Whoo, boy, talk about not getting the point

In court papers seen by the Observer, the MoJ and government lawyers argue that they do not consider Hudson to be a woman despite the make-up artist reassigning her gender and living as a woman for her adult life. They state Hudson “is as a matter of biological fact a man” and add that the term “transwoman” has no legal significance. They say they have adopted female pronouns when referring to Hudson only “out of respect for her wishes”. In response, Hudson’s legal team accuse government lawyers of adopting “transphobic, unnecessarily abrasive, aggressive and insulting” language towards Hudson, who has breasts and has used hormones for years but does not have a gender recognition certificate.

We’re not told about the snip either way. But, lookie here. It’s possible to get q piece of paper which says gender has hanged. OK, whatever we think of that that is how it works. Have the paper then your legal gender has changed, along with all the other bits of life and law that go along with that. Don’t have it and they ain’t. This isn’t transphobia.

Hudson spent six weeks in jail in 2015, after she admitted head-butting a barman. She spent seven days in HMP Bristol before being moved to a women’s facility, Eastwood Park, after a storm of national protest. Speaking from Belgium, where she lives with her boyfriend, Hudson said: “I was horrified when I read the defence from the MoJ. It states that I’m a male, which is a complete insult, humiliating and wrong because I’ve been living as a female all my adult life. I’m not a drag act. When I was put in jail I’d been the subject of transphobia and it feels like I’m the subject of transphobia again from the MoJ, which is horrible because it’s my government.”

Her lawyer, Jane Ryan of Bhatt Murphy, says the government is denying her gender identity and that its argument runs counter to the ministry’s published policies on trans prisoners and the 2016 women and equalities committee transgender inquiry, the first ever parliamentary report on such issues.

An arrest in 2015 should accord to 2016 findings in what manner?

Quite apart from the manner in which headbutting a barman appears to be rather male behaviour..,…

40 comments on “Whoo, boy, talk about not getting the point

  1. Have the paper then your legal gender has changed, along with all the other bits of life and law that go along with that. Don’t have it and they ain’t.

    Substitute “immigration status” or “marital status” for “gender” in the above, and you’ll find much of the Left’s agenda.

  2. Last year Theresa May announced she would reform the gender recognition act, allowing people to self-identify and removing the need for medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria before someone can officially change gender.

    Does this mean anybody who fancies early retirement can just declare himself a woman?

  3. Just checked Steve –makes no difference male or female. Same date either way round.

    Should have known that the state will always cheat you.

  4. Does this mean anybody who fancies early retirement can just declare himself a woman?

    Gents at the station is shut, switch genders and use the ladies, switch back?

  5. Ecks – bastards

    Rob – it would save me from suddenly identifying as disabled in those situations.

  6. ‘Have the paper then your legal gender has changed, along with all the other bits of life and law that go along with that.’

    Law is applied differently depending on your ‘gender?’

    Equality before the law used to be a good idea.

  7. Love all these new words.

    transwoman
    transphobic
    trans prisoners
    transphobia
    gender recognition
    reassigning gender.

    Is it just me or is there a new term you have never heard of in every new story.

    I get the feeling weirdos pissing about with their bodies are desperate to have their own dictionary one day.

  8. Are we still allowed to say transmission?

    Transportation?

    Transcontinental?

    Translate? [Love that one!]

  9. Translate – when you only identify as female after they catch you hanging around the girls changing rooms?

  10. “Oh, gawd! Who summoned NiV..?”

    Heh!

    “But, lookie here. It’s possible to get q piece of paper which says gender has hanged. OK, whatever we think of that that is how it works. Have the paper then your legal gender has changed, along with all the other bits of life and law that go along with that. Don’t have it and they ain’t.”

    That isn’t how the law works.

    It’s a bit like the way the law works on tax, and the way some people think it *ought* to work.

    “Quite apart from the manner in which headbutting a barman appears to be rather male behaviour..,…”

    “Nightclub headbutt lands Mackay woman in hot water”
    https://www.dailymercury.com.au/news/nightclub-headbutt-lands-mackay-woman-in-hot-water/3217980/

    “Woman in court for head-butting her husband in public”
    http://dailypost.ng/2017/10/24/woman-court-for-head-butting-her-husband-in-public/

    “Woman tagged for trying to headbutt police officer in Coatbridge”
    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/woman-tagged-trying-headbutt-police-11823953

  11. … and on and on…

    “Walmart employee headbutted by customer before retaliating and slamming her onto the ground.”
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1158750/Headbutted-Walmart-worker-slams-woman-ground.html

    “First pictures of mum who HEADBUTTED woman at her daughter’s soft play party after she ‘stepped in to split up row between two kids’”
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4093265/mum-of-three-who-headbutted-a-woman-at-her-daughters-soft-play-birthday-party-says-she-regrets-the-clash/

    “Woman who kicked, head-butted police officer jailed 3 months”
    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/woman-kicked-head-butted-police-officer-jailed-3-months-103524758.html

    Didn’t is occur to anyone else to do a 2 minute search and check?

  12. Purely silly NiV.

    A much smaller number of women deliver headbutts even than the VERY small number of men who do. Most humans have never and likely will never headbutt anyone. Altho nutting is a behaviour of which men and women are capable it is still vastly more a trait of men than women.

    However ALL humans either have a dick OR a cunt. With a very, very ,very few genetic misfires as exceptions. Which FACT they cannot change shy of mutilation. And woman can’t really mutilate their quim away without making a life-ending mess of themselves. You can’t cut out a hole nor would a sew up work. End of story.

  13. “Didn’t is occur to anyone else to do a 2 minute search and check?”

    Didn’t is occur to you to proofread your screed?

  14. “A much smaller number of women deliver headbutts even than the VERY small number of men who do.”

    How do you know? I’ve never seen any statistics on the question. Have you?

  15. Professional anecdata, NiV : far, far, far more apprehended violent offenders are men.

    If course it may just be that the gals are getting away with it.

  16. “Professional anecdata, NiV”

    Which is kind of my point. All these news stories Tim drags up are special cases – anecdotes – unusual enough to make the news, but we’re obviously intended to draw more general conclusions about TGs from them.

    Men commit more crimes of all types (although violent crimes form a similar proportion for both sexes), but to deduce from this that being a criminal constitutes inherently “male” behaviour is deducing too much causation from a correlation. The gender pay gap tells us that men earn more than women, but there are several possible explanations. It might be because of the pressures of society on individuals, or because of the choices of individuals collectively defining society. Maybe people commit crimes because of the hostile and unsupportive way people treat them, and maybe men commit more crimes because they’re expected to “man up” and take care of their problems themselves, while women can more easily call on the rest of society for help?

    I don’t know. But neither does Tim. It’s just an unconsidered stereotype. And in this case subject to selection bias. If you do a search for people of a certain type (whether women or TGs) committing crimes, you will of course find them. But the women who commit those crimes are no more “male” in their propensities than the TGs. Some women as women are criminals.

  17. Bloke in Italy (first in this thread):

    Peak cuntery?

    Always nice to hear from an optimist, but of course there’s no peak anything. It just means you haven’t lived long enough.

  18. NiV, you’re quite right, a transsexual head-butting a man is obviously a female doing ladies’ things.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to colour sort my handbags.

  19. Edward,

    And any of the ladies I just linked to head-butting various people are obviously men, doing men’s things.

    I suggest sorting handbags primary by the occasion they’re suitable for, and only then by colour. You can often match several different colours to an outfit, but you wouldn’t take a plain and capacious handbag to a posh evening do, or vice versa.

  20. They state Hudson “is as a matter of biological fact a man” and add that the term “transwoman” has no legal significance. They say they have adopted female pronouns when referring to Hudson only “out of respect for her wishes”.

    The real question here is does “transwoman” mean this is a “cock in a frock” or a “chick with a dick”?

  21. The real question is whether even the judicial system obeys the law.

    According to the Equality Act 2010, “A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.” As such, they are protected from discrimination. It is a crime to harass or discriminate against such a person.

    Furthermore, Public Authorities have a duty under section 149 of the Act “A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to— (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.”

    The claim is that they broke that law by misinterpreting their previous policy. The prison guidance given in 2011 described what should happen if someone requested or was starting gender transition in prison, said that people should normally be assigned to the prison of their legal gender (i.e. require a gender reassignment certificate), but that sometimes flexibility was appropriate: “D.10. Some transsexual people will be sufficiently advanced in the gender reassignment process that it may be appropriate to place them in the estate of their acquired gender, even if the law does not yet recognise they are of their acquired gender.” The clear meaning of that is that the normal rule is for people early in the process. And the main criterion they are supposed to use to judge is “Whether the prisoner would likely meet the criteria for receiving a gender recognition certificate (i.e. a diagnosis, two years to date consistently living in the acquired gender role, and a firm intention to live permanently in the acquired gender).”

    This particular person would almost certainly have been eligible for a GRC if they had applied, and were of clearly feminine appearance, having been fully transitioned for several years. Even under the existing guidance, she should have been transferred on application, and according to the law should never have been put through the experience. As Tim says: “OK, whatever we think of that that is how it works.”

    I’m not convinced that suing them is a particularly positive way to go about it, but it does tend to get people’s attention, when they’re not taking the law seriously. Question is, do you think the DOJ should take laws seriously, if you yourself don’t like them?

  22. The women you linked to, NiV, are men doing men’s things? As so often, you’re throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

    No one is saying women never act violently. Rather, stereotypes matter. Physical violence is more often more male than it is female.

    Thus, a transsexual head-butting a man sounds more like a man than a woman. To those of us with a sense of proportion and an appreciation of the world as it actually is.

  23. Its the slippery slope of madness when governments cave into pressure from trannies.

    The day will come when every trannie is sitting at home living off the earnings of winning court cases of cruelty against them.

    They will never be part of society….they don’t want it, they just want the law to be on their side so they can be “offended” later.

  24. All these news stories Tim drags up are special cases – anecdotes – unusual enough to make the news, but we’re obviously intended to draw more general conclusions about TGs from them.

    Not really. It’s not the TG-ness of TGs that makes the stories eye-catching. You’ll have notice that the prevailing attitude here seems to place TGs somewhere in a range between ‘unfortunate’ and ‘bonkers’ and thats not newsworthy.

    What is interesting is the stridency with which TGs pursue an argument which flies in the face of, well, everything.

    The other interesting feature is the way that inclusiveness, diversity and the gamut of today’s hooray totems means that the courts, police and every public service is supposed to cater for this aberration. And it’s this that builds antagonism against your tribe of misfits.

  25. The trannies want to be allowed onto labour’s all-wimmin candidate shortlists

    I can’t understand why some male tennis player, ranked 100-200 and nearing the end of his career, doesn’t ‘identify’ as female, don a pair of frilly knickers and win a grand slam. It’s already happening in other sports with much smaller prize money.

  26. “The women you linked to, NiV, are men doing men’s things?”

    No. I was using irony, obviously.

    Well, I thought it was obvious.

    “No one is saying women never act violently.”

    Right. But rather than see that a violent trans-woman is just like a violent woman, exhibiting exactly the same behaviour as a whole list of other women, you take it as an excuse to exercise your prejudices and impose your own subjective worldview on your perception of reality.

    “Thus, a transsexual head-butting a man sounds more like a man than a woman.”

    No, it sounds like a woman. If it had been an cis-woman, it would never have occurred to you to think otherwise. Some women are violent. It’s just a violent woman.

    You’re reading your own prejudices into the situation. If “maleness” is inherent to head-butting (although how an act of violence can have its own gender is a question I’ll leave to the linguists), then those women sound more like they’re “male” too. If you ascribe maleness differently depending on whether the head-butter is a cis-woman or trans-woman, then it’s evidently not the act itself that you’re using to identify the gender of the act. It’s your perception of the actress.

    “Its the slippery slope of madness when governments cave into pressure from trannies.”

    TGs are a tiny minority; they can’t apply any significant pressure. The government is caving to pressure from voters, the majority of who support TG freedoms.

    “The day will come when every trannie is sitting at home living off the earnings of winning court cases of cruelty against them.”

    Easy fix. Don’t be cruel.

    “They will never be part of society….they don’t want it, they just want the law to be on their side so they can be “offended” later.”

    99% of them *do* want to be part of society, and put up with *huge* amounts of constant abuse and offence without complaint. (Because complaining is liable to get you beaten up.) You only hear about the ones who get pissed off with it all and fight back.

    “Not really. It’s not the TG-ness of TGs that makes the stories eye-catching.”

    Only to people who are obsessively deranged about TGs.

    “You’ll have notice that the prevailing attitude here seems to place TGs somewhere in a range between ‘unfortunate’ and ‘bonkers’ and thats not newsworthy.”

    The prevailing attitude here puts them somewhere between “bonkers” and “The Nadir of Marxist Subjectivist Evil!!!11!!”. Merely “unfortunate” would be a considerable improvement.

    “What is interesting is the stridency with which TGs pursue an argument which flies in the face of, well, everything.”

    Is that any more strident than your pursuit of the opposite argument? I *know* TG people, and the subject comes up about twice a year. *You* guys explode into invective-filled rants about it every few days! How many times has it been this year so far? We’ve not even got to the end of January yet!

    It doesn’t fly in the face of everything. If flies in the face of your strongly held opinions. And you are *outraged* that everyone else should have a different opinion.

    “The other interesting feature is the way that inclusiveness, diversity and the gamut of today’s hooray totems means that the courts, police and every public service is supposed to cater for this aberration.”

    That’s how social norms work. It used to be the ‘Christian morality’ totems that resulted in the way the courts, police and every public service catered for banning homosexuality, pornography, prostitution, and wanking. (Sends you blind, you know!) That’s what led the police and courts to drive a harmless war hero like Alan Turing to suicide, with the full acquiescence of society.

    Authoritarians believe society and the state have both the right and duty to impose a certain way of life on other people, either “for their own good” or for “the collective good of society”. Society punished anyone who deviated from its moral standards. That’s where the taboos about TG behaviour came from.

    Well, the norms have changed! The wheel of social revolution has turned, what was good is bad, what was bad is good, we are and always have been at war with Eastasia, and now it is prejudice against sexual dissentients that is taboo. But the Authoritarians are still here, same as before! They’re just enforcing different rules!

    There’s nothing in the streets
    Looks any different to me
    And the slogans are replaced, by the bye
    And a parting on the left
    Is now a parting on the right
    And the beards have all grown longer overnight

    The only alternative to authoritarianism is libertarianism. Only *you* will support enforcement of *your* rules, and there aren’t enough of you any more to push that through. But you can maybe persuade a broader coalition of people to enforce *no* rules, because everyone can see how they’re part of a minority in *some* sense.

    “And it’s this that builds antagonism against your tribe of misfits.”

    Yep. That’s where the antagonism against the morality police – transphobes and homophobes and misogynists and racists – came from in the first place! Call people “bonkers” and worse; bully them, assault them, jail them, chase them out of public life, and you build up a whole load of antagonism! What do you think the ‘minorities’ think of *your* activities? The anger of the SJWs arises from the boiling pot of antagonism that four millennia of persecution of any aberrant behaviour produced.

    And now the majority has swung the other way, and the remnants of the old guard are the tiny “tribe of misfits” being stomped by society.

    Well, personally I’m against that. But not because I think you don’t deserve it. I oppose it because otherwise the cycle of authoritarianism never ends.

    “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” Same as the boss before. Imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.

  27. NiV, old chop, a word to the wise: pith is to clarity as juniper berries are to gin. And screeds are for target practice.

    Moving on:

    1. Yes, I appreciated you were being ironic.

    2. I don’t see a violent transwoman as a violent woman (esp. not when she’s head-butting a man) because a) I know she has some sort of history as a man, b) she’s head-butted a man, which is a vanishingly rare thing for a woman to be reported as doing, and c) even if neither of the foregoing were true, it still sounds like man behaviour.

    3. Conceivably a violent transwoman might be a violent woman. You say my prejudices tell that’s incorrect. I say open-minded prejudice is a good thing.

    4. ‘A transsexual head-butting a man sounds like a woman’. No, really, it does not. Anymore than a multiple child raping taxi driver in a dismal post-industrial town sounds like a caucasian, septagenarian male with a fondness for gardening and cricket. Could happen. But far from often. (irony).

    5. Acts of (physical) violence have their own gender by virtue of being committed overwhelmingly by men. And I’m a big fan of men. Yet, so it is.

    6. In many languages all sorts of things have their own gender.

    7. The government is caving into pressure from voters? Driven, doubtless, beyond endurance to proselytise for TGs … for no reason that any of those voters can pinpoint.

    8. Don’t be cruel? So no jokes (however unpleasant), or you’ll be ruined? Sounds like a protection racket.

    9. 99% of them. Last time, I think we established you knew one or two, and they knew a few more. Where does the 99% come from?

    10. Most of us put up with abuse and complaint. I’ve done so for almost as long as I can remember.

    11. I’ve long said Tim W has skill as an editor. He picks stories that will amuse, alarm, outrage and provoke his readership. So what? We choose to be here. So do you. And actually, putting aside Tim’s role as an agent provocateur, he’s pretty good at picking out the stuff that matters, in the sense that it shapes our world. Your view is the same old SJW reaction of, “Turn away, bigot, nothing to see here”. Many of us want to talk about this. We think it’s a big deal. Telling us we’re bigots for noticing does not assist. And I am sympathetic to the condition of your chums. But I am also sympathetic to things I hold dear. Or am I just expected to roll over? This is not all about law and coercion, although that is much of it: this is about profound attitudes to reality as experienced by experienced people of the world. Whom you dismiss, like a sixth form debater, as knuckleheads. What we are witnessing, and what we are being asked to agree to, is not trivial – either attitudinally, or legally.

    12. Examples, please, of commenters who have advocated stamping on the faces of TGs. I vividly recall the case of a certain Veronica Bolina (sp?), reported here, as having been savagely set-upon. I don’t recall anyone expressing satisfaction at the fact.

    13. What if you’re wrong, and they really are vulnerable, misguided people allowed to mutilate themselves while the colosseum roars its approval?

    14. Lud, try gin with juniper berries.

  28. “pith is to clarity as juniper berries are to gin.”

    🙂

    People complain if I give an extended argument. People complain if I leave huge chunks of argument out. Pith only works if you’re starting from a common set of assumptions and knowledge.

    “because a) I know she has some sort of history as a man”

    Yes, that was my point.

    “b) she’s head-butted a man, which is a vanishingly rare thing for a woman to be reported as doing”

    I just gave nine examples of women being reported doing exactly that!

    If I do an internet search for women committing crimes, it’s virtually certain I’ll find lots. If Tim does an internet search for stories about TG women committing crimes, it’s virtually certain he will find some, too. Because it’s the result of multiple filters – newspaper journalists scanning the world for sensationalist clickbait, and Tim scanning the newspapers for TG stories to promote debate, you can’t use the same intuitions about probabilities. It’s subject to selection bias.

    “c) even if neither of the foregoing were true, it still sounds like man behaviour.”

    When I read the stories with women doing it, I didn’t think “that sounds like man behaviour”. Maybe you did – that was why I was asking. I guess it’s possible. But unless you think all female criminals are engaged in “man behaviour” when they commit crimes, then it’s reason a) and not reason c).

    “I say open-minded prejudice is a good thing.”

    So long as we’re both clear that it’s prejudice, I’ve got no argument. We have different value systems, which are morally incomparable.

    “‘A transsexual head-butting a man sounds like a woman’. No, really, it does not.”

    It does to me.

    Like I said, this is subjective perception.

    “The government is caving into pressure from voters? Driven, doubtless, beyond endurance to proselytise for TGs … for no reason that any of those voters can pinpoint.”

    Any of those voters could pinpoint the reason precisely: – it’s the natural sympathy humans have for a victim of unjustified bullying and persecution. The government simply follows the shifting of public opinion.

    If your norms make a particular behaviour taboo, then persecution of the behaviour seems natural and reasonable. If you don’t have the taboo, then persecution looks revolting. It’s simply that those norms have been dropped by many over the past few decades. It doesn’t require any proselytisation, except to make people aware of it still happening. Their natural revulsion does the rest.

    “Don’t be cruel? So no jokes (however unpleasant), or you’ll be ruined? Sounds like a protection racket.”

    All laws are a ‘protection racket’. Don’t murder people, or you’ll be ruined. Don’t rob people, or you’ll be ruined. etc.

    Jokes are fine if they’re funny or made in fun. But if you’re just telling those jokes to be nasty, it’s the deliberate and persistent nastiness that’s the issue, not the joke.

    “99% of them. Last time, I think we established you knew one or two, and they knew a few more. Where does the 99% come from?”

    There are a *lot* more TGs around than visible and vocal TGs. 1% of the population! In this case, I’m approximating; largely because nobody can collect official statistics on how many TGs there are who still haven’t “come out” to more than a handful of friends/family.

    “Most of us put up with abuse and complaint. I’ve done so for almost as long as I can remember.”

    Not like this you don’t.

    “I’ve long said Tim W has skill as an editor. He picks stories that will amuse, alarm, outrage and provoke his readership. So what? We choose to be here. So do you.”

    I’m not really complaining about Tim talking about it. I *do* enjoy arguing the case! What I’m complaining about is that while Tim and other people keep on bringing the subject up, *I* get the blame for talking about it constantly!

    I’m simply pointing out that it’s not *me* that’s being monomaniacal about it.

    “Many of us want to talk about this. We think it’s a big deal. […] But I am also sympathetic to things I hold dear. Or am I just expected to roll over?”

    I don’t have a problem with that. It’s perfectly reasonable to say it makes you feel uncomfortable, or that you don’t like it, or don’t understand it. You can’t legislate feelings. What I’m mainly arguing with is where people say stuff that is just factually wrong.

    And by the same token, you have to accept that I think transphobia is a big deal, and I have lot of sympathy for the victims of it, like my friends. Am I just expected to roll over?

    Or is it that *I* have to roll over but *you* don’t?

    “This is not all about law and coercion, although that is much of it: this is about profound attitudes to reality as experienced by experienced people of the world. Whom you dismiss, like a sixth form debater, as knuckleheads. What we are witnessing, and what we are being asked to agree to, is not trivial – either attitudinally, or legally.”

    I agree it’s not trivial. The way culture and moral systems shift over time is one of the most profound causes of social conflict and revolution, the motivation for persecution and atrocities throughout all history.

    Every generation faces the same problem. A hundred years ago, strait-laced Victorian matrons cried in horror at the lax morals of their ‘flapper’ children exposing their ankles, who grew up to cry in horror in turn when the swinging sixties turned out mini-skirts and rock’n’roll. And then Mary Whitehouse and the Viewers and Listeners Association fought a running battle through the 70s to keep ‘smut’ off the telly, to keep pornography locked up, and to keep the homosexuals locked in the closet. It’s all those complaints your parents made about ‘youth culture’ when you were growing up.

    Every generation it’s the same. Standards and norms change, and everyone who grew up with the old norms is disoriented and disgusted at the way decadent civilisation is decaying. Every one of them is convinced that the norms they learnt as children are the only valid ones, and that they are natural, obvious, universal, eternal, and unquestionable.

    The next generation will learn the same lesson too, to their shock and consternation, in about 20 years time. Cultural shift is eternal.

    I’m trying to get you to recognise it for what it is, because it’s only when you know what’s going on that you can work out how best to respond to it; what the realistic limits are.

    “Examples, please, of commenters who have advocated stamping on the faces of TGs”

    I was alluding to George Orwell’s image of the future. It’s an allegory.

    The point is that the authoritarians of *every* generation try to stamp their new values on the heretic authoritarians of the previous generation, and thirty years later they will get stamped on in turn by the next one. And so long as authoritarianism is tolerated, they will do so forever. “Then I’ll get on my knees and pray We don’t get fooled again”.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.