Prisoners should be allowed to wear their own clothes in jail because transgender inmates are allowed to wear dresses and make-up, inspectors have said.
I’m sure that easier solution will come to me soon enough….
Prisoners should be allowed to wear their own clothes in jail because transgender inmates are allowed to wear dresses and make-up, inspectors have said.
I’m sure that easier solution will come to me soon enough….
Does it involve a length of rope?
Because, myself, I have no objection to people being buried in whatever they feel like.
There is no point jailing as many people as we do. It only provides the world with more rape victims.
This is a specialist prison for sex offenders. I’m, only surprised the ‘Guardian’ isn’t howling about this.
“One prisoner, writing recently, said that prison uniforms were “drab” and often didn’t fit properly,
The inmate wrote in JailMail magazine: “Since going back on basic I’m back in prison-issue gear, which is shrunk to hell.”
Others complained that the uniform was “drab and colourless”.”
If that’s their only complaint, they’ve got it far too easy.
Do real^H^H^H^H cis women prisoners get to order dresses and makeup?
What trans prisoners?
I thought they were so harmless that they should be allowed in women’s toilets?
> Europe’s biggest prison for sex offenders … 840-capacity prison … with a total of 12 now living as women in the all-male prison.
That’s 1.4%: presumably much higher than the incidence of trannyism in the wider population. Can we thus conclude that men who live as women are substantially more likely to be sex offenders than cis men?
Andrew M – “Can we thus conclude that men who live as women are substantially more likely to be sex offenders than cis men?”
Either that or they are more likely to commit GBH and murder.
@Andrew M,
My guess is they do it to wind up the many more who conveniently find Allah at her maj’s pleasure.
“Can we thus conclude that men who live as women are substantially more likely to be sex offenders than cis men?”
Depends. Does going into the women’s bathroom count as sex offense?
Here’s another one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-38511385
I’m having trouble untangling that last sentence. Was Bethany planning to have a child with Kayleigh as the father? Or does poor Jack not understand the principles of biology?
As reported in the Sun:
A difficulty entirely of their own making.
No kidding!
840 sex offenders will cost c. £30m pa to keep in prison (@£36k a prison place pa). We need another Albert Pierrepoint.
“I thought they were so harmless that they should be allowed in women’s toilets?”
Women are allowed in women’s toilets, and there are women prisoners.
Anyway, cisgender men are allowed in women’s railway carriages, women’s offices, women’s cars, and women’s houses. (In fact, quite a lot of houses are built with only one toilet, which the men and women are forced to share!) And as everyone knows, 95% of prisoners are cisgender men. Should it be allowed?
“That’s 1.4%: presumably much higher than the incidence of trannyism in the wider population.”
Current estimates for the transgender are around 1%, and transvestism about 4%, but nobody really knows. It’s probably within the margin of error.
However, both crime and transgenderism are associated with poverty, due to the difficulty transgender people have getting/keeping a job. It’s probably just a confounder.
1%? That seems too high by a couple of orders of magnitude.
NiV – “Current estimates for the transgender are around 1%, and transvestism about 4%, but nobody really knows. It’s probably within the margin of error.”
California estimates that 3.2% of their population is on the LBT spectrum and about 3.3% of those are transgender of some sort. That is, about 0.1%. A lot fewer than that have had the chop. Britain as a whole has about 5,000 people who have had the operation. Which is about one in ten thousand – 0.01%.
We are making a whole lot of fuss over a community so small it makes trans spotters look like Calcutta on a hot humid summer’s night.
“However, both crime and transgenderism are associated with poverty, due to the difficulty transgender people have getting/keeping a job. It’s probably just a confounder.”
Oddly enough schizophrenia is also associated with poverty and it is also hard for them to get and keep a job.
Go figure.
NiV: However, both crime and transgenderism are associated with poverty, due to the difficulty transgender people have getting/keeping a job.
If that’s so – and why wouldn’t it be because lots of doctoral theses have doubtless researched the subject – then gender “reassignment” should only be undertaken privately (yes,yes but also meaning not on the NHS) and on people with sufficient wealth that they can support themselves once they have fallen out with themselves, their willy and the world beyond.
“1%? That seems too high by a couple of orders of magnitude.”
The problem is that the majority of them are scared to admit it because of all the people like Mr Ecks being out there.
Unless they contact the authorities – and if you decide you don’t need surgery or other treatment why would you? – nobody would know about them, so the population is unknown and probably heavily underestimated. The government commisioned GIRES to come up with a figure, and they extrapolated the statistics on the massive increase in the number who had ‘come out’ recently and estimated that the ultimate number would probably be around 1%. I saw some figures suggesting about 1 in 2500 in the US had had surgery.
The trouble is, you’re basing your “couple of orders of magnitude” estimate on how many you’re personally aware of. But when we’re talking about something that most people who have the condition are extremely unwilling to admit to, that they’re frightened about how you would react to, what makes you think your estimate (or anyone else’s estimate) comes anywhere close to the true number?
“We are making a whole lot of fuss over a community so small it makes trans spotters look like Calcutta on a hot humid summer’s night.”
Quite so. Even at 1%, they’re not a problem. The only reason it’s an issue is that Moses wrote some harsh words about them in Deuteronomy back in the Iron Age (which Mo agreed with), and as a result the authoritarian traditionalists are guaranteed to blow a fuse if anyone defends them, which now that LGBTers are becoming more accepted by the general public allows the SJWs to easily discredit said traditionalists in the eyes of the world.
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. What gender people present themselves as in public or private does no harm to anyone, and so is nobody else’s business. Laws to stop people “visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise” should apply to anyone doing anything when it’s none of anyone else’s business. It’s no different to any other minority interest that the authoritarian types don’t like.
Muslim traditionalists make the same arguments. The same counter-arguments apply.
“then gender “reassignment” should only be undertaken privately (yes,yes but also meaning not on the NHS)”
*All* medical treatment should be undertaken privately. There’s no difference.
Transgender people pay taxes too. If you’re going to have an NHS paid for by taxes levied on everyone, whether they agree with it or not, then it treats everyone for everything impartially, whether they among the ‘deserving’ or not. We’d be better off without it, but if you’re going to have it, and it’s going to treat people for getting drunk or pulling muscles playing football, then you can damn well treat a condition with a 40% attempted suicide rate.
“Anyway, cisgender men are allowed in women’s railway carriages, women’s offices, women’s cars, and women’s houses. (In fact, quite a lot of houses are built with only one toilet, which the men and women are forced to share!) And as everyone knows, 95% of prisoners are cisgender men. Should it be allowed?”
In a career of blank stupidity NiV the above paragraph is your stupidest yet. WTF does any of that tripe have to do with the tide of freaks and pervs who would invade women’s toilets if the trans mob ( or rather the leftist scum on the job–like you–) blaze the trail for them.
Also– you deceitful sack of SJW shite– nowhere have I ever advocated that traniods be attacked merely for their weird ways. I have repeatedly said that I don’t care what weirdos get up to so long as they leave alone those who want nothing to do with their antics. If someone wants to con himself that he is a women he can knock himself out for all I care.
He is not going in the women’s toilet however. I do advocate whatever measures may be needed up and including violence –in response to violence offered-to stop ANY male in or of any condition/type from going in the ladies bog. Never, you God-damn liar, have I advocated that trannies be bashed because of their odd antics alone. Stay away from women’s toilets and there will be no trouble.
“In a career of blank stupidity NiV the above paragraph is your stupidest yet.”
Yep. I was just using the same logic you just did, but on a different set of equivalent circumstances. The entire idea was to demonstrate just how stupid your reasoning was. Clearly, I succeeded. 🙂
“WTF does any of that tripe have to do with the tide of freaks and pervs who would invade women’s toilets if the trans mob ( or rather the leftist scum on the job–like you–) blaze the trail for them.”
Because it’s the same tide of pervs and freaks that would invade the women’s railway carriages if we allowed men into them.
Remember this story? “A German rail operator has introduced women-only carriages to some of its trains following a spate of violent sex attacks as the reason.”
As I recall, your response was to advocate violence. “Let railway carriages be unsegregated and the women in them be carrying (and properly trained with) firearms. Problem solved.” I’m not sure if your idea was that they shoot any man trying to get into the same carriage with them, or just the gropers. Given how your brain seems to work, I’m guessing the former. (I think there may be a few practical problems with your plan.)
Tim suggested, and I think he’s probably right, that it’s only the segregated societies that have the problems requiring segregation. Without any close familiarity with the opposite sex, there’s a tendency to treat them as objects, and with them all hidden away in forbidden territory, it’s tempting to invade and grab some.
But our society isn’t segregated because we don’t have those problems. Men can sit alongside women in railway carriages without sexually assaulting them. Workmen can go round and fix the boiler in women’s houses. Students can live together in shared accommodation without assaulting one another. Men can ride as passengers in taxis driven by women drivers. It’s not a problem, because nearly all men are not perverts.
My point is that you’re well aware of all the examples in our society when random men and women are left alone together – elevators, shops, restaurants, parks, whatever – and you’re equally well aware that the men generally don’t attack the women. The few that do are better dealt with on an individual basis than by banning one entire sex from half the elevators, shops, etc. The same logic obviously applies to toilets.
If you was able to understand logic and abstract reasoning, you would have recognised that the arguments for segregating railway carriages and toilets have the same structure. The same conclusion applies – segregation is counterproductive, leading to more assaults. But all you can see is your traditionalist expectations about society under threat of change, you’re mad-angry about that, and you’re just lashing out. Ban it. Smash it. Use violence on anyone who disagrees. Toys *right* out of the cot. Unable to recognise that not everyone who disagrees with you is part of a single category. They’re all the enemy class!
The Islamists have the same problem – they find their society changing, and they don’t like it. Now you know how they feel.
—
And how are we supposed to parse this juxtaposition?
“Also– you deceitful sack of SJW shite– nowhere have I ever advocated that traniods be attacked merely for their weird ways.”
…versus…
“I do advocate whatever measures may be needed up and including violence…”
You have never advocated attacking people for what they do, but you do advocate attacking them if they do the (perfectly legal and harmless) things you don’t want them to do? And that doesn’t count as advocating attacking them? It must be really interesting inside your head – like one of those Salvador Dali paintings.
For all your pretensions of libertarianism you are a bog-standard–literally– SJW conman NiV.
“Because it’s the same tide of pervs and freaks that would invade the women’s railway carriages if we allowed men into them.”
Yes because a secluded bog is equivalent to a railway carriage isn’t it you brainless freak.
““A German rail operator has introduced women-only carriages to some of its trains following a spate of violent sex attacks as the reason.”
You two-faced deceitful twat. The attacks were carried out by the lovely RoP gang. You, dickhead, advocate allowing in however many millions of same want to come here. Because our lovely society–which they fucking despise anyway–and the personal magnetism of the great NiV will soon convert them to our ways. How soon NIB–before they have manage to rape ALL the women and sodomise most under 10 males?
Still waiting for details of how many jihadis you personally have converted to the Rainbow Flag. Always will be waiting.
“As I recall, your response was to advocate violence.”
Damn right I advocate women protecting themselves. What does women defending themselves against sex attackers–because cowardly leftist twats like you don’t give a shit– have to do with trannies being attacked on the street for no reason.
“I’m not sure if your idea was that they shoot any man trying to get into the same carriage with them, or just the gropers. Given how your brain seems to work, I’m guessing the former. (I think there may be a few practical problems with your plan.)”
More deceitful leftist cockrot as you well know.
“Without any close familiarity with the opposite sex, there’s a tendency to treat them as objects, and with them all hidden away in forbidden territory, it’s tempting to invade and grab some.”
The imperial voice of a medical/psychiatric genius. Like the Shadow NIB also knows the evil that lurks in the hearts of men.
“It’s not a problem, because nearly all men are not perverts.”
So we don’t need coppers then NIB or courts or any of that shit do we. The thing is numbnuts that women don’t generally drop their knickers and/or expose their genitals in railway carriages/lifts or anywhere else on your tedious list. Perverted males with “golden showers” or coprolitic fetishes rarely come across women emptying their waste sacks in public places. Those who want to rape and/or assault women need secluded zones not broad daylight. The train scenarios are exceptions to this general rule of crime in isolated places but of course that is covered by the mob-handed sudden shock tactics of your dear RoP friends. Who will soon–of course–be giving up their nasty ways after your golden tongue has laved their earholes with your infinite wisdom.
“You have never advocated attacking people for what they do, but you do advocate attacking them if they do the (perfectly legal and harmless) things you don’t want them to do? ”
Forcing their way into a place they are neither wanted or welcome is harmless then you lying cunt? Or is it the very essence of rape in symbolic form? Were you actually going to ask any women whether or not they wanted their toilets opened up? Or where you intending to just do it and give your patronising explanations of how their fears are merely silly and everything will be ok cos Uncle NiV says so.
So tranny going about his “life” is one thing. But trying to force his way into the ladies is another. He would be told to stop and if he tried to force his way in He (for he it is)–or any on his team trying to use force should certainly be met with violence. Violence for the violent. If he is harmlessly living his life bothering none then good luck to the poor sod. But forcing entry to women’s toilets is not ” harmlessly living his life”.
Piss off NIB. You and your gang will not win.
“Yes because a secluded bog is equivalent to a railway carriage isn’t it you brainless freak.”
Yes?
“Damn right I advocate women protecting themselves. What does women defending themselves against sex attackers–because cowardly leftist twats like you don’t give a shit– have to do with trannies being attacked on the street for no reason.”
Because by the same logic, that means we ought to give the transgender women too, to defend themselves with?
“So we don’t need coppers then NIB or courts or any of that shit do we.”
So are you disagreeing and saying all men *are* perverts, which is why we need courts? I think you’ve got your own argument twisted backwards.
“The thing is numbnuts that women don’t generally drop their knickers and/or expose their genitals in railway carriages/lifts or anywhere else on your tedious list. Perverted males with “golden showers” or coprolitic fetishes rarely come across women emptying their waste sacks in public places.”
You must travel on different trains to the ones I do…
“The train scenarios are exceptions to this general rule of crime in isolated places but of course”
Ha! Ha! Ha!
You mean, “I’m obviously contradicting myself, but that somehow doesn’t matter because Muslims”.
“Forcing their way into a place they are neither wanted or welcome is harmless then you lying cunt?”
Nobody would even notice, in most cases. You go in, use toilet, wash hands, and walk out.
What you are complaining about is not any specific harm being done, but simply the heinous crime of somebody doing something you don’t want them to do, going where you don’t want them to go. Who elected you dictator of the world?
If some idiot society thought the front of the bus should be whites only, and some Rosa Parks had the temerity to sit at the front in defiance of its edict, then she would be “neither wanted or welcome” there. I contend that yes, it would also be “harmless”. As became perfectly apparent when a few years later it became normal for black women to sit at the front of the bus.
Of course, you’d be the white guy punching Rosa Parks in the face and throwing her off the bus, while claiming to everyone watching that you don’t advocate violence against black people simply for going about their business, just so long as they don’t go anywhere they’re “neither wanted nor welcome”. She was clearly forcing herself onto the front of the bus! You’re obviously justified in using unlimited violence to repel her harmful aggression, as part of your fight to keep society’s authoritarians from telling other people what they’re allowed to do. The doublethink astounds.
You clearly don’t have any logical argument to counter any of my points, which is why you resort to bad language as some sort of over-the-top ‘sergeant-majorish’ aggression distraction. If you can’t reason your way past having just made a fool of yourself, just roar and scream abuse in your opponents face, spittle flying, in an attempt to intimidate them into silence.
I’m not impressed. You might be used to shutting people up that way in real life, when you can get to frighten people with the idea that they’re facing a violent lunatic in person, but it doesn’t work so well over the internet. Heh.
Dear Mr Worstall
Pink onesies for all with optional hood with ears?
DP
Logic ?? The only explanation to your cockrot is that you are pretending to be even stupider than you are as a attack tactic.
“Because by the same logic, that means we ought to give the transgender women too, to defend themselves with?”
Fine–anyone should be able to protect themselves from unprovoked attack–with firearms and fuck gun laws.
You travel on nudist trains do you NiV? Or do you just talk shit to exercise your Adams Apple?
“So are you disagreeing and saying all men *are* perverts, which is why we need courts? I think you’ve got your own argument twisted backwards.”
So its black or white is it NIB–all perverts or none? Oh yeah–Mr Logic indeed.
“You mean, “I’m obviously contradicting myself, but that somehow doesn’t matter because Muslims”.
The very news report YOU fucking linked to gives the lie to your bullshit. Detailed the mass assault train crimes of the native Germans did it?
“Nobody would even notice, in most cases. You go in, use toilet, wash hands, and walk out.”
So you prefer deceit to actual confrontation. And what if they don’t just wash up and leave. What then NIB–how many women have to be covertly photographed and put on the web or embarrassed or groped or robbed, raped or abducted or murdered (depending on the circs) because your Marxian shite was more important than the real well-being of women . No answer was offered to my question about your plans to ask women (or not) about what they want.
“What you are complaining about is not any specific harm being done, but simply the heinous crime of somebody doing something you don’t want them to do, going where you don’t want them to go. Who elected you dictator of the world?”
More shite. You opening your gob is something I don’t want but I’m not suggesting that you be silenced. And who elected YOU you SJW puke?
Next we get down to the real nitty gritty.
“If some idiot society thought the front of the bus should be whites only, and some Rosa Parks had the temerity to sit at the front in defiance of its edict, then she would be “neither wanted or welcome” there. I contend that yes, it would also be “harmless”. As became perfectly apparent when a few years later it became normal for black women to sit at the front of the bus.”
Ah Rosa Parks eh Captain Cockrot.
Rosa Parks wanted to sit quietly at the front of the bus. Can you NIB give guarantees that your trans buddies ( a very small number despite your delusional theorising earlier in the thread AND the much greater number of sexual deviants and criminals that your trail-blazing bullshit will allow to access the Ladies) will all sit quietly on the pot , wash and leave? If Rosa Parks had been sitting at the front while also trying to shove a Go Pro down men’s pants and up women’s skirts , grope her fellow passengers and commit even worse sex crimes she SHOULD have been ejected and disbarred from sitting anywhere on said bus. When women in a cubicle look up to see that some perv has hoisted a GO-Pro on high because he wants a film of her pissing or grunting on the pot for his future use/posting online–are you going to apologise and make restitution NIB?
“Of course, you’d be the white guy punching Rosa Parks in the face and throwing her off the bus, while claiming to everyone watching that you don’t advocate violence against black people simply for going about their business, just so long as they don’t go anywhere they’re “neither wanted nor welcome”. She was clearly forcing herself onto the front of the bus! ”
If Rosa Parks had been a known sex criminal with a track record of getting on buses to sexually harass and assault people I would not only have thrown her off the bus I would stop her getting on the bus in the first place.
“You’re obviously justified in using unlimited violence to repel her harmful aggression, as part of your fight to keep society’s authoritarians from telling other people what they’re allowed to do. The doublethink astounds.”
Here is the very essence of your lies NIB. I have on numerous occasions said that the only type of trans that should be allowed in to the ladies are those with the commitment to have had their knobs whacked off. This thread has shown –see my original post above–that there ARE trans criminals whose wrongdoing is enough to get them locked up. And there are many more perverts who would pretend to be trans to get into the Ladies. The issue is not what they CLAIM–as false to fact as that is. The issue is what would actually happen. You claim nothing would happen but you clearly don’t give a damn and couldn’t care less what might befall women who would have to live with the consequences of your ideological shite.
My bad language–a very fine distinction from NiV the great non-discriminator– arises from the rage I feel against leftist scum. I care nothing for what effect it has on you good or ill.
You will still lose.
“Logic ?? The only explanation to your cockrot is that you are pretending to be even stupider than you are as a attack tactic.”
Ah! Excellently reasoned! You’d be quoting Einstein, there? Or was it Frege?
“Fine–anyone should be able to protect themselves from unprovoked attack–with firearms and fuck gun laws.”
What’s a “fuck gun”? Hmm. Never mind. I’m not sure I want to know.
“You travel on nudist trains do you NiV? Or do you just talk shit to exercise your Adams Apple?”
No, all the trains I travel on have the perfectly normal people reading newspapers, chatting with friends, staring out of the window. All with their clothes on. I’ve never seen any “Perverted males with “golden showers” or coprolitic fetishes” on trains. The worst I normally get is the guy with his headphones playing music too loud. You must live in an exciting part of the world!
“So its black or white is it NIB–all perverts or none?”
No. Do you have trouble with reading comprehension?
I said: “It’s not a problem, because nearly all men are not perverts.” How you get from that to conclude that I meant to say all men were perverts or none is beyond me. Or why you would think that meant we didn’t need coppers or courts. Do you have these little episodes very often?
“The very news report YOU fucking linked to gives the lie to your bullshit. Detailed the mass assault train crimes of the native Germans did it?”
Ummm. How does that answer the point that you said that “Those who want to rape and/or assault women need secluded zones not broad daylight.” and then clearly realised you was talking bollocks when you remembered that’s exactly what the Muslims on trains just did? But still posted it anyway? Realising you had just said something so obviously untrue that even you noticed, you tried to explain why this obvious exception to the rule you had just stated as truth didn’t count.
It’s not a problem that your claim that “Those who want to rape and/or assault women need secluded zones not broad daylight” is contradicted by the train gropers doing exactly that because “of course that is covered by the mob-handed sudden shock tactics of your dear RoP friends.” Mmmm, you mean that non-Muslims can’t use mob-handed sudden shock tactics? You don’t think that “Those who want to rape and/or assault women” can’t use the same tactics too?
This is like saying “Birds need daylight to fly, and those birds you see flying at night are exceptions ‘covered’ by them flapping their wings very hard.” Er, yeah. Obviously. The fact that there’s an obvious tactic to get round the problem and do what you just said nobody could do totally explains the contradiction. Because Muslims.
“So you prefer deceit to actual confrontation.”
No. I prefer a world where people can walk in, use the toilet, wash their hands, and walk out to one where some maniac accosts them outside the door and confronts them with violence to stop that happening. Because people simply using the toilet is too terrifying a prospect to contemplate, or something.
“And what if they don’t just wash up and leave.”
And what if they do?
There are two distinct and separate acts here – going to the toilet, and attacking women. Don’t get them confused. One is legal and harmless, the other is already illegal.
There are many other pairs of actions that you could also get confused. There’s people taking their dog for a walk in the park, and them picking up dog shit and flinging it at people. There’s people going outside for a quick smoke, and them mugging people trying to walk past to get more money for fags. There’s people setting up orphanages, and them selling the inmates as sex slaves to rich celebrities. I realise you might think we need to ban dog walking because of the danger of poo-flingers, or ban smoking because it gives them the opportunity to mug people, but really they’re different things. Walking the dog is legal and harmless. Flinging feces is not.
“What then NIB–how many women have to be covertly photographed and put on the web or embarrassed or groped or robbed, raped or abducted or murdered (depending on the circs) because your Marxian shite was more important than the real well-being of women.”
The same reasoning applies to railway carriages, yes? How many women have to be groped because you think the freedom of men to sit in railway carriages is more important than protecting those women? How many people have to be mugged because you think the freedom to pop outside for a fag overides the right of others to keep their cash? How many people have to have poo flung at them because the ‘Marxists’ allow people to walk their dogs? So many questions!
Tell you what. I propose we make groping, robbing, raping and abducting women illegal! We’ll put a sign on the door saying so. Because I’m sure that anyone who wanted to grope, rob, rape, or abduct a woman – who was so totally lost to morality, law, and caution as to consider doing so – would be totally stymied by a sign on the door saying “No rapists”. I mean, it’s not like anyone locks the door to the ladies, is it?
Laws only stop the law-abiding doing things.
“No answer was offered to my question about your plans to ask women (or not) about what they want.”
What they want has no more to do with anything than what white people sat at the front of the bus want. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. Going to the toilet does no harm to others. Therefore it cannot rightfully be outlawed.
If anyone has any rights to say yes or no to this, it’s the owner of the toilet. If the owner wants to allow anyone in, they should be able to. If the owner wants to exclude men, women, blacks, whites, Protestants, Catholics, right-wingers, left-wingers, or any other class, then they’re an unpleasantly prejudiced bastard, but within their rights.
But you don’t get to decide, unless it’s your own personal toilet. And you have to bear in mind that if you choose to use this rule, that it can be used against you. When every toilet in Christendom is marked “Absolutely No Transphobes” and you’re crossing your legs in desperation, remember that you asked for it. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the transgender.
“More shite. You opening your gob is something I don’t want but I’m not suggesting that you be silenced.”
Uh Huh. “Piss off NIB.” What’s that supposed to mean?
“Can you NIB give guarantees that your trans buddies […] will all sit quietly on the pot, wash and leave?”
Yes. They all do, and have done for years.
Can you give the same guarantee with respect to your cis-gendered male friends being allowed onto railway carriages, that they’ll sit quietly reading the newspaper, or whatever?
“If Rosa Parks had been sitting at the front while also trying to shove a Go Pro down men’s pants and up women’s skirts , grope her fellow passengers and commit even worse sex crimes she SHOULD have been ejected and disbarred from sitting anywhere on said bus.”
Yes. I agree.
Sexual assault should be illegal. Sitting quietly at the front of the bus should not be illegal. Quietly going to the toilet should not be illegal.
Throwing a black women off the bus because allowing such a trail-blazing act might lead in future to women “trying to shove a Go Pro down men’s pants” is deranged. And illegal.
“When women in a cubicle look up to see that some perv has hoisted a GO-Pro on high because he wants a film of her pissing or grunting on the pot for his future use/posting online–are you going to apologise and make restitution NIB?”
Why would I?
The door’s not locked. Any guy with a camera can march right in today. Allowing trans women to go to the toilet doesn’t change that fact one iota.
And believe me, if you’re contemplating a criminal act that might require you to run away very fast, and not have every witness notice you and be able to provide the police with an excellent and near-unique description, it’s not a good idea to perpetrate it in 4 inch heels and a tight skirt!
The only people responsible for criminality are the criminals.
“If Rosa Parks had been a known sex criminal with a track record”
Hmm. This might be something we can agree on.
Tell you what. If I agree that trans women who are known sex criminals with a track record of abusing their access should not be allowed in, would you agree that the ones who *don’t* have such a record should be? Or would you throw Rosa off the bus just in case she had a history of sex offences?
“This thread has shown –see my original post above–that there ARE trans criminals whose wrongdoing is enough to get them locked up.”
Yep. And as I pointed out way back when, 95% of the prison population are cisgender men. Should we therefore ban all cisgender men from going anywhere they could possibly commit some crime just in case they turn out to be criminal? Will you apologise and make restitution to any victims of cisgender male criminals, because you didn’t support them all being put under house arrest?
I mean, the fact that so many get put in prison is proof that cisgender men are dangerous. They should all be locked up. Or at least that would be the logical implication, if we were to apply your Group A/Group B trick to a different group.
“And there are many more perverts who would pretend to be trans to get into the Ladies.”
Why would they need to? The door’s not locked. There’s no magic barrier that stops you passing unless you’re wearing a skirt. You can just walk in.
“My bad language–a very fine distinction from NiV the great non-discriminator– arises from the rage I feel against leftist scum.”
It’s a pity, then, that you can’t actually recognise who is a leftist and who isn’t. So far as I can see, it’s more about the rage you feel when society dares to allow people to to do things you don’t approve of, but which you can’t do anything about because they’re not hurting anybody. You make up shit about how they *might* hurt somebody, or how actual criminals might pretend to be like them to try to justify your persecution, but you’re not fooling anybody. The tactic is straight out of the authoritarian play book. It’s just an excuse.
My labelling you as stupid is an expression of my contempt for you but it now seems to be either literally true–that you are a moron or you are pretending to misunderstand the points I make merely to distort the argument and avoid your defeat. I am not spending all night fisking your 3 million word “Who’s on first” routines.
I note again no answer has been offered as to whether women are to be consulted at all about your plans. Like the Jihadi converts this is another answer I will never receive.
Like it or lump it your trans pals aren’t going to get in the Ladies. Your fantasies about the massive groundswell of support your loony crap enjoys are just that. SJW bullshit.
My mistake–on a final quick re-read of your tripe I discover I missed the one line where you HAVE answered my question about asking women.
You don’t give a shit about what they want.
And any extra trouble that comes their way from your Marxian cant –which you say there won’t be any so that’s OK then–you don’t give a shit about that either.
There we see the true SJW scumbag you are NIB.
“You don’t give a shit about what they want.”
That wasn’t what I said. I said what they wanted wasn’t relevant to whether it was right to do it.
If the Ku Klux Klan *want* the blacks thrown off the bus, should I care? If the Klan *want* slavery to continue, should I care?
If the radical feminists – who claim to represent what women want – *want* power over society, should we care? Do you care what Amanda Marcotte or Naomi Klein *want*? They’re women, too. I suspect you only care for what women think when they agree with you.
As it happens, I do. I sympathise with such people that the world they grew up in has moved on. Moral standards are generated communally – by the constant interactions between people trying to live peaceably in close proximity. If you’re raised in a racist, sexist, segregated, authoritarian society, you’ll naturally come to believe that is the way things ought to be. When those moral standards evolve, they’re unhappy, and it’s not entirely their fault they believe what they do.
But the consequence of a constantly evolving moral standard is that authoritarian philosophies lead to periodic violent conflict between generations and lots of unpleasantness. What you do to suppress the dissentients of your own times will come back to bite you when your own views go out of date. Libertarian philosophies are designed to minimise that conflict and distress by maximising tolerance.
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. Going to the toilet does no harm to others. Therefore it cannot rightfully be outlawed. Anyone trying to is an authoritarian.
For what it’s worth, women tend to be more supportive of transgender rights generally than men are. About 25% of men are opposed, but only 15% of women. And my transgender friends have said that their female acquaintances are generally friendlier about it (and safer) than men are. Familiarity helps.