse in public, would I not have a response?

When thousands of people at London trans pride last year screamed with approval when Sarah Jane Baker, convicted torturer, screamed “punch a fucking TERF in the face” into the mic, what is that exactly? If JK tweeted anything remotely similar, Lord the suicide myths and genocide propaganda machine would implode.

Given that a lot of TERFs believe that trans people shouldn't exist, is it any surprise that such a reaction is garnered. It's also quite common in such fields that are protesting against those who would do harm. Otherwise why does the term ACAB exist?

People didn't win rights by saying nothing.

Also the "suicide myths"? What on earth are you on about? Are you genuinely insinuating that there isn't a correlation between the abuse many trans people go through and a number choosing to end their lives as a direct result? Similarly the "genocide" comment.

Transmen pose no threat to Men’s spaces, services, rights or sports (why so many TW athletes and competitors and next to no TM?). The same can’t be said about transwomen. Simple!

So basically what you believe from this is that biological women are unable to pose a threat to males? When a female teacher was jailed this week for abusing her power to two male students?

Nah. It is a fear spouted by those who are aiming their fear and paranoia at the wrong target.

I am far more worried of a cis het male attacking (physically or verbally) my daughter compared to a trans woman. And should my daughter wish to change as such when she grows up, then I will do everything in my power to ensure she will get the life she deserves.

 

[Deleted member 17985]

Bringing this from the GE topic. @cloudburster since the quote thing is weird.



I wouldn't, because I'm a half decent human being.

But why are we ignoring the abuse directed towards trans people? The rhetoric nonsense spouted by a number of figures across the world that is essentially what was being said about homosexuals years ago (and still today)?

Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequences. If I call someone an arse in public, would I not have a response?



Given that a lot of TERFs believe that trans people shouldn't exist, is it any surprise that such a reaction is garnered. It's also quite common in such fields that are protesting against those who would do harm. Otherwise why does the term ACAB exist?

People didn't win rights by saying nothing.

Also the "suicide myths"? What on earth are you on about? Are you genuinely insinuating that there isn't a correlation between the abuse many trans people go through and a number choosing to end their lives as a direct result? Similarly the "genocide" comment.



So basically what you believe from this is that biological women are unable to pose a threat to males? When a female teacher was jailed this week for abusing her power to two male students?

Nah. It is a fear spouted by those who are aiming their fear and paranoia at the wrong target.

I am far more worried of a cis het male attacking (physically or verbally) my daughter compared to a trans woman. And should my daughter wish to change as such when she grows up, then I will do everything in my power to ensure she will get the life she deserves.

lol, its perfectly fine to condemn groups of thousands of people cheering on calls for violence against Women issued by an ex con Man with a history of extreme violence, kidnap and torture. Imagine a group of Women calling for violence against trans people. You'd be up in arms! Would you get behind Women who call for violence against Men who disagree with them?

Again, when the community you're keen to protect is responsible for hounding and harassing Women, any Women, with threats of violence, acts of actual violence, threats to their livelihood, their children, their sexual safety...reflect. But muh trans.

There is no difference between a "cis het" man and a "transwoman" other than their identity, they are both Men and Women have every right in the world to expect single-sex spaces, services, and rights free from Men of any identity. What YOU or I think about that doesn't matter. Perhaps take a look at the entire course of history to see WHY Women have single sex spaces in the first place before demanding they give them up for your fellow dudes.

Committing suicide and feeling like you want to commit suicide are very, very different things. I'd suggest that young people wanting to commit suicide unless they're given access to experimental medical treatments now banned by our NHS shows an issue with mental health over gender identity. Suicide is an act taken by those at the end of their emotional and physical tether and they need help, not affirmation. Do you know any other groups of young people who require absolute and total affirmation to avoid committing suicide?

Women do not pose a threat to Mens spaces, services or rights and in the vast majority of cases, Women don't pose a physical threat to the majority of Men. Obviously if we're in literal land like you are then yes, we must clarify that some Women do attack Boys and Men and some Women do awful things. That doesn't change the fact that Women's spaces, services and rights exist for Women. 1 in 4 Women have been raped in comparison to 1 in 18 Men. 91% of rapes are committed by Men of all races, identities and backgrounds. The identity of a dangerous Man doesn't matter and given theres countless cases of predatory, dangerous TW, the standards of safeguarding are necessary. Again, what you or I think about that doesn't matter, what matters is maintaining Womens right to access spaces free from Men, of any identity.

Nobody wants trans people to not exist and those who do are garden variety assholes who are ten a penny, and nobody thinks they're like ghosts or unicorns who require us to believe them into reality, it's just that most people don't believe they have literally transformed into the opposite or neither sex simply by saying so and unfortunately trans activists and their surface-level allies seem to think everyone must believe or else its a literal genocide. Gay people were never afforded ABSOLUTE acceptance in society, but we were also never demanding access to Women and Girls spaces, nor were we saying that gender nonconforming children should be medicalised against the advice of the NHS, nor were we suddenly demanding access to Womens prisons post-incarceration, nor were we saying that lesbians should and do enjoy penis.

I get that you're doing the trans women are women, im a great ally schtick, but its clear you're not entirely clear on the reality of what has happened with gender over the past 10 years or so. I was identifying as a girl decades ago, I've spent my life around LGBT people and know this movement inside and out having only left it myself 2 years ago. You can bash me over the head with the naughty transphobe stick all you like, on this one I am prepped. Have a beautiful day.

 

[Benzin]

I'm perfectly capable of condemning multiple groups of threatening action. Like condemning the response of those when a woman was raped and killed by a police officer and they closed ranks. But I can also understand that when provoked enough people do snap. See what happened in the BML incidents.

The second paragraph shows where it lies. You either believe that those who change gender can no longer be defined as their biological sex or not. And no it doesn't matter what you or I think, but the person it affects. And it also extends to the situations of non-binary or intersex persons, where it suddenly becomes a very grey area.
At no point have I said single sex spaces shouldn't be available, but people should be able to use the space that they feel is appropriate to their needs. Perhaps to solve the main concern issue (I.e. trans women will just assault women in the toilets) is to make every facility in that regard unisex.

Mental health is an underlying issue across the board. People consider (and act upon) suicide for different reasons. I'm not sure on how the two trans people I know internally felt before their transition but I'm sure there was a lot of to and fro regarding it. Yes there is an exact need to improve access to the facilities to get this help, but it always seems to be ignored. No one is seeking to affirm but to support those who consider and even act upon it. Belittling it doesn't help anyone.

There are predators of all types. Men are more likely to do nonsense because men are genuinely awful. However would a man feel comfortable with a female presenting trans man in the space? I'm sure they wouldn't feel comfortable either.

Again, separate spaces are good. But unless you're going through the nonsense that some seem to do in "checking the genitals" then people who have transitioned should be allowed to use the space they feel most comfortable with. In checking with Mrs, she'd feel far more comfortable with a trans woman in her space than a trans man. Though it is purely anecdotal.

Why would gays want access to women's spaces? Instead at the time were (and still asking) for equal rights to share the same space with straight people. To me, seems very similar in situation.

If being an ally is bad then go for it. But not once have I mentioned genocide. And like with all groups, there are some absolute nutters in all camps who act high and mightily. I have no horse in the trans or LGBT race personally, however as a human I wish for people to just wind their necks in and allow people to just be. From the outside though I will never understand why there is so much constant discourse between the various LGBT groups when they are all fighting for the same thing (Minor Attracted People aside, because that is an entirely different thing).

 

[Deleted member 17985]

I'm perfectly capable of condemning multiple groups of threatening action. Like condemning the response of those when a woman was raped and killed by a police officer and they closed ranks. But I can also understand that when provoked enough people do snap. See what happened in the BML incidents.

The second paragraph shows where it lies. You either believe that those who change gender can no longer be defined as their biological sex or not. And no it doesn't matter what you or I think, but the person it affects. And it also extends to the situations of non-binary or intersex persons, where it suddenly becomes a very grey area.
At no point have I said single sex spaces shouldn't be available, but people should be able to use the space that they feel is appropriate to their needs. Perhaps to solve the main concern issue (I.e. trans women will just assault women in the toilets) is to make every facility in that regard unisex.

Mental health is an underlying issue across the board. People consider (and act upon) suicide for different reasons. I'm not sure on how the two trans people I know internally felt before their transition but I'm sure there was a lot of to and fro regarding it. Yes there is an exact need to improve access to the facilities to get this help, but it always seems to be ignored. No one is seeking to affirm but to support those who consider and even act upon it. Belittling it doesn't help anyone.

There are predators of all types. Men are more likely to do nonsense because men are genuinely awful. However would a man feel comfortable with a female presenting trans man in the space? I'm sure they wouldn't feel comfortable either.

Again, separate spaces are good. But unless you're going through the nonsense that some seem to do in "checking the genitals" then people who have transitioned should be allowed to use the space they feel most comfortable with. In checking with Mrs, she'd feel far more comfortable with a trans woman in her space than a trans man. Though it is purely anecdotal.

Why would gays want access to women's spaces? Instead at the time were (and still asking) for equal rights to share the same space with straight people. To me, seems very similar in situation.

If being an ally is bad then go for it. But not once have I mentioned genocide. And like with all groups, there are some absolute nutters in all camps who act high and mightily. I have no horse in the trans or LGBT race personally, however as a human I wish for people to just wind their necks in and allow people to just be. From the outside though I will never understand why there is so much constant discourse between the various LGBT groups when they are all fighting for the same thing (Minor Attracted People aside, because that is an entirely different thing).

Intersex conditions are not a "grey area", Intersex people are still either Male or Female as we don't have a third Sex category. The only "third" relates to gender, which is an entirely made up set of social norms and rules and expectations not bound to biology.

A "female presenting transman" is statistically extremely unlikely to enter a Mans bathroom or changing area with the intention of physically attacking the Men within, nor are they widely known to commit rape or assaults on Women or children. As with any group, there will be outliers, but the statistics speak for themselves. Why are transmen not trying to get into Mens prisons? It seems there's a glaring issue with Men, and since it doesn't matter how they identify, safeguarding should apply. Does the victim of a trans identifying male rapist feel less trauma than the victim of a garden-variety male rapist? No, they both share the experience of being predated upon and assaulted by members of the Male sex class. There is no alternative reality where TW do not commit the same crimes as every other group of Men on Earth, sadly. Most TW mean no harm and will commit no harm, just like it is with other Men. I very much doubt you would ever want to harm a Woman, and its the last thing I'd ever imagine myself doing, but you and I both know that there are many Men who think the opposite. I'd argue that Men who identify as Women who also feel compelled to use threats of violence and sexual assault towards Women who refuse to play along fall into the category of those many, many Men.

People who transition and pass will continue to use the spaces they fit into, as they always have done and always will do. Those who don't pass are simply making it the job of society to pretend for them, thats just reality. It isn't the job of All Women to welcome Any Men who identify as Women into their spaces. The whole point of MTF transition is to pass, not to say "I'm a Woman and if you disagree you're basically a nazi."

Errr, gay people were not fighting to share spaces with straight people LOL. We spent a great deal of time telling society that we were exactly the same as them, we just love or sleep with the same sex or both. We spent many years showing that gay men were not ALL predators whilst acknowledging that some Men within the gay community were and still are predatory. It was ultimately about equality in law and marriage. Once Stonewall were done with the gays, they moved onto trans and began calling same sex attracted people "sexual racists" for not including trans people in their dating or sex lives. Funny how progressive inclusive mindsets require Women to pretend that Men are Women and require gay people to pretend they're into the opposite sex.

Being an ally is fine when you know what you're supporting and go beyond scratching the 'live and let live' surface level stuff. If trans people didn't require the constant participation of everyone else, there would be no issue with live and let live. There is discourse because lifelong allies like me were called nazis and bigots for being same sex attracted. Telling gay men to try sleeping with Women, or lesbians to try sleeping with Men is old school homophobia personified, I experienced it for long enough. Theres discourse because lesbians are protested for starting lesbian only speed dating events. Theres discourse because lesbian groups are now going underground to avoid being harrassed or threatened with violence. Theres discourse because the trans community introduced hideous concepts like the cotton ceiling, ladydick, boypussy, Men breastfeeding, the list goes on. Theres discourse because Men turn up to Womens events with signs like 'dykes love girldick' and 'decapitate terfs'. Theres discourse because being gay and being trans are nothing alike and the years where the two movements coexisted with a shared goal are over - hello, I was there during those years. You may be entirely unaware of all of this, but many of us tried to have the conversations needed but were told No Debate and called transphobes. The only alternative to pushing back is to say "oh well, I guess this old school homophobia directed at gay people mostly by trans identified males is just the norm now" and I didn't spend my life fighting those homophobic tropes only to let a group I supported attempt to normalise them again.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Why are transmen not trying to get into Mens prisons?

Custodial institutions which cater for women in the estate are statistically much safer than establishments than men. They are considered, on the whole, more comfortable residences. There are also fewer female to male people in custodial settings too.

In England and Wales, you cannot transfer between the male and female estates without a Gender Recognition Certificate. No person in a custodial setting has ever been granted a GRC whilst in custody. If you enter custody with a GRC, under prison policy, you will be assigned to the custodial institution you are legally recognised as. If you are a female to male transitioned person, you can request to reside in the female estate.

Statistically speaking, people who are assigned a male gender at birth are overrepresented in the custodial population than those born as female. In June 2023, 96.1% or people in custody were legally men, 3.9% women. In our general population, according to the 2021 census, 51% of the population, in the UK, were born as female, 49% were born as male.

You are far more likely to be born as male and be in a custodial setting than female. Considering that the trans* population, or breakdown, of either gender is incredibly small, this can explain why there is a higher proportion of MTF people in custodial settings than FTM.

Conversely, the breakdown of legally recognised transitioned people with GRCs in England & Wales' custodial estate, is about 50/50. The overall number of transitioning prisoners, or those who identify as transitioning, without GRCs is higher within the male custodial population, but this could be explained by the size of the male custodial estate alone.

Male to female residents, in custodial settings, are not trying to move to the female estate. The MoJ has received very few transfer requests over the decades, the exact numbers haven't been released but they are of a trace amount; this is explained by the inability to transfer estates without a GRC.

Why would "non-genuine" people in a male custodial setting wish to identify as another gender? Most of this comes to comfort and misconceptions within the custodial population. If, in a male establishment, you identify as female you are granted a single cell. You are treated as female, within the establishment, but crucially cannot transfer out. You are granted your own dedicated shower time, if you don't have an in cell shower. It used to be the case that if you were a transitioning person convicted of a sex offence you wouldn't be able to complete a behaviour rehabilitation course, or "programmes", this is no longer the case but there are those still believe it to be true.

Essentially, you get an "easier" time, or more (what could be seen as) perks, if you identify as female in a male custodial establishment. You are never encouraged for any further commitment, you do not need to prove anything, you do not need to carry on living your trans* life after the perceived benefit stops. It should be noted, however, that this is obviously not the norm in the rest of society, nor is it the rule of trans* experiences in prisons. This just explains why some people attempt to transition, or declare as transitioning, whilst inside.

It is nothing to do with a person born as male attempting to transfer into a female establishment, in order to commit acts of sexual assault or for sexual gratification. It's a dangerous trope and an awful misconception.

 

[Deleted member 17985]

Custodial institutions which cater for women in the estate are statistically much safer than establishments than men. They are considered, on the whole, more comfortable residences. There are also fewer female to male people in custodial settings too.

In England and Wales, you cannot transfer between the male and female estates without a Gender Recognition Certificate. No person in a custodial setting has ever been granted a GRC whilst in custody. If you enter custody with a GRC, under prison policy, you will be assigned to the custodial institution you are legally recognised as. If you are a female to male transitioned person, you can request to reside in the female estate.

Statistically speaking, people who are assigned a male gender at birth are overrepresented in the custodial population than those born as female. In June 2023, 96.1% or people in custody were legally men, 3.9% women. In our general population, according to the 2021 census, 51% of the population, in the UK, were born as female, 49% were born as male.

You are far more likely to be born as male and be in a custodial setting than female. Considering that the trans* population, or breakdown, of either gender is incredibly small, this can explain why there is a higher proportion of MTF people in custodial settings than FTM.

Conversely, the breakdown of legally recognised transitioned people with GRCs in England & Wales' custodial estate, is about 50/50. The overall number of transitioning prisoners, or those who identify as transitioning, without GRCs is higher within the male custodial population, but this could be explained by the size of the male custodial estate alone.

Male to female residents, in custodial settings, are not trying to move to the female estate. The MoJ has received very few transfer requests over the decades, the exact numbers haven't been released but they are of a trace amount; this is explained by the inability to transfer estates without a GRC.

Why would "non-genuine" people in a male custodial setting wish to identify as another gender? Most of this comes to comfort and misconceptions within the custodial population. If, in a male establishment, you identify as female you are granted a single cell. You are treated as female, within the establishment, but crucially cannot transfer out. You are granted your own dedicated shower time, if you don't have an in cell shower. It used to be the case that if you were a transitioning person convicted of a sex offence you wouldn't be able to complete a behaviour rehabilitation course, or "programmes", this is no longer the case but there are those still believe it to be true.

Essentially, you get an "easier" time, or more (what could be seen as) perks, if you identify as female in a male custodial establishment. You are never encouraged for any further commitment, you do not need to prove anything, you do not need to carry on living your trans* life after the perceived benefit stops. It should be noted, however, that this is obviously not the norm in the rest of society, nor is it the rule of trans* experiences in prisons. This just explains why some people attempt to transition, or declare as transitioning, whilst inside.

It is nothing to do with a person born as male attempting to transfer into a female establishment, in order to commit acts of sexual assault or for sexual gratification. It's a dangerous trope and an awful misconception.

Speaking like Isla "I'm Trans now" Bryson didn't happen. You have openly explained why Men are using the trans identity to game the system within prison. That same abuse of the trans identity doesn't just happen within prisons, dangerous, opportunistic Men have been moving heaven and earth to access Women and children since the dawn of time. That doesn't cease to be the case simply because some Men identify as Women, in prison or out of prison.

We've even seen soldiers in Spain using the easy entry requirements to gender identity to game their systems too.

As for the Female prisons, yes, obviously thats why TM by and large don't seek access to Male prisons. Are we meant to pretend that it's then okay for Women in prisons to accept or ever have accepted Male prisoners being housed alongside them?

Yes, the guidelines changed in 2023. "Under the changes, transgender women who are sentenced to custody in the future will not be held in the general women’s estate if they retain male genitalia or have been convicted of a violent or sexual offence – unless in the most exceptional cases. Exemptions will be considered for those currently held in the women’s estate who are assessed as low-risk." Exemptions = pathways for Men to access Womens prison facilities alongside Women."

The trans community wants trans women to go to Womens prisons as a default. For almost a decade, TW were entering Female populations and it wasn't all sweetness and niceties and delicate lady feelings. Female inmates up and down the country have been speaking about this for years, about their fears of potentially dangerous Men being placed among the population, about their experiences, good and bad, of being housed with Men, given thats exactly what has happened before. Even beyond that, those Men don't need to be dangerous to still cause concern for Female inmates, often dealing with years of trauma leading them to prison.

Also important to note that data from 2019 showed:

Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (most recent official count of transgender prisoners):
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison =16.8%

A Man's gender identity doesn't trump a Woman's right to safety, privacy, or dignity. As for it being a "dangerous trope", I disagree. Theres been enough examples across the globe of trans-identified Men committing the very same acts of harm that every other group of Men commits. Safeguarding exists to prevent harm, not wipe it out. Until Men stop abusing Women, that safeguarding remains as important as ever.

 

[Matt N]

I apologise if I’m missing something here, but I think that a good way to resolve concerns around single-sex spaces while still being supportive of transgender people’s right to identify and live how they wish would be to introduce a third, “gender neutral” space alongside your traditional male and female.

As an example, I’ve been to a few places now with gender neutral toilets alongside male and female, and I think it’s a brilliant idea. It ensures that transgender people, including people who identify as non-binary or otherwise not with either of the “traditional” genders, feel included, while also resolving potential safeguarding concerns around transgender people not using the toilets of their biological sex that some express.

The third space would not need to be on the same scale as male or female spaces, as ultimately, only 0.5% of the population had a transgender identity at the most recent census, but I feel that it would go a long way towards pleasing both transgender people and those with safeguarding concerns with regard to single-sex spaces.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Speaking like Isla "I'm Trans now" Bryson didn't happen.

Isla Bryson was subject to the Scottish Justice system and prisons policy, I strictly stated that I was discussing policy within England and Wales. Justice, as you know is devolved.

Also important to note that data from 2019 showed:

Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (most recent official count of transgender prisoners):
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison =16.8%

Why is it important to note this data, what are you suggesting is the story it tells? I'm familiar with the breakdown of people within the custodial justice system in the UK, and their offence types. Do you actually know what you've copied and pasted from the report?

You've presented the number of trans women in prison. You've presented the number of sex offenders in the female estate, and in the male estate. You haven't given a breakdown of how many people, held in either custodial estate, are trans and have committed sexual offences.

It's also important to note that even if you did present this information, MoJ in its reporting does not discriminate between self-identifying and GRC holding prisoners.

There are 13,234 sex offenders in the male estate, according to the numbers you've presented, out of a general male population of 78,781. (2019 data is quite out of date by the way). That's all you've stated, what were you trying to say? Are you suggesting that all people held in the male custodial estate , who have committed sexual offences, identify as trans*? This is seemingly how you've presented the data.