|
|
Post by gezza on Jan 26, 2023 23:15:21 GMT
If a man had raped a man he wouldn’t have been put in a woman’s prison. With all due respect some times a little common sense is called for.
|
|
|
|
Post by zou on Jan 26, 2023 23:20:05 GMT
I don't actually know any of the details of this case, but would start by asking if a man was imprisoned having raped another man, where would be be sent? Would the potential victim-hood of that person's co-prisoners be a factor in that decision? Unlikely. Not an easy decision at any rate. As we both live in Scotland, a Man raping another man (given under Scots law this would require a penis and a vagina) would be a rather rare occuranceand it is not possibly the most immediate theoritical situation to consider. Not saying it is unimportant and the question of whether trans men with working female genitalia should be incarcerated in male prisons is an issue. Not just not as an immediate issue as the current issue.
My thoughts are tending toward the REAL issue being the incapability of HMP to keep their inmates safe. |
|
|
|
Post by zou on Jan 26, 2023 23:21:33 GMT
If a man had raped a man he wouldn’t have been put in a woman’s prison. With all due respect some times a little common sense is called for. Putting a violent person in close contact with their preferred targets is the issue I was questioning, not the gender of a specific person in a specific case. |
|
|
|
Post by gezza on Jan 26, 2023 23:29:43 GMT
Since the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 male rape (man on man) has been included in the act of rape. The act no longer requires a penis and vagina.
|
|
|
|
Post by andy on Jan 27, 2023 0:04:10 GMT
According to wikipedia she hasn't had gender reassignment surgery so a male prison seems fair. She also wouldn't be eligible to enter many sports competitions as a female either.
|
|
|
|
Post by adriansadlier on Jan 27, 2023 0:31:19 GMT
What an interesting question!
And one on which I hold strong beliefs (probably contrary to the expressed rather than actually believed norm). But before inserting my beliefs/opinions into the discussion (so far, almost all respectful) I would in turn ask a question.
Are the contributors willing to enter into an open and honest dialectical discussion? One where they will hear opinions that may be diametrically opposed to theirs? One, where they may challenge the arguments put forward, rather than attack/question the integrity of those who put those ideas forward - (the refuge of the bigot/ignorant, the tactic of "if you can't discredit their argument, then discredit them)?
Will all participating in the discussion be willing to listen to opposing arguments/positions and be willing, if sufficient, valid, logical and moral arguments are put forward, which may genuinely question or disprove their beliefs, to consider changing their minds? Talking without listening (and considering) is a diatribe.
If we are not, let's not waste our time having a discussion/argument. I consider an "argument" to be an exchange of opinions, theories, hypotheses etc. to be a frank and open exchange of thought, and possible learning, between open minded people. Not an aggressive battle of personalities and egos. To turn this forum into a platform for espousing our opinions, to speak without listening, to sometimes prove how "woke" we are, or to virtue signal, is a waste of time and energy.
If this is an honest attempt to be a genuine "argument", as defined above, then let's have at it.
If not, then moderators please close down this thread!
|
|
|
|
Post by John Farrell on Jan 27, 2023 2:13:46 GMT
Deleted
|
|
|
|
Post by squeamishossifrage on Jan 27, 2023 7:35:11 GMT
If this is an honest attempt to be a genuine "argument", as defined above, then let's have at it. If not, then moderators please close down this thread! I am having some difficulty in understanding why you, in particular, should consider yourself to be the arbiter of what may or may not be considered as a reasonable discussion on this forum. There have been no abusive comments, no ad hominem attacks, and no inappropriate language. So why, then, should the thread be closed? |
|
|
|
Post by mick on Jan 27, 2023 8:46:30 GMT
I'm not suggesting that there aren't potential implications for others, but that the decision is not for others to make. And before that decision is made, I do agree that those implications should be explained. I'm not sure of the relevance of your cubs story if we're talking about 16, to be honest - there shouldn't be any cubs over 11, surely? 1. I agree but worry that the child (afaik a 16 year old is still legally a child) may not be best placed to make that decision. That's why I have doubts about the age 16 set by the Scots. 2. You are right about the cubs.
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by gezza on Jan 27, 2023 8:52:41 GMT
I thought we were having open discussion nor have I seen any attacks on other’s views or integrity.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickr on Jan 27, 2023 9:02:51 GMT
I'm not suggesting that there aren't potential implications for others, but that the decision is not for others to make. And before that decision is made, I do agree that those implications should be explained. I'm not sure of the relevance of your cubs story if we're talking about 16, to be honest - there shouldn't be any cubs over 11, surely? 1. I agree but worry that the child (afaik a 16 year old is still legally a child) may not be best placed to make that decision. That's why I have doubts about the age 16 set by the Scots. 2. You are right about the cubs.
Mick
I have a lot of sympathy with that view, but I'm not convinced I have enough of a grasp of the topic to form a coherent opinion on the suitability or otherwise of 16 year olds to make that decision. What should happen in such a case is that suitable research should have been carried out to enable an informed decision to be made on the suitability or not of 16. Has that happened? No idea, but that's what I would like to see behind any legislation - a rational basis for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Kath on Jan 27, 2023 10:02:56 GMT
I'm not suggesting that there aren't potential implications for others, but that the decision is not for others to make. And before that decision is made, I do agree that those implications should be explained. I'm not sure of the relevance of your cubs story if we're talking about 16, to be honest - there shouldn't be any cubs over 11, surely? 1. I agree but worry that the child (afaik a 16 year old is still legally a child) may not be best placed to make that decision. That's why I have doubts about the age 16 set by the Scots. 2. You are right about the cubs.
Mick
In Scotland, a person of 16 years of age can vote in Scottish Parliament elections and Scottish local council elections. You can vote in a Scottish referenda. In some areas you can vote or stand as a candidate in Community Council elections. You can marry at 16. You have the right to choose your own religion at 16. You can, if you have a 'positive destination', leave school at 16. While there are things you're not allowed to do at 16, (drink, smoke, buy scissors) you are allowed and indeed in some cases encouraged to make some pretty important decisions. I am firmly of the belief that you should be allowed to decide who you are. I'm aware of the 'trans rapist' story and for what it's worth, it doesn't make me change my mind. This person is a danger to others. Whether they identify as male or female they are a danger to others. If they'd been told 'you are not allowed to declare yourself female you must live your life as a man' they would still be a danger to others. Let's be honest in this case, to women. But there are women who are a danger to women as well. Do they get put in a men's prison? I mean I work quite hard at avoiding prison because for the most part it doesn't appeal. My understanding is that it's not a nice place to be and can be dangerous because it tends to be full of the less than lovely sort. I'm not saying anyone in prison deserves to be attacked/raped/murdered but it happens and it doesn't much seem to matter whether it's a male prison or a female one. In theory, anyone going into any prison ought at the very least be kept safe. It strikes me that if a trans woman can't be put into a female prison because they might (probably do) still want to rape women then the story is more about why we can't keep the intended victims for this person safe when they're all in prison. If you can't keep an eye on people there what hope is there for the outside? Also, this person isn't a rapist because they are trans. They're just a rapist. The story has conveniently preyed on a lot of unfounded fears, that all trans women are a potential threat to the safety of cis women. It's just not true. |
|
|
|
Post by kate on Jan 27, 2023 10:48:30 GMT
Frankly, at 16 years old I wouldn't have had a clue. It is an age when peer pressure can be forceful so is that influence beneficial to the person concerned?
It could be because I am old, but I think 16 is too early. I feel medical advice and quiet discussions as to the reason someone might want to choose their gender at that age, is essential. Their reasons could be ones influenced by bullies or online influences, so I feel it is necessary to find out their reason why.
|
|
|
|
Post by zou on Jan 27, 2023 11:13:42 GMT
1. I agree but worry that the child (afaik a 16 year old is still legally a child) may not be best placed to make that decision. That's why I have doubts about the age 16 set by the Scots. 2. You are right about the cubs.
Mick
In Scotland, a person of 16 years of age can vote in Scottish Parliament elections and Scottish local council elections. You can vote in a Scottish referenda. In some areas you can vote or stand as a candidate in Community Council elections. You can marry at 16. You have the right to choose your own religion at 16. You can, if you have a 'positive destination', leave school at 16. While there are things you're not allowed to do at 16, (drink, smoke, buy scissors) you are allowed and indeed in some cases encouraged to make some pretty important decisions. I am firmly of the belief that you should be allowed to decide who you are. I'm aware of the 'trans rapist' story and for what it's worth, it doesn't make me change my mind. This person is a danger to others. Whether they identify as male or female they are a danger to others. If they'd been told 'you are not allowed to declare yourself female you must live your life as a man' they would still be a danger to others. Let's be honest in this case, to women. But there are women who are a danger to women as well. Do they get put in a men's prison? I mean I work quite hard at avoiding prison because for the most part it doesn't appeal. My understanding is that it's not a nice place to be and can be dangerous because it tends to be full of the less than lovely sort. I'm not saying anyone in prison deserves to be attacked/raped/murdered but it happens and it doesn't much seem to matter whether it's a male prison or a female one. In theory, anyone going into any prison ought at the very least be kept safe. It strikes me that if a trans woman can't be put into a female prison because they might (probably do) still want to rape women then the story is more about why we can't keep the intended victims for this person safe when they're all in prison. If you can't keep an eye on people there what hope is there for the outside? Also, this person isn't a rapist because they are trans. They're just a rapist. The story has conveniently preyed on a lot of unfounded fears, that all trans women are a potential threat to the safety of cis women. It's just not true. 1000% all this. |
|
|
|
Post by zou on Jan 27, 2023 11:17:31 GMT
Frankly, at 16 years old I wouldn't have had a clue. It is an age when peer pressure can be forceful so is that influence beneficial to the person concerned? It could be because I am old, but I think 16 is too early. I feel medical advice and quiet discussions as to the reason someone might want to choose their gender at that age, is essential. Their reasons could be ones influenced by bullies or online influences, so I feel it is necessary to find out their reason why. Will we have those same conversations with every child? Whilst some clearly know something is amiss others are so culturally shaped to perhaps deny their identity. Being cishet isn't some default from which some deviate. We normalise cishet status in everything, from toys, tv shows, stories etc. without saying the kids are too young to think about that. Why is it society only wants to intervene when someone realises they aren't cishet? To be fair, that's not addressed at you, just more of an open question. |
|
