What an interesting problem

Dragging on her king-sized cigarette in front of a no-smoking sign, her long, red-dyed hair falling over her silver fur coat, Davina Ayrton smiled at the camera just before she was sentenced to eight years in prison for raping a schoolgirl.

For anyone asking how a woman can be convicted of rape — which in law requires the use of a penis — the answer is Ayrton, previously known as David, was a man when she pinned down her 15-year-old victim in a Portsmouth garage. She still has her male genitalia.

At trial Ayrton expressed a wish to serve her time in a women’s prison. Now a proposed change in the law makes her desire a real prospect.

Leave aside all the usual trans stuff and concentrate just upon the individual problem here.

On the one side, the declaration of being male or female is what matters. That’s the general demand, isn’t it? Genitalia, genes, chromosomes, these are no longer the determinants, it is, to use the speak of da youf, teh feelz which matter.

OK.

Then we’ve also got these supposedly single sex environments, prisons. Where simple invocation of teh feelz means that those with complimentary genitalia can end up in what is, by genitalia, not a single sex environment:

One of the 13, Paris Green, was convicted of murder as a man and has twice been allowed to transfer to women’s units before being moved out again after having sex with female inmates.

So, what is to be done?

In March, Jessica Winfield, a transgender double rapist convicted under her previous identity of Martin Ponting, was moved to a women’s jail after having a sex change. Two months ago, Winfield was reportedly segregated after making “inappropriate advances” to female prisoners.

I dunno either. About the only thing I can think of is to insist that the criteria for moving between jails is based upon more than just teh feelz. But then doesn’t that violate the basic assumption that we’re insisting upon in the rest of society?

83 thoughts on “What an interesting problem”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    But then doesn’t that violate the basic assumption that we’re insisting upon in the rest of society?

    We? Who is this “we” Kemosabe? But if society does feel this way, f**k ’em. Insanity is no less insane because it is widely shared.

    The obviously solution is to have a third prison.

  2. Fair point.

    Although the article also brings up the issue of names. Why are men so bad at choosing female names? They all sound like shit Bond girls.

  3. SMFS, the way it is going we’d need at least 7 :
    1. For men who think they’re men,
    2. For women who think they’re women
    3. For men who think they’re women,
    4. For women who think they’re men
    5. For gender neutral
    6. For gender fluid
    7. For those who enjoy dressing up as farmyard animals.

  4. So Much For Subtlety

    John square – “Why are men so bad at choosing female names? They all sound like shit Bond girls.”

    Men? The same reason why people who do a Black-face Amos and Andy routine tend not to make African Americans look good.

    Addolff – “7. For those who enjoy dressing up as farmyard animals.”

    Nothing wrong with women who dress as squirrels! We do not need prisons for them. I am sure that an y number of volunteers around here would provide them with some sort of excellent day release scheme.

  5. I read an interesting comment recently from someone who claimed to have seen Ian Huntley’s unreleased Home Office file. Huntley is also claiming to identify as a woman and is campaigning to move to a woman’s prison. Summary was “Huntley should never be allowed near a woman, any woman, ever again”

  6. @SMFS

    But it’s not that- we pick our daughters names, and they don’t end up sounding like cheap prostitutes. It’s when men pick their own names.

    Unless you are implying that men who present as women hate women?

  7. So Much For Subtlety

    John Square – “But it’s not that- we pick our daughters names, and they don’t end up sounding like cheap prostitutes. It’s when men pick their own names.”

    I used to know a girl called Kimberlee. Of course it sounds like a cheap prostitute name *now* but at one time I am sure it was perfectly fine. Although presumably not spelled that way. That way does seem a little …. career limiting. Like calling your son Jeeves.

    “Unless you are implying that men who present as women hate women?”

    I am not implying it. I am saying it openly and loudly. If a group of men have an idea of women that is pretty much centred around a trashy drag show, I would think that the hatred is obvious and undeniable.

    I would also think that perhaps transsexuals pick prostitute names because in their illness and delusion that is not a bad outcome. Like the Human Rights lawyer who preferred to work as a prostitute than continue as a partner in his law firm.

  8. Huntley is also claiming to identify as a woman and is campaigning to move to a woman’s prison.

    He’s made a rational decision that he is less likely to be carved up by female inmates than by men, but no-one will be permitted to make that obvious assumption. He will have to be taken at his word.

    Still, I couldn’t care less which prison he ends up in as long as he stays in one. At the very least we get the establishment having to shovel the shit they are so enthusiastically creating.

  9. Well dip me in garlic and call me stinky!

    Blokes convicted of rape suddenly find their feminine side and all if a sudden want to be transferred to where they are closer to more victims.

    No doubt NiV will be along to tell us how normal this is and how they deserve our sympathy and understanding.

  10. Surely, if you are identifying as a woman, the dangly (or, not so dangly) bits only confuse you.

    Lop them off.

  11. So Much For Subtlety

    Think nothing of it. I have posted them before but I keep forgetting the poor man’s name.

    I think his parents have some questions to answer and I feel sorry for his three children:

    Man hands on misery to man.
    It deepens like a coastal shelf.
    Get out as early as you can,
    And don’t have any kids yourself.

  12. “Although the article also brings up the issue of names. Why are men so bad at choosing female names? They all sound like shit Bond girls.”

    I love the way you’ve all just insulted every girl named ‘Jessica’ as ‘cheap prostitutes’!

    The answer to your question is that you’ve got cause and effect the wrong way round. You think of them as trashy, and that impression then gets attached to the name.

    Either that, or you know an awful lot of prostitutes on a first name basis.

    “No doubt NiV will be along to tell us how normal this is and how they deserve our sympathy and understanding.”

    That’s the ‘Group A Group B’ trick.

    Most rapists are heterosexual cis-gender males. Are you going to tell us that heterosexual cis-gender males are normal and deserve our sympathy? No?

  13. Round here, NiV, what hookers tend to call themselves is a source of endless amusement. Particularly as many of them have several worknames. If nothing else, for the client who asks, “but what’s your real name?”
    For some reason they do choose from a limited repertoire. Every third one seems to like Andrea for a start.

  14. Pat: even post surgery mtf trannies have a strength advantage due to their male skeletons designed for hunting and fighting rather than bearing and carrying babies: the muscles operate around a male joint more efficiently than on a female skeleton but the points of insertion into the bone are bigger as are the muscles. Michelle Obama could beat theshit out of the average trannie but very few women have the strength. Pruning and hormones don’t reduce this.

  15. “For some reason they do choose from a limited repertoire. Every third one seems to like Andrea for a start.”

    So TGs should avoid calling themselves ‘Andrea’? Not one I would have considered!

    I bow to your more extensive knowledge of prostitutes…

  16. “Cis-gender”? The back of my hand to your bullshit.

    I’m not pandering to the delusions of the mentally-ill, the terminally narcissistic or fucking stupid social ‘science’ nonsense.

  17. “I’m not pandering to the delusions of the mentally-ill, the terminally narcissistic or fucking stupid social ‘science’ nonsense.”

    You’re welcome to your opinion. But you’d have to bring evidence if you want to persuade anyone else.

  18. “NiV – evidence? Do you ask the blokes who claim they are women for evidence? Or do you just accept their feelz?”

    I’ve linked to the evidence multiple times on here before. Evidently nobody reads it; no point in wasting my time again.

    No, we don’t just accept their “feelz”. We accept their brain scans and genetic/hormonal tests.

    So tell me, what makes you so sure that modern medical science is wrong? Your “feelz”?

  19. Don’t mean to butt in but my “feelz” tell me a convict with a hampton belongs in a penile colony.

  20. So Much For Subtlety

    The Meissen Bison – “Don’t mean to butt in but my “feelz” tell me a convict with a hampton belongs in a penile colony.”

    You know, some times when I see the facility foreigners have with the English language I think, “f*ck, how did the Germans lose the war?”

    It is a mystery wrapped in an enigma innit?

  21. NiV: the evidence would not pass muster in hard science where 5S.D is a minimum requirement. There is a huge overlap between male and female and if you think a slight skewing to one side of the bell curve makes you a woman, you are ignoring all the other parameters that make you unequivocally male.

  22. “NiV: the evidence would not pass muster in hard science where 5S.D is a minimum requirement.”

    Cool! So show me the 5-SD evidence you must have supporting your contention that there’s no genetic or anatomical differences between TGs and non-TGs. Got any?

    Or does that 5-SD requirement only apply to hypotheses you disagree with?

    (BTW, About five 2-SD results are equivalent to a single 5-SD result.)

    “There is a huge overlap between male and female and if you think a slight skewing to one side of the bell curve makes you a woman”

    Anatomical features that occur in 90-99% of one sex and 1-10% of the other are more than a “slight skewing”. With a sample size of 1400, a 90% difference is about a 30-SD excursion…

  23. @NiV
    You bow to first hand experience?
    Met a somewhat notable trannie a few weeks ago. Friend of a friend. This particular one was awarded “Best of Breed” at the big erotica festival up in Barcelona,couple years back. Since, I’ve seen photos & it’s remarkably convincing. But at a distance of three foot? Even introduced to it as a woman, Sussed it was a geezer under 5 minutes. Hormone treatments, surgical enhancements, cosmetics …see right through them. Everything’s wrong. Body posture, Way he moved, More than anything else the “chemistry” thing goes on between the genuine sexes – and I’m used to some pretty exotic women. Wasn’t the right “chemicals”. The only way you we’re going to accept this bloke pretending to be a woman, a woman would be if you’d an investment in kidding yourself. And I really do have a very broad mind on the subject. Compared with some of the things i cope with, it’s almost unremarkable.
    Now the question is, would I consider having sex with him? As a woman. And the answer’s no. Because he’s a bloke.
    And this is the ONLY thing that’s important in this discussion. Because the ONLY thing that distinguishes the sexes is whether they’re candidates as sexual partners. And it doesn’t matter how ingenious the surgery or how comprehensive the hormone treatment, would a person who is, in the normal way, attracted to that sex KNOWINGLY accept them as a candidate. Everything else is irrelevant..

  24. “Now the question is, would I consider having sex with him? As a woman. And the answer’s no.”

    I don’t have a problem with that.

    “And this is the ONLY thing that’s important in this discussion. Because the ONLY thing that distinguishes the sexes is whether they’re candidates as sexual partners.”

    The only thing that determines what prison they go to is “whether they’re candidates as sexual partners”? Under what circumstances do you imagine this ought to be an issue?

    There are a lot of girls I wouldn’t go to bed with. Does that mean they’re men? Weird definition!

  25. niV: if 99.99% of your biological markers are male normal range and 0.001% at 3SD, whatever sample size you are male. (I am suspicious of many samples as they seem to be open to bias in selection)

  26. “Under what circumstances do you imagine this ought to be an issue?”
    Under all circumstances. The sexual identity of a person is the property of the beholder, not the beheld. Sexual identity only exists in relation to other people. What you do in your own head is your business. But not when you try & enforce it on others.

  27. MTF trannies, the vocal ones, perform extreme cultural appropriation of femininity by forcibly extending the definition to include themselves. Bloke in Spain nails it. They do not pass the sniff test, they don’t have the biological equipment to persuade reproductive chemical radar honed since sexual reproduction began.

  28. “niV: if 99.99% of your biological markers are male normal range and 0.001% at 3SD, whatever sample size you are male.”

    A lot of biological markers occur in about 90-99% of one sex, and 1-10% of the other sex. They’re clearly sex-linked characteristics, but not perfectly so.

    So an typical randomly chosen person will generally have 90-99% of their characteristics being sex typical – they’re identifiably of one sex or the other. But at the same time, any one person will have about 1-10% of their characteristics being more typical of the other sex, and a smaller number will have a lot more, depending on where in the cascade of hormones and biochemical signalling molecules the errors occur. This is why there is so much overlap between the sexes.

    If you find a woman good at maths, or a man good with language, it doesn’t have any particularly dire consequences. People just put it down to normal variation. But there are a few brain modules with major social significance.

    So if a male has the female-pattern brain module for sexual orientation, and is sexually attracted to men, they turn out gay. That affects something like 5% (results are between 1% and 7%), according to a range of surveys.

    People used to think homosexuality was a mental illness, and used electro-shock torture to try to “cure” it. Before that, they used to consider it a sin, and jailed or executed people for it. It’s generally accepted nowadays to be just the way you’re born, and there’s now a range of evidence linking it to genetics and brain anatomy. It’s just what happens if one of the 1-10% of cross-sex brain modules you’re born with happens to be the sexual orientation one.

    Likewise, transgenderism is associated with abnormalities in the androgen receptor gene, estrogen receptor gene, and the Cytochrome P450 17A1 gene. (And there are probably lots of others we don’t know about yet.) These cause observable differences in brain anatomy, as well as a few external features like digit ratio. There’s a lot that’s still not known about the mechanisms, but the medical profession is generally agreed that there’s clearly a strong connection.

    Like with most science, you can argue with it. But the current scientific understanding is that this is very likely how it works and most people in the UK don’t have a problem with that. The only reasons for selectively rejecting this evidence, (while ignoring the total lack of evidence for plenty of their other beliefs,) is that some people *want* to maintain their existing beliefs for purely ideological reasons. It’s like creationism – it’s not that they disagree with the science for scientific reasons – it’s that they don’t like the consequences for their traditional religiously-based belief system.

    The proscriptions against homosexuality and cross-dressing date back to Moses – a bronze-age theocratic tyrant who slaughtered his way to the promised land along a bloody path paved with the bodies of dead and enslaved men, women, and children. We only believe it because it’s what we’ve always believed. Traditions are very powerful.

    But much like the proscription against eating seafood or wearing clothes of mixed fibres, most people don’t believe it any more. Change is always an uncomfortable experience for every generation, but it happens anyway.

  29. “The sexual identity of a person is the property of the beholder, not the beheld.”

    So if I want to call you “Woman in Spain” from now on, you don’t have a problem with that? Your sexual identity belongs to me?

    “What you do in your own head is your business. But not when you try & enforce it on others.”

    So that means we can’t enforce a cis-gender appearance and behaviour on others, yes?

    “MTF trannies, the vocal ones”

    The vast majority of MtF TGs are invisible, silent, and still in the closet. They’re still too scared of what people like you would do to them.

  30. NiV: science is ina crisis because a lot is agenda driven, results are published by pal review and never tested for reprocibility before being cited as authoritative by people like you, negative results never see the light of day. Transgenderism is a currently a lovely bandwagon for pharmaceutical companies looking for markets, psychologists wanting to pioneer new fields and ambitious surgeons who like the technical challenges and healthy young patients. You are being suckered on the flimsiest of evidence. Remember frontal lobotomies that “cured” anxiety, depression, neuroticism, whatever. This is the modern equivalent.

  31. They’re still too scared of what people like you would do to them.

    Yeah yeah, Ljh (and all those who agree) is literally Hitler. Good to have that settled.

  32. NiV: There’s plenty of evidence for the crisis in science. Why don’t you look for it, scepticism is always healthy ?

  33. Who said anything about Hitler?

    The stats on harassment and assaults on TGs are widely available. Most of them by people just like you.

  34. “NiV: There’s plenty of evidence for the crisis in science. Why don’t you look for it, scepticism is always healthy ?”

    ROFL!

    I’ve been involved in arguing about the crisis in science for more than a decade! I’m well aware of it!

    But people wanting to argue their case do so by providing better evidence. When people said global warming was a crock, I didn’t conclude anything. Both sides were saying the same of the other – there was no way to distinguish them. But when Steve McIntyre provided pages of maths and data proving it was a crock, that convinced me.

    So you need to do a Steve McIntyre and provide plenty of data and statistics to prove your point. I’m not going to accept a vague “There are mistakes in science, this is science, therefore this is a mistake” sort of triviality.

    I’m told above that the standard in hard sciences is 5-SD, and you obviously wouldn’t be so confident in your diagnosis if you didn’t already have such evidence, would you? So show me.

    I’ve told you why I believe what I do. Now it’s your turn. Where’s your evidence?

  35. NiV – your capacity for being tedious is matched only by your stubbornness in seeking to persuade people to your point of view when there is obviously not the remotest chance of success.

    There must be other places where your thoughts would receive a more sympathetic hearing like TRUK (transgender UK) or set up your own blog for people interested in your thoughts and theories.

    For my part, transgender issues have no impact and interest me little though I hope that my behaviour towards any transgender person I were to meet would be governed by good manners.

    By the same token, forgive me, it’s poor manners persistently to harangue those who are not receptive to your ideology.

  36. NiV. If you wish to think of me as Woman in Spain (although Bird in Spain might be more apposite) feel free to. Your head, your call. However the consensus, including her in the kitchen, seems to favour bloke. But as far as I’m aware, no-one’s forcing cis-genderness on me. Not even sure I know anyone who’d know what it means. Not even sure I know what it means. Slightly more important things to concentrate on.
    And I can’t imagine I’m any threat to transgender people. Travestis I know don’t seem to think so. But even they don’t try & pretend they’re actually women.

  37. “NiV – your capacity for being tedious is matched only by your stubbornness in seeking to persuade people to your point of view when there is obviously not the remotest chance of success.”

    As I told Mrs Ecks on another thread, my intention isn’t to persuade anyone, and I deliberately seek out people I know are going to argue with me.

    The reasons are complex and too long to go into here (even for me!), but if you like you can read Mill, who gave one of the best explanations around. http://www.bartleby.com/130/2.html Areopagitica is also good.

    The loss of so important an aid to the intelligent and living apprehension of a truth, as is afforded by the necessity of explaining it to, or defending it against, opponents, though not sufficient to outweigh, is no trifling drawback from, the benefit of its universal recognition. Where this advantage can no longer be had, I confess I should like to see the teachers of mankind endeavouring to provide a substitute for it; some contrivance for making the difficulties of the question as present to the learner’s consciousness, as if they were pressed upon him by a dissentient champion, eager for his conversion.

    I don’t want a sympathetic reception. I want the best arguments that can be constructed against my position to be presented, so if I’m wrong, I’ll find out about it. And if I’m not, for this to be seen.

    We want our beliefs to be the truth, don’t we? Not just comfortable lies told in an ideological echo chamber? To be told, candidly, that I should stop presenting arguments where my views are not welcome is not exactly the sort of example you want to emulate, is it? 🙂

    “For my part, transgender issues have no impact and interest me little though I hope that my behaviour towards any transgender person I were to meet would be governed by good manners.”

    Fine. That’s good. But a lot of the posts here about TGs (and there are an awful lot of them for a subject you all ostensibly don’t care about) are not governed by good manners, are they?

    I reckon Tim does it deliberately, because he knows it’ll reliably start a passionate argument. If you don’t like it, tell Tim to stop bringing the subject up.

    “By the same token, forgive me, it’s poor manners persistently to harangue those who are not receptive to your ideology.”

    Tell Richard Murphy that the denizens of Tim’s blog say it’s not polite to constantly drop comments somewhere where they’re not receptive to your ideology!! He’ll probably die laughing!

    This is what free speech looks like. Annoying, isn’t it?

  38. NIV: To be told, candidly, that I should stop presenting arguments where my views are not welcome is not exactly the sort of example you want to emulate, is it?

    It’s not that your views are not welcome it’s that you are a bore.

    But a lot of the posts here about TGs (and there are an awful lot of them for a subject you all ostensibly don’t care about) are not governed by good manners, are they?

    Many who are not sympathetic to your views do care at the absurdity of tooled up “women” convicts applying to be sent to women’s prisons. These opinions are pretty maintream and good manners have no bearing.

    Tell Richard Murphy that the denizens of Tim’s blog say it’s not polite to constantly drop comments somewhere where they’re not receptive to your ideology!! He’ll probably die laughing!

    He’d choke on his hypocrisy first. This blog is palpably not designed to proselytize for transgenderism if that’s the right word so it’s tough luck if you turn up here and expect people not to make fun of men dressed up as women. Or squirrels either.

    If Murphy allowed commenters to engage with him on his own blog there would be rather less about him here.

  39. “It’s not that your views are not welcome it’s that you are a bore.”

    So don’t read the comments. Boredom is in the eye of the beholder.

    “Many who are not sympathetic to your views do care at the absurdity of tooled up “women” convicts applying to be sent to women’s prisons.”

    Frankly, my view is that *everyone* sent to prison is owed protection, not just women. If everyone gets protection, then it shouldn’t matter who is where. What I object to is this idea that men can be raped and TGs can be raped, and nobody gives a toss, but when it looks like members of a hated victim-group like the TGs might be given the opportunity to rape, all of a sudden we’re up in arms.

    It’s an excuse. You don’t give a damn about prison violence, or there would be a few more posts around here about male-on-male or female-on-female violence and sexual assault, you care about TGs being allowed to escape persecution and punishment; being allowed to live as they choose.

    “These opinions are pretty maintream and good manners have no bearing.”

    Mainstream opinion (in the UK, at least) is that prejudice against TGs is always wrong. Mainstream opinion is that people shouldn’t be punished for things that are not crimes, and do nobody any harm. Mainstream opinion is that to stop people being bullied by law is not an abridgement of the freedoms of the bullies. That the bullies will disagree goes without saying, but that’s no reason not to tell them.

    “He’d choke on his hypocrisy first.”

    Why? You haven’t.

    “This blog is palpably not designed to proselytize for transgenderism if that’s the right word so it’s tough luck if you turn up here and expect people not to make fun of men dressed up as women. Or squirrels either.”

    Of course it is. That’s why Tim keeps on posting on the subject. He knows very well what’s going to happen.

    Yes, people will make fun of men dressed up as women. And people will also make fun of hypocrites who claim to lean libertarian but support authoritarian persecution of a group who are doing nobody any harm, just as claimed, driving them into the arms of the SJWs. Such is life.

    If you don’t like being criticised and genuinely don’t care about TGs, stop being rude about them. If you want to assert your right to be rude, (which I support absolutely), then people have the right (and when it’s a matter of persecution of the innocent, the duty) to be rude back.

  40. The problem with TGs, at least the shrill ones, is that they insist everyone else share their delusion, that is totalitarian.

  41. “The problem with TGs, at least the shrill ones, is that they insist everyone else share their delusion, that is totalitarian.”

    Mostly, they don’t. Mostly they keep their heads down.

    This is what I keep saying about not confusing the SJWs with the sympathy groups they hide behind. They did it with the poor, but not all the poor are Marxists. They did it with the disabled, with women, with blacks, with gays, but by and large the disabled, blacks, and gays are not SJWs. (Except to the extent that they believe what the SJWs say – that the right-wingers hate them all.) You don’t blame all women for the radical feminists, do you? You don’t blame the baby polar bears for the sins of environmentalists, do you?

    You don’t make many friends if you do (which is exactly what the SJWs intend!). People might be willing to believe you about the environmentalists, but not if you spend all your time slagging off baby polar bears. They’re so cute!

  42. I’ve got a blister on my thumb scrolling past all that.

    The summary seems to be (to any readers still with us):

    NiV: “stop being mean to TG’s’
    Every one else: “We’re just taking the piss a little, as we’re kind of baffled as to why trans issues are everywhere when the likelihood of bumping into two of them on the same day is about the same as winning the lottery whilst riding a dodo to Elvis’ surprise comeback gig”
    NiV:” No really, stop it because (cont. p94″

  43. (Although NiV’s point about getting angry with TG’s because the BBC are agitating on their behalf is a fair one. Even if most people here would like the BBC shut down too)

  44. What are we to do if we open prisons for the transgendered, and they all start raping each other?

    I mean, isn’t the problem the basic human one that if you lock people up then they don’t get any sex, and they’re going to find that a tough thing to manage?

    You might say, tough luck. This is one of the things that makes prison undesirable, and you landed yourself here by your behaviour. Or you might say, prisoners should get free sexual beanos. Or any number of things in between.

    But if we are to have prisons, which in turn presumably means preventing them being places where felons can breed (even if only because a scouser putting one in a geordie’s oven will leave their poor kids too lazy to steal), how, practically, can we have prisons for the LBGTQUERTuiop Rainbow? Eventually, it’d be solitary confinement for all.

  45. All of which skirts the real issue: if i were a man locked up for an appreciable period, I can see that it would make perfect sense to plead that i was transgender. The authorities might express scepticism at this revelation occurring only at the point of my incarceration. Thus: is there an objective test, which strips out all other influences, and which can show that my sudden conversion is both sincere and correct?

    I can see that there might be objective tests demonstrating transgender tendencies. I have difficulty supposing that they can be controlled for myriad other factors.

    So, sure, I’ll be polite to a bloke in a frock. I can think of an occasion when i had to do so (he definitely wasn’t best in show). But I reserve the right to make jokes about anyone I want to make jokes about. I reserve the right to make my own judgments about such people.

    And I’m profoundly sceptical, until in the given case I have good reason to think otherwise, that because Jessica Andrea, born Dave Abdulrahman, tells me he’s a she, even if a government department agrees, I should think he’s anything but to be treated with caution.

    Urge to kill, or main, here: zero.

  46. And whatever might be said about some of Tim’s posts, I don’t think this one is a dog whistle. It poses a perfectly valid question.

  47. “What are we to do if we open prisons for the transgendered, and they all start raping each other?”

    What if we were to open prisons for the *non*-transgended and they all start raping each other?

    https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/voices.html

    I would have thought the *obvious* answer was for the effin’ guards to effin’ guard the prisoners and stop them committing crimes, *whatever* their identity or orientation. What effin’ difference does it make whether they’re TG, gay, straight, or Presbyterian? Does the law not get enforced in prison? No prisoner in prison should *ever* be given the opportunity to assault any other prisoner – full stop. That’s what they’re in prison for – to stop them committing crimes!

    Why should it make the least difference that they’re TG? Why do we apparently not care if straight people do it?

  48. PTA on Monday. Apparently my daughter’s teacher has purple hair. Working hypothesis: everything all the time is all about her, and she’s so alternative.

    In reality, she’ll probably turn out to be rather pedestrian on the surface and I’ll never know any better.

  49. “So, sure, I’ll be polite to a bloke in a frock. I can think of an occasion when i had to do so (he definitely wasn’t best in show). But I reserve the right to make jokes about anyone I want to make jokes about. I reserve the right to make my own judgments about such people. “

    That’s all most of them are asking for.

  50. As regards your questions, NiV, I suspect my expertise in this area almost matches yours in the matter of transgenderism: as a matter of law, prisons owe a duty of care to prisoners. In my experience they do an ok job of fulfilling it. But prison staff cannot be everywhere, any more than can police officers in the outside world. Where they plainly fail, they are liable in damages.

    Prison guards, also, are assaulted. Sometimes murdered. Others, generally women in male prisons, occasionally start sexual liaisons with their charges.

    Is anyone saying prison rape is ok? And let’s face it, prison rape is what Whoopi Goldberg would call ‘rape rape’.

    I’d have thought, incidentally, that putting men – some of whom may even be transgender – in women’s prisons would significantly increase the risk of rape: see Tim’s original post.

  51. “That’s all most of them are asking for”.

    NiV, how do you know that? Even if you are of that Ilk, on what basis do you speak for the rest?

  52. “I’d have thought, incidentally, that putting men – some of whom may even be transgender – in women’s prisons would significantly increase the risk of rape: see Tim’s original post.”

    I’d argue for TGs convicted of rape or sexual assault to be kept isolated. TGs who are just in for theft or not paying the TV licence shouldn’t be considered an additional risk.

    Since TGs are at particular risk of being raped, I’d think that removing them from the place where most of the rapists are kept would tend to decrease the probability rather more. But I can see why you wouldn’t think of it that way round.

    “NiV, how do you know that? Even if you are of that Ilk, on what basis do you speak for the rest?”

    I’m friends socially with a couple of them, and they know others. All they want is to be left alone and allowed to live their lives without constant hassle and harassment. Gendered pronouns aren’t even on their radar! And like I said, 90% of them don’t want any public attention. They’re not asking for *anything* because they’re in hiding.

  53. I’m a curmudgeonly unsympathethic bastard who doesn’t like many people. Many people sense that. Knowing that they do, I avoid people as far as possible. I’m in hiding.

    What’s the diff?

    Almost no one goes to prison for theft or for non-payment of the TV licence.

    I can see the force in, at the very least, segregating (especially toothsome) transexuals from the rest of the male prison population. I can well see that they would be vulnerable. Just as the women in female prisons would often be vulnerable were they housed therein.

    I can also see how the TGs you know would want to be left alone. But like the gay blokes forcibly outed in the 80s, the main reason they’re not left alone is not we sceptics: it’s the proselytisers who activistate on their behalf, who prevent their lives being quiet.

    And anyway, knowing a couple does not, I think, enable you to speak for the wants of however many hundred, or possibly a few thousand, people.

  54. “I can also see how the TGs you know would want to be left alone. But like the gay blokes forcibly outed in the 80s, the main reason they’re not left alone is not we sceptics: it’s the proselytisers who activistate on their behalf, who prevent their lives being quiet.”

    I can assure you, they got even *more* hassle before the proselytisers came along! It’s definitely you sceptics!

    “And anyway, knowing a couple does not, I think, enable you to speak for the wants of however many hundred, or possibly a few thousand, people.”

    Fair enough. And *you* don’t get to speak for the rest of the non-TGs in the country, either, then.

  55. Somewhere on the continuum between Widow Twankey and Eddie Izzard, one can find NiV – and it’s not even panto season yet!

  56. In a sane society (ie one not controlled by the likes of NIV) The simple answer would be – women don’t have penises and reach for the bricks and garden secateurs – davina might suddenly change her mind about her assumed gender bollocks. pun intended.

  57. “In a sane society (ie one not controlled by the likes of NIV)”

    In a sane society, you wouldn’t have thousands of innocents persecuted to the brink of suicide for harmlessly doing what half the human race is allowed to do every day as a matter of routine.

    Society tries to force people into into its simplistic binary categories, but reality doesn’t fit. “Use more force!”

  58. @niv – “In a sane society, you wouldn’t have thousands of innocents persecuted to the brink of suicide for harmlessly doing what half the human race is allowed to do every day as a matter of routine.”

    what raping women and then claiming to be a woman with a cock who demands to be sent to a woman’s prison so no doubt he can continue raping- YOU support this – you evil piece of shit.
    I refer you to https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

  59. It’s definitely we sceptics?

    The only reason we’re taking about this is because a man who raped a girl wants to do his time in a women’s prison. And activists are trying to make that possible.

    And the problem is those of us who query the sense in incarcerating him with his target rape audience?

  60. Lud

    The only reason we’re taking about this is because a man who raped a girl wants to do his time in a women’s prison. And activists are trying to make that possible.

    And the problem is those of us who query the sense in incarcerating him with his target rape audience?

    +1

    Whilst entirely sympathetic to NiV’s point that no one should be exposed to violence in a jail (and simply isolate people in jail if necessary to achieve that?), isn’t this the key point?

  61. “what raping women and then claiming to be a woman with a cock who demands to be sent to a woman’s prison so no doubt he can continue raping- YOU support this – you evil piece of shit.”

    WTF?!

    Raping women and being sent to prison is worthy of condemnation, whatever you are. To only care about it when a rare TG does it, and completely ignore the issue when thousands of cis-gender men do it is what you’re doing, you evil pieces of shit.

    Count how many posts Tim has put up in the last few months about prison rape by non-TG men. It’s the authoritarians’ Group A Group B trick, used again and again and again. The authoritarians wouldn’t use it if it didn’t fool most of the people most of the time, but you’d have to be a fucking moron to continue missing it even after I’ve repeatedly pointed it out and explained how it works. You’d have to be an even bigger fucking moron to think I’d fail to see it, too. I mean, do you have some sort of fucking mental disability or something?

    Rape is bad, whoever does it. Anyone who makes a distinction – who raises concerns about one sort of perpetrator while ignoring all the others evidently isn’t concerned about rape (which is itself disgusting), but is instead cynically using it as a political tool to attack their chosen victim group (which is a filthy abuse of other people’s tragedies that defies description). It’s revolting beyond belief.

    Should Rose West (for example) be kept in a women’s prison? She did, after all, participate in the rape, torture, and murder of eight other women. There are plenty of women in prison for violence against other women, and other women ill-prepared to defend themselves against it. Why is this any more tolerable? Why does prison violence and rape in male prisons register a big fat zero on your outrage-ometer? Why did we all suddenly become so concerned about this serious issue the very moment that some of the people involved happened to be TG?

    *Any* prisoner should be incarcerated with due attention to the risks imposed both on themselves and other prisoners, irrespective. The risks should be assessed, and all prisoners should be protected. If a prisoner is judged safe enough to be held there, they can be held there. If they’re not so judged, they cannot. Being TG makes no difference at all to that principle. It’s simply one circumstance among many to consider.

    “And the problem is those of us who query the sense in incarcerating him with his target rape audience?”

    The problem is with people who *only* express concern about a rapist being imprisoned with their target rape “audience” (?!) when the rapist happens coincidentally to be a member of a persecuted group they have amply shown they hold in contempt. Suspicious.

    TGs get raped in prison, too. Do you care? How have you shown you care?

    “Whilst entirely sympathetic to NiV’s point that no one should be exposed to violence in a jail (and simply isolate people in jail if necessary to achieve that?), isn’t this the key point?”

    Thanks. I think.

  62. Have I shown I care?

    Dunno. Don’t care. Not in the habit of showing, or of trying to show, that I care. Except with those close to me.

    I hold almost everyone in contempt. I accept that does not speak well for me. Trannies are not special in this sense.

    There you go. I said ‘trannies’. Showing I hold them in contempt, once more.

    In the meantime, is it a good idea to let people with penises and testicles into female prisons? Especially after they’ve been convicted of raping females?

    Mind you, if they’ve been convicted of raping boys or men, then I take what I perceive to be your point that incarcerating them with men may also not work … which brings me back to the solitary confinement point above: everyone, ultimately, has his own private prison, suited to his own needs.

  63. “In the meantime, is it a good idea to let people with penises and testicles into female prisons? Especially after they’ve been convicted of raping females?”

    It’s neither a good idea nor a bad idea. It’s irrelevant. The real question is whether it’s a good idea to let dangerous people into prisons. There is no other distinction to be made.

  64. “which brings me back to the solitary confinement point above: everyone, ultimately, has his own private prison, suited to his own needs.”

    This, and which surely means neither of you disagree – it’s supposed to be a bloody prison after all. TV, mobile phones, wtf…

    “Suited to needs” would obviously take into account the type of crime. Rape or any kind of assault surely starts with the default being complete isolation. Etc. I’ve never understood how violence of any kind can be accepted “within” prisons.

  65. “The real question is whether it’s a good idea to let dangerous people into prisons.”

    What..!? Isn’t that confusing the purpose of a prison. Prison is to remove and separate the dangerous / garbage from the rest of us.

    But – because it includes all crime including minor and not so dangerous – it’s not chucking them into a penal colony and applying “survival of the fittest”? OK, Australia (sort of) worked, but the geography and times were different…

  66. “What..!? Isn’t that confusing the purpose of a prison. Prison is to remove and separate the dangerous / garbage from the rest of us. “

    Among other purposes.

    It’s meant to provide a controlled space in order to prevent crime, reform and retrain criminals to be able to re-enter society, and act as a deterrent to others from committing crime. Criminals are sentenced to lose their liberty, and they shouldn’t be getting more than the basics on welfare – anything else they want they have to earn, the same as the rest of us. But they’re not being sentenced to suffer crimes like assault or rape themselves as some sort of tit-for-tat punishment.

    They’re supposed to be kept safe – indeed, they’re supposed to be kept in an environment where the law is more strictly and completely enforced than normal, so they learn how to do it and get into the habit – or what lesson does it teach them? That the strong take what they want, and the state won’t stop them? That the only way to survive is to fight for it? That you can steal and rape and get away with it if you act tough and nasty enough? And we want people who have learnt these lessons we have taught them coming back into society?

    Yes, we shouldn’t let people into prisons if they’re going to be dangerous there. We have to take enough security measures to ensure they’re not.

  67. Yes, we shouldn’t let people into prisons if they’re going to be dangerous there.

    I’m sorry but you’ve got it back to front. It’s not the criminal’s choice to be allowed to be dangerous, it’s our choice. If crims are dangerous in prison then it’s because the state / people running the prisons are useless and incompetent; end of. Sack them and employ those who can manage a prison; and I’m more interested in security than poncing to what the criminal (or typical SJWanker) needs. The convicted criminal has to accept, on this occasion at least, that they play to the tune of others or accept the consequences.

    We have to take enough security measures to ensure they’re not.

    At which point, we are all on the same side.

  68. “I’m sorry but you’ve got it back to front. It’s not the criminal’s choice to be allowed to be dangerous, it’s our choice.”

    That’s precisely what I meant.

    “At which point, we are all on the same side.”

    Phew! At last! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *